Naivity that makes you sick

[Skybird]

Not to mention that it could kill you. Sometimes I see a naivity beyond a level of absurdity in something that it just leaves me speechless.


July 08, 2006

Anglican Archbishop: build an "inclusive circle of love" around suicide bombers

That's all they need, you see. The big lugs. Just a little love. That's all. They're just misunderstood, you see, and unloved. Let's give them a big hug, everybody, shall we? Come on, group hug! Just be careful of those bomb belts!
Seriously, I am all for loving one's enemies and praying for them. I don't think those things should or can replace an adequate and well-informed self-defense.



"'He Who Dares Wins,'" from SkyNews (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1227104,00.html), with thanks to Beaglehound:The Archbishop of York has urged the nation to unite and turn would-be suicide bombers into friends by building "an inclusive circle of love". Dr John Sentamu said it was not enough to rely on the security services and tough laws to combat the killers.
During his presidential address to the General Synod of the Church of England, he said the country needed to "out-imagine, out-plan and out-think" would-be bombers....
And he said the grievances which would-be bombers use as a reason to kill must be addressed.
The archbishop said the country also needed to "wake up to the truth that those who mastermind the terrorist network are brilliant at inspiring those who come to their cause by giving them a vision which tragically is used solely for evil ends".



Ah, those poor brilliant misunderstood geniuses.He said: "As the SAS motto says, 'He who dares wins!' That is, out-imagine your enemy. "Offering a vision of wholeness in a compelling and imaginative way that is so persuasive that would be bombers would come to see this as their own vision.
"A vision that would turn them from outsiders, self-excluding and deluded despisers of others, into belongers.



Ah. Of course. Why didn't we think of that before? The poor things, they just want to be belongers!"A vision which will help them to see that those they seek to destroy are their own brothers and sisters regardless of their religious affiliations.Well, Archbishop, you see, that will require they overhaul their Islamic principles. Good luck with that."Together, we can out-imagine, out-plan and out-think would-be bombers and turn would-be enemies into friends by building an inclusive circle of love."Don't forget to put daisies into the barrels of the rifles while you're at it.
Posted at July 8, 2006 08:49 AM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/07/012135print.html


Yeah. Their mommies didn't love them, I'm sure.

In this same week this Anglican suicide-fool above has voiced his genious thoughts, the Vatican made naother step to distance itself from Isalam after the self-deceptions of the last 40 years and concluded that turkey by no means is ready to join european communities. Since February, four Catholic priests have been stabbed and killed on Turkish streets.

[Drebbel]

something that just leaves me speechless

Is that a promise ? :up:

:p

[goldorak]

something that just leaves me speechless
Is that a promise ? :up:

:p

Nice one Drebbel :rotfl:

[Skybird]

:lol:

[scandium]

What a surprise: Jihadwatch manages to take something said by an Anglican ArchBishop and completely distort it to use as a punching bag for their ideology hatred and intolerance of Islam. And Skyrider then posts it verbatim as though the Jihadwatch spin resembles at all the article they cite.

Point #1: "Dr John Sentamu said it was not enough to rely on the security services and tough laws to combat the killers."

And it isn't. And this should be common sense to anyone, and counter-terrorism experts have even said as much themselves. If extremists want to kill you badly enough they will find a way, and 9/11 and the thousands of terror attacks before and after are proof of this.

Point #2: "During his presidential address to the General Synod of the Church of England, he said the country needed to "out-imagine, out-plan and out-think" would-be bombers."

In other words, its time to think outside the box because what we've been doing so far hasn't stemmed the tide of terrorism, it didn't stop 9/11, the Madrid bombing, or the 7/7 attack, or almost the daily attacks in Iraq and in Israel.

Point #3: "Speaking at the University of York, the archbishop said flourishing, safe, clean and generous neighbourhoods need to be created."

I don't know if or how much this will help, but it is an idea that hasn't been tried and is worthy of at least some further thought if nothing else, rather than being dismissed outright.

Point #4: "And he said the grievances which would-be bombers use as a reason to kill must be addressed."

This thinking is very much outside the box, because the current attitude is that these people kill simply because they hate, and that if we can kill them in return then terrorism will end. This is the paradox that counter-terrorism professionals face, and while it may be necessary to kill them to prevent an attack, or future attacks, it does nothing to combat the underlying forces that lead to radicalization. It simply puts a band-aid on a gaping wound.

Final point: "Offering a vision of wholeness in a compelling and imaginative way that is so persuasive that would-be bombers would come to see this as their own vision."

Here he is not talking about the Jihadis who are about to strap on the suicide belt, he is talking about those Muslims who are suseptible to the Osama Bin Ladens, who are so good at inspiring them by giving them "a vision which tragically is used solely for evil ends".

In other words, the Arch Bishop says they need to be reached before they cross the line seperating the ordinary Muslims from the Jihadists. He believes the way to do this is to really integrate them, the ordinary Muslims, into our society where they will be more likely to adopt our values, which don't include suicide bombing, than toss them into ghettos as is the norm in much of Europe, and discriminate against them based upon their religion, and otherwise treating them as second class citizens and outsiders who are then left to become the prey of those who preach extremism.

Now maybe none of you agree with the solution he offers, but in any case its a far cry from the spin made by Jihadwatch, which has once again distorted something to make it into a target for their endless spew of hatred, derision, and intolerance.

Skybird, how quick you are to attack someone who offers solutions without even stating what, it is you disagree with and why. Not to mention the fact that the Arch Bishop you are attacking is at least offering solutions to be thought about and discussed, which is a hell of a lot more than you do around here given that you have no solutions of your own - just more of the same bull**** from you: hatred, intolerance, distortion, and hysteria. You are endless fountain of that.

[Skybird]

So ein Quatsch. :lol:

[scandium]

So ein Quatsch. :lol:
If you're talking about the crap from Jihadwatch, then I agree. Why not try something novel and show us how you would solve the problem? Because you are all hat and no cattle, that's why.

[Skybird]

I leave the outhinking of Islam and the rewriting of it's teachings to clever smart minds like you. When Islam is done with you, doing so will have prooven to be the shortest way to get rid of you. ;) Your queer quoting above already was a good start. :up:

Ah, and come to Germany occasionally. Just to see that your smart suggestions alraedy have tried here. And failed.

[scandium]

I leave the outhinking of Islam and the rewriting of it's teachings to clever smart minds like you. When Islam is done with you, doing so will have prooven to be the shortest way to get rid of you. ;) Your queer quoting above already was a good start. :up:
Uh huh. This is precisely the hysteria I refer to Skybird. There is no threat to me from Islam. Period. There is a very remote chance that I may become the victim of a terrorist attack, with a Muslim as its perpetrator, but it is far more likely I will die instead of any of the following:

1. Heart disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Respiratory disease
5. Accidents
6. Diabetes
7. Influenza and Pneumonia
8. Alzheimer's
9. Kidney disease
10. Septicemia
11. Suicide
12. Liver disease
13. Hypertension
14. Homicide

But those are only facts, and why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good hysterical rant?

[Skybird]

There is no threat to me from Islam. Period.
.....

[scandium]

There is no threat to me from Islam. Period. .....

Point taken Skybird. How silly of me to dismiss it so completely in light of the 14 major threats (in order) in this part of the world:

1. Heart disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Respiratory disease
5. Accidents
6. Diabetes
7. Influenza and Pneumonia
8. Alzheimer's
9. Kidney disease
10. Septicemia
11. Suicide
12. Liver disease
13. Hypertension
14. Homicide

Better to fear that which doesn't even make the list than to deal with those things that are killing millions of us here in the Canada and the US every year.

What is interesting to me is how many of those causes of death at the top are largely, or entirely, the product of our own Western lifestyle. The #1 cause, for instance, Heart Disease, is linked directly to our dietary habits, stressful lifestyles, and rampant obesity; #2, Cancer, has also been linked to environmental byproducts of our Western society such as various pollutants, food additives, insecticides, and health hazards in the work place.

But why shed a thought to those tangible aspects of our own society that kill millions of us every year when we can instead worry about another culture's religion which doesn't even make the list?

I suppose because the Heart Disease that is the #1 killer isn't so sensational and because having a war on it would entail some discomfort in modifying one's dietary and lifestyle habits, while the boogeyman that is Islam requires only that you exercise the hatred and intolerance that comes so naturally to some people anyway.

[The Avon Lady]

1. Heart disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Respiratory disease
5. Accidents
6. Diabetes
7. Influenza and Pneumonia
8. Alzheimer's
9. Kidney disease
10. Septicemia
11. Suicide
12. Liver disease
13. Hypertension
14. Homicide
So if more people die from these things than from Islamic based terrorism, that means the latter is negligible?

I live in Israel. I'm not going to bother looking up what here kills more people, simply because it makes no difference.

Indeed sickening naivety.

[TteFAboB]

Too silly.

He is putting the responsability on the hands of the Europeans, as if their lack of love is the cause of extremism.

Sure, the mere thought of Muslims being responsable for their own actions and choices is a scandal.

Great humanitarians scare me. Pessimists don't offer a colorful rainbow on the horizon but they don't kill or lead to any deaths either.

[scandium]

So if more people die from these things than from Islamic based terrorism, that means the latter is negligible?
I hadn't said that, you tell me.

I live in Israel. I'm not going to bother looking up what here kills more people, simply because it makes no difference.
Really? Let's look at where I live then, Canada, where there hasn't been a domestic terrorist attack in decades. Now pretend you're the government, whose job it is after all to provide for the education, health, safety, and security of the people and to do that you have a budget of say $100 million dollars.

Since "it makes no difference" how we attribute our resources, why not spend the bulk of the money reassigning law enforcement to counter-terrorism, hardening possible terrorist targets, manning our vast border, logging and tracking all domestic and electronic communications, and putting into place a vast surveillance network?

It matters because resources are finite, and every resource you allocate to one task is a resource that isn't being put to use on something else. Civil liberties aside, I would be horrified if my country took the funding that is put into say healthcare and squandered it on the creation of a Big Brother style surveillance network to combat a threat that is non-existant only to end up neglecting those getting sick and dying of those things that are actually killing people here.

Islamic terrorism is a threat, sure, but it needs to be met in manner that is both responsible and proportional, and in a manner that also combats the roots of the problem rather than just its symptoms.

Indeed sickening naivety.
No Avon, naivety is becoming hysterical over the sensational items that hit the front page, having no clue at all about the illness of which they are only a symptom, having no solutions at all as to how to deal with them or their causes, and all the while ignoring the more mundane but far more lethal causes of death that are the true epidemics.

[scandium]

Too silly.

He is putting the responsability on the hands of the Europeans, as if their lack of love is the cause of extremism.

Sure, the mere thought of Muslims being responsable for their own actions and choices is a scandal.

I assume you mean the Arch Bishop, and he isn't saying this, you are. What he is saying is the if you treat Muslims as second class citizens, segregate them into ghettos, and interact and regard the lot of them as though they were part of a terrorist sleeper cell, would you expect them to then adopt Western culture and values anyway when they've already been rejected by this culture? I wouldn't, and the Arch Bishop doesn't either.

From that he then asserts that, having been denied the reason and opportunity to internalize the values of the host country - the very values that would prevent them from ever strapping on a suicide belt - they become prey for the ideologues.

However you read that and conclude that the Arch Bishop is saying that the Muslims shouldn't take any responsibility for their actions. I read the same article and didn't see him state that anywhere. What I did read, though, was that Europeans should take responsibility for their own actions rather than believing as some of them do that you can treat people like **** because of their religion or ethnicity, consign them to squalor, deny them the opportunities you allow everyone else, and then expect them to treat you with love when you've only shown them contempt.

[scandium]

[quote=TteFAboB]Too silly.

He is putting the responsability on the hands of the Europeans, as if their lack of love is the cause of extremism.

Sure, the mere thought of Muslims being responsable for their own actions and choices is a scandal.
I assume you mean the Arch Bishop, and he isn't saying this, you are. What he is saying is the if you treat Muslims as second class citizens, segregate them into ghettos, and interact and regard the lot of them as though they were part of a terrorist sleeper cell, would you expect them to then adopt Western culture and values anyway when they've already been rejected by this culture? I wouldn't, and the Arch Bishop doesn't either.

From that he then asserts that, having been denied the reason and opportunity to internalize the values of the host country - the very values that would prevent them from ever strapping on a suicide belt - they become prey for the ideologues.

However you read that and conclude that the Arch Bishop is saying that the Muslims shouldn't take any responsibility for their actions. I read the same article and didn't see him state that anywhere. What I did read, though, was that Europeans should take responsibility for their own actions rather than believing as some of them do that you can treat people like **** because of their religion or ethnicity, consign them to squalor, deny them the opportunities you allow everyone else, and then expect them to treat you with love when you've only shown them contempt.

Edit: This is what I will call the white man's fallacy: having a history of exterminating other races and cultures as inferiors, brutally subjugating and enslaving the survivors, acting with impunity in foreign lands to transfer the wealth from foreign lands to our own without regard to the locals, and indeed importing a few to our own countries for the purpose of using them as an underclass to pick our tomatoes and clean our toilets, it is now shocking and apalling to us if one of the dogs we kick suddenly bites back.

As long as this pattern of behaviour continues they will continue to bite back. And if you don't like it, well tough. The cycle will never change until the dynamic itself changes and all the lofty talk about the inferiority of Islam is only another symptom of this very problem: ignorance and a misplaced sentiment toward entitlement and superiority. You may as well go cry under your bed for all the good your hysteria will accomplish.

[TteFAboB]

You haven't read "Quelle éducation face au radicalisme religieux".

The Muslims who fall for radicalism are immune to cultural values, they know all the values of the host country, even better than some natives, and despise them all, values, culture, natives, host country, instead considering themselves to be superior to them.

These Muslims weren't rejected by anybody, they chose to reject the culture and the values of the host country, sorry scandium there are no victims here for you to pat on the head.

The only Europeans who treat Muslims like feces are the ones planning and executing government policies, if Europeans took responsability and removed these politicians from power, it would indeed solve alot of the problems.

EDIT: Nice self-loathing by the way, I respect anyone capable of doing a mea-culpa.

But you still don't get it. Those who believe Islam to be inferior are the ones in power who believed Muslims would absorb the superior European culture. Muslim fanatics are not ignorant of European culture and values, they despise them more than you do.

You may as well go cry under your bed for all the white man's crimes and fallacy while you the Arch Bishop of love gets stabbed in the back by a dagger full of hate.

[Skybird]

Scandium,

More bollocks from someone who gives then impression of understanding Islam, but knows nothing about it's theology and motivational drives as a matter of fact.

First he distortes the sayings of this archbishops and tries to wrap them into a different context. BTW, people must not actively arrange themselves in circles of love around Islamic suicide bombers. Or has anyone ever seen a deer in the forest, showing hunters a sign "Me first, please"? Suicide bombers tend to head for such flocks of people all by themselves. -
Next he reduces the confrontation between Isalm and West onto the terrorist level, ignoring the cultural confrontation that it is in the main. -
Next comes the linking of bomb-slinger's motivation to bad living conditions in the West, and by that disconnecting bomber's motivation from the demands and orders of their religious faith that tells them to subjugate all of Allah'S world (that includes us infidels) by fighting and killing, if no voluntary submission takes place. I assume it is our own guilt that Islam demands global ruling and penalizing us for not obeying - since we resist to that demand. - After that he starts debating public health and diets. - And then he wonders why no one takes him serious and is laughing about him. :dead:

London attackers are said to be coming from fully integrated, matrial well-serviced muslims houselfolds and families.

Recent arrests in the US caught terror suspects of Muslim origin, who were fully integrated citizens of the US.

Terror supsects arrested in Germany over the years lived without raising suspicion in our middle, had their jobs or studies, were friendly, considered to be integrated and in cungruence with the values of our constitutional order. we were wrong in these assumptions.

It is by far not the poor and socially non-integrated fellow Muslims that had bad luckm in life and were treated mean that fall for the ideas of true Islam. Over the last five years we had to learn that they were quite educated, came from good families, and often had a well-integrated background. that kind of background that you demand, Scandium. But it did not prevent them to be breeded out. just close your eyes again if that is too uncomfortable for your view of the world. You are excused - you do not know Islam the the self-dynamic of it'S inne rteaching and ideology. You simply do not know it.

You can't profile them without understanding the drives of Islam.

It's not only about terror, btw. In a war you do not declare war on submarines, tanks and interceptors. You declare war against a country, and by that, often against an ideology, WWII being the prime example. In chess you do not fight against the king, the queen or the bishops and pawns. You fight against your opponent. Figures are only the tools of fighting. We do not wage war against terrorists. We need to wage war against a violent, all-demanding, greedy ideology of totalitarian control and primitive leader-cult.

It is not only about terror threats. Terror strikes we can survice, they cannot really threaten our community'S structures, or the survival of our civilization. We will get used to them, like traffic accidents. The confrontation on ideological and demographical level is what poses the threat to us.

You simplify too much, for the sake of your far too much outhought theories, and at the price of seeing realities. You stumble over your own cleverness that way. What you claim to be alternatives, we have tried in europe and Germany and other countries since long, since decades. In these times, we suffer from the bad and rough awakening. So does the vatican as well. You think your suggestions are so new, and so clever. But they are old. and we see the ruins of their failur in ourm local communities. But like radiatation after a nuclear explosion, the contamination still is there and is destructive.

YOU SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE MOTIVATION AND IDEOLOGY OF ISLAM. YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

That'S why we do not take you serious anymore. Do not wonder, and do not complain about it. It's a logical consequence.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=8ef8514e-3fa2-44e2-83ee-6073a8e6ea19
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0606/p01s02-woam.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060603/terror_analysis_060603/20060604?hub=Canada
http://www.humanist.toronto.on.ca/islam.html
http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/islam.htm

quoting from the last link, Serge Trifkovic:
Islam, a religion born in the desert, has created jihad and remains defined by jihad , its most important concept for the rest of the world. Through jihad Islam has emerged as a quasi-religious ideology of cultural and political imperialism, that knows no natural limits to itself. Unlike the "just war" theory originated in Christian thinking, which has evolved into a secular concept instituted in international laws and codes, including the Geneva Conventions, jihad is inherently religious as well as political: Islamic normative thinking does not separate the two. It has emerged from the desert, and it perpetually creates new mental, psychic, spiritual, and literal deserts of whatever it touches.

Do not believe Islam's self-description, and what their Imam's are telling you. Islam is not really famous for it's ability of critical self-reflecting - that is considered to be a sin. It has prevented that since centuries, and you will not be the blessed one who makes them aware of that, you better believe that. It will tell you anything you want to hear if that helps it to push it's agenda, at the cost of you. It is allowed to do so in it's understanding. It all comes down to simply this: it wants for itself, what is ours. And not enough, additionally it want's us to join it's false beliefs, or wants to see us in the dust. If we reject , it reserves the right to kill us. It preaches freedom - within the borders of Sharia. It preaches tolerances - within the borders of Sharia. It preaches justice - on the ground of Sharia. It preaches peace - in the definition of Sharia. Period.

Welcome to the jungle. Adopt, or loose.

[The Avon Lady]

Welcome to the jungle. Adopt, or loose.
"Adapt."

[CB..]

it's ironic that this Archbishop knows exactly why the Islamic terrorists are doing what they do--it's because they believe from a religious stand point that they should do this---(wether or not any one else within or out side their group believes they have interpreted the teachings correctly or not)

walk into any "born again" Christian church on the planet and they'll tell you the same thing- every one else is the enemy--they only exist to be "converted"

the issue is really just how long are we going to allow Religious organisations of any sort to make up their own rules--and then try to impose them on the rest of worlds population-

the Archbishop knows exactly why what he has said is merely him claiming he has the power to convert the terrorists to his religion--

it's the spiritual equivilent of a d*ck measuring contest--and helps no-one..
he only needs to look at his own doctrine to see the answer--every-ones a sinner ..every-one no matter what their cirumstances has to be "converted"

the terrorists are on the same trip

he's not naive he's just lying--

[The Avon Lady]

walk into any "born again" Christian church on the planet and they'll tell you the same thing- every one else is the enemy--they only exist to be "converted"
It's funny that I, of all people, should have to pipe up here and ask what you are referring to?

It's been a long time since I can recall forced conversions to Christianity ("kiss the cross or kiss the sword"). Where is this happening today? On what original Christian doctrines was it base upon in yesteryears when this was widespread?

Are you sure such born again Christians view everyone else as enemies, and not as sinners or lost souls or on the wrong path? These do not have the same connotation as the word "enemy."

[scandium]

Scandium,

More bollocks from someone who gives then impression of understanding Islam, but knows nothing about it's theology and motivational drives as a matter of fact.


I stopped reading the rest when I realized that, rather than debating the merits of the Arch Bishop's suggestions, or offering your own as an alternative and when I realized this was only another rant aimed at my "ignorance" of Islam from Subsim's resident armchair Quarterback (only this Quarterback prefers to complain about the tactics of the other team, that before the game the other team prays to the wrong God, and that the leftist referees are biased) rather than what strategies and tactics are necessary to defeat the other team.

Skybird, you keep saying I'm the enemy yet you never elaborate on what exactly I'm getting in the way of. This makes it hard to take you seriously (and I'm finding this harder and harder every day as you simply put up today's hate piece but without ever adding anything constructive to it).

[Skybird]

Welcome to the jungle. Adopt, or loose.
"Adapt."
http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/t209.gif

[scandium]

Welcome to the jungle. Adopt, or loose. "Adapt." http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/t209.gif

Adapt or lose.

[CB..]

walk into any "born again" Christian church on the planet and they'll tell you the same thing- every one else is the enemy--they only exist to be "converted"
It's funny that I, of all people, should have to pipe up here and ask what you are referring to?

It's been a long time since I can recall forced conversions to Christianity ("kiss the cross or kiss the sword"). Where is this happening today? On what original Christian doctrines was it base upon in yesteryears when this was widespread?

Are you sure such born again Christians view everyone else as enemies, and not as sinners or lost souls or on the wrong path? These do not have the same connotation as the word "enemy."

absolutely sure..sad to say--and getting gradually more extreme every day..i've had some experience with these groups--it's hard to find a church these days (even traditional low key churchs) that haven't fallen victim to the drive for hard core right wing religion--we don't need to look at the more extreme groups in America for example--they are only limited by what they feel they can get away with--most local born again churches here in england seriuosly believe that they are the only people who have the doctrine right--even to the extent that they preach that to attend a church of a similar doctrine just yards down the road would be to "go to hell"..i'm not kidding it really is that surreal--given time it will even become dangerous--as this mentality once properly unleashed is completely with-out rational boundaries---they are extremely right wing and know no law other than that is preached from the pulpit on sunday services--sounds silly doesn't it--but it's not

the terrorist follow exactly the same thinking...convert or destroy --nothing else matters

[Skybird]

Scandium,

More bollocks from someone who gives then impression of understanding Islam, but knows nothing about it's theology and motivational drives as a matter of fact.


I stopped reading the rest when I realized that, rather than debating the merits of the Arch Bishop's suggestions, or offering your own as an alternative and when I realized this was only another rant aimed at my "ignorance" of Islam from Subsim's resident armchair Quarterback (only this Quarterback prefers to complain about the tactics of the other team, that before the game the other team prays to the wrong God, and that the leftist referees are biased) rather than what strategies and tactics are necessary to defeat the other team.

Skybird, you keep saying I'm the enemy yet you never elaborate on what exactly I'm getting in the way of. This makes it hard to take you seriously (and I'm finding this harder and harder every day as you simply put up today's hate piece but without ever adding anything constructive to it).

I once had a prof for social psychology. One day I met him in the university restaurant, and we talked and he learned that I have done 17 years of Wing Tsun and Japanese swordfighting, with real swords, I mean. Being a sports pistol shooter himself he was so fascinated that immediately his academical theory-generator, his brain, went into active mode, and the next half of an hour he explained me the differences between Wing Tsun und Karate. It was ridiculous nonsens what he said, total crap, but it became more and more complex a theory - his theory on what he imagines WT and Karate would be. In the end I learned from his mouth, what I knew all the time: he never had practiced neither WT nor Karate nor any other Martial Arts himself.

He looked a bit irritated when at the end I asked him if he ever has seen the movie "Karate Kid" :lol:

No wonder that I smiled all the time but did not take him serious. As long as he wouldn'T have started training himself, all attempts by me to explain him what it is, and what nonsens it is that he is talking would have been in vain, and would only offended him. He nevertheless would have lacked the basis to understand what I was about.

It's exactly the same with you. You cannot expect people to take your opinion on Islam for serious, as long as you indicate in almost every reply that your knowledge on Islam is so small that it hinders you to form an opinion on Islam. That AL has more understanding of it is obvious, and expolains itself, considering her status. I myself will not excuse or justify myself for having learned about it by reading a lot of books, and having made many experiences in Muslim countries myself. I also do not intend to sit down for hours and write a book abit it, just for you. Far better books are already available, if only you would open your eyes. I have linked you to a list with recommended basic readinfs some weeks ago. Your private little fantasy that is running inside your head simply is not anything that could replace reality. And as we have seen in the past, you do not care for hints and links and suggestions, and often ignore them.

And then you complain that people do not spend the time with you anymore...???

[bradclark1]

Welcome to the jungle. Adopt, or loose. "Adapt." http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/t209.gif

Adapt or lose.

Adapt or lose!

[scandium]

Skybird, again you dodge the question. What is the solution to the problem of Islam?

[mapuc]

Skybird, again you dodge the question. What is the solution to the problem of Islam?

That indeed, is a good question. All that has been done so far haven't helped, the fundamental islamic movement is strong and growing stronger day by day.

So there's not much of options left. The last one is civil war.

Markus

[Iceman]

walk into any "born again" Christian church on the planet and they'll tell you the same thing- every one else is the enemy--they only exist to be "converted"
It's funny that I, of all people, should have to pipe up here and ask what you are referring to?

It's been a long time since I can recall forced conversions to Christianity ("kiss the cross or kiss the sword"). Where is this happening today? On what original Christian doctrines was it base upon in yesteryears when this was widespread?

Are you sure such born again Christians view everyone else as enemies, and not as sinners or lost souls or on the wrong path? These do not have the same connotation as the word "enemy."

absolutely sure..sad to say--and getting gradually more extreme every day..i've had some experience with these groups--it's hard to find a church these days (even traditional low key churchs) that haven't fallen victim to the drive for hard core right wing religion--we don't need to look at the more extreme groups in America for example--they are only limited by what they feel they can get away with--most local born again churches here in england seriuosly believe that they are the only people who have the doctrine right--even to the extent that they preach that to attend a church of a similar doctrine just yards down the road would be to "go to hell"..i'm not kidding it really is that surreal--given time it will even become dangerous--as this mentality once properly unleashed is completely with-out rational boundaries---they are extremely right wing and know no law other than that is preached from the pulpit on sunday services--sounds silly doesn't it--but it's not

the terrorist follow exactly the same thinking...convert or destroy --nothing else matters

Come on..everyone is the enemy?...Being a "Born Again" Christian, I don't look at people not "Born Again" as the enemy but as potential harvest...:)...Christianity teaches...if you read it yourself CB....which I suggest you do so you would know what the Bible really says and you would find throughout a resounding theme..."Love"....love does not demand it's own way...is longsuffering bears all in silence.It is written in the bible I read Christ came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance....at the end of the last book of the Bible it Clearly says...Let him that is holy be holy still,he that is whole let him be whole still,he that is evil let him be evil still.Free Will has been Gods command from the Begining to the End my friend."Born Again" Christians believe a way back to the grace of God was provided by Jesus Christ and any who "Choose" to pick up there cross and follow the way that was shown by Christ will have life eternal in paradise...Paid in full by blood and body of the Son of God Himself.....no one is supposed to force anyone and can't...it is a personal choice and those who choose another path are pitied not despised by Christians but hey...it is there choice...hell never closes.

Every tree is known by it's fruit so is a church or a person. You decide what is right.

[bradclark1]

What is the solution to the problem of Islam?
There isn't a politically correct answer for that problem and you know it.

[Skybird]

Still wondering, I see. You need it all on a silver plate brought to you, so that you can take it and throw it out of the window.

Stop propagating it, stop playing into it's hands and get the public informed about it's content, history and teachings by sources that are not under Islamic influence would be a good start!!! :up: ;) Get people start thinking and asking questions, instead of echoing empty phrases of those who want Islam, for whatever a reason, amnd embrace a conqueror for a mistaken understanding of tolerance or mutli-culti.

The rest then would come by itself. Enforcing colonists to fully integrate or to leave. Enforcing to give up any reservations to western values as the leading cultures in the West, and make acdcepting them legally binding, by threat of removing zhem if they don't. Sending them back if they violate our value system and legal rules, instead of endlessly keeping them here and "assist" them to do better next time, which in most cases they don't since they are pushing their own clture instead. Changing constitutions that way that Islam cannot claim protection of free practice of religion anymore - because in reality it pushes in fact a political agenda aiming at the destruction of these constitutional orders. Demanding Muslims to unconditionally surrender to local traditions, laws, education goals, school systems, cultural values and habits if they want to live in our middle (I mean, no one forces them to come here, and they also have no right to demand they should be accepted here if we do not want them: it's our homes, not theirs.). When they do not want to become one of us, but want to keep for themselves, why the ehll are they co,ming to us, then? Stop further Muslim immigration in general. Reject paying ongoing financial support that in return is spend by them to further increase Muslim networks in Europe that are designed to strnegthen Islam in Eurpe and overcome christzian and Wetsern order. Bannig Sharia completely, unconditionally. Monitoring mosques. Encourage leaving Europe. Discourage coming to Europe. Stop playing soft on the deceptions of history that Islam is used to. Confront "moderates" directly with the contradictions of wanting to be Muslims but claiming to already refuse certain values of it. And so on, and so on.

Don't try removing regimes in Muslim countries that are strong enough to fight against Islam clerics coming to power. Stop wanting to democratize such countries -and by that creating the free space the clerics need to come to power, like is happening in Egypt, has happened again in Iran, and in a way also in Turkey, and obviously: Iraq. confronting all Muslim countries over the tens of thousands of Christians and Jews that get killed in their realms every year, according to the secret service of the Vatican (almost all Muslims countries are affected by this by varying degrees). Sanction all countries that do not actively and with all strength engage in stopping the murdering of christians and priests in their countries. Implement the principle of reciprocity: do not treat islam in the West any better than foreign cultures are treated in Muslim countries. If they do continue with the centuries-old ethnic cleansing (and that it is, nothing else), then drive Muslim populations in Europe out as well. Do them like they do us.

All this will not happen too well, since Islam cannot tolerate any of these demands without giving up itself and it's mission: gaining control about all world and all mankind. That's no phobia, that is theological and political fact. It's a predatory ideology, formed by a predatory bandit, in a war-torn environment, never forget that.

And of course: getting independent from Muslim oil within a reasonable timeframe. that should have been a priority since the oil ciriss int he early 70s. Stopping weapon and technology transfers into Muslims countries. Stop political classes that do not actively engage in this, or even want to prevent it.

In brief summary - you'll hate it, since you have too many illusions abou the reasonability and kindliness of islam and do not understand the true nature of our enemy. ;) You think of Islam as somehting like ourselves, just Muslim instead of western. And that is your grwta mistake, coming from your tendency to level out differences and make it appear to be on same level and of same worth and value. Hitler admired Muhammad for his ruthlessness and unscrupulousness, he is quoted like that by historians. That should tell you something.

In principle, since democracy and Western value-canon, and Islam are totally incompatible, it is about Islam in the West not longer being Islam.
But I am sorry that I cannot explain why I want all these things happening, and nothing less. that way it all must appear to you as very intolerant and racist and nationalistic. But that is because a deficit on your side, not on mine.

You got your will fulfilled, and for the second time although you refuse to accept that, now get what is more important - get some books: history, Muhammad's historical biography and personality, Comments and comparisons of social community in Islam, politics, and theology, introduction to Quran and Hadith, Sira would not do any damage. History is the most important for you, since you said it yourself: judge them by their deeds, not their words. It's the greatest conquest by violence story ever.

I'm sure you hate almost everything I said here, and will clean it off the table as blind ignorrance, intolerant racism, stupid narrow-mindedness or whatever. And when I say that Islam is even more dnagerous than the Nazis were, you cannot underatand it. Becasue you still do not know Islam well enoiugh. The deficit is not on my side, or AL's, but yours. Your view on Islam, and Islam's reality, are incompatible, and lead you consequently to wrong assumptions about how to deal with it. It'S often done, but I agree on that: today's western policies on Islam are like chamberlains appeasemnt of Hitler. But Hitler just wanted a huge part of the world, and wanted to erase all Jews. Islam wants all world, and erase everyone that is not Muslim.

[Skybird]

What is the solution to the problem of Islam?
There isn't a politically correct answer for that problem and you know it.
Nice summary of what I put into far more words. :yep: You certainly are more word-economical than I am. Maybe I am just too unstructured. :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

I find it funny that people think that Islamic militants are no big deal. Just let them blow up everything, right? To be naive and think they are no threat to ones person is to be an ostrich and bury ones head in the sand. Speakaing about naive, that has got to be the most naive statement ever posted on this board. It is written in their religious law that you are the infidel if you study any religion or no religion at all other than Islam. It is their duty to destroy you and in doing so, it will sucure a place for them in heaven beside Allah. One more thing, no matter how people want to twist it, Mohammed did not write his book, Allah did, and there is no room for interpretation. Period.

However - One must be wary about the focus on these militants however since they could never pose anywhere near as much of a threat as a state could. Iran, NK, and especially China.

-S

[scandium]

What is the solution to the problem of Islam? There isn't a politically correct answer for that problem and you know it.
I didn't say it had to be politically correct, only that it had to be effective. And as to what I "know", I already have in mind a solution that has been endrsed by those leftist over at the Economist- so its a little presumptuous to presume what I do and do not know, not that this has ever stopped anyone here before.

[bradclark1]

Then please share it with us. I sure as hell can't think of a politically correct solution. And yes it does have to be politically correct in order for it to be used. If you have a solution why haven't you voiced it long ago?
That is what makes me a little presumptuous.

[bradclark1]

Nice summary of what I put into far more words. :yep: You certainly are more word-economical than I am. Maybe I am just too unstructured. :lol:
Yeah, there is a slight difference in the average length of comments. :D

[scandium]

Then please share it with us. I sure as hell can't think of a politically correct solution. And yes it does have to be politically correct in order for it to be used. If you have a solution why haven't you voiced it long ago?
That is what makes me a little presumptuous.

Because I've suspected that the Islamophobe crowd here is long on rhetoric and short on solutions, but I wanted to give them a chance to prove me wrong first. This is a lengthy article with mixed messages I find, in that they don't make any attempt to varnish the truth and nor do they resort to the one sided, often distorted, hysteria that is the norm for Jihadwatch and its ilk. Also they don't offer anything cut and dried, but it is food for thought and nothing radical:

Anyway the link to it: http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7081343

[The Avon Lady]

Last night we watched Albert Finney portraying Winston Churchill in "The Gathering Storm."

I couldn't help but imagine Scandium's soulmates as the members of Baldwin's Conservative Party, howling with laughter and taunting Churchill from the benches, as Churchill warned Britain with great accuracy what was to be their fate, should they continue to disregard the blatant signs of Nazi Germany's plans and intent of conquest.

History repeats itself.

[The Avon Lady]

............the Islamophobe crowd here...........
Yada, yada, yada!

Here's another Islamophobe: Omar Bakri. And he says nothing new, that hasn't been said by numerous Islamic preachers world-wide:
Cleric: Flag of Islam to fly from Big Ben (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3273120,00.html)

Islamic fundamentalist Omar Bakri, who led extremist group in London and escaped after bombings in city, warns that Britain will turn into 'Islamastan'.

Islamic fundamentalist cleric Omar Bakri has warned that "the day will come that the flag of Islam will fly over the Big Ben and the British Parliament."

Bakri made the comments during an interview with the London-based Arabic-language daily al-Sharq al-Awsat.

The interview was published over the weekend when Britain marked a year since the terror attacks on the London Underground.

Bakri, who is originally Syrian, was the leader of al-Muhajiroun. He escaped London after the 7/7 attacks, and was banned from returning to Britain.

Bakri presented himself as a spokesman for the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, headed by Osama Bin Laden.

Bakri's organization supported Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the territories, and also held contacts with Hizbullah.

In a document released by the media analysis organization MEMRI, Bakri's ideology is presented, according to which believing Muslims living in Britain will turn the country into Islamastan.

Bakri elaborated that "what is called today Londonistan is actually Kufferstan, in other words the land of infidelity. I think that loyal Muslims in Britain will turn it on the day of days, with the help of Allah, into Islamastan, in other words into Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam), as the first Muslims did in Ethiopia and Indonesia. Then the big Islamic dream will be realized, and we will see the flag 'there's no god other than Allah' flying from the Big Ben and the British parliament, with the help of Allah."

'Don't assimilate into infidel society'

When asked what his advice was for Muslim youths in Britain and his students who life far away, he answered: "I advise Muslim youth in general, and to my beloved students especially, not to assimilate into the ignorant British society, but at the same time not to become distant from the people. They must work to make the hearts turn to Allah, to instruct on doing good and forbidding the evil, to obey Allah and to keep away from the infidels."

Asked whether he thought London was safe today, after the disappearance of most of the movement's fundamentalist sheikhs, Barki answered: "The finding of the wise of Islam and the advertisers of the Islamic movement is the valve of security of Britain and not the opposite, as the naive people think."

"Britain is not thought of as safe since it advertised the anti-terror laws in 2002. There's no doubt that the disappearance, arrest, or expulsion of most of the scholars of Islam and its advertisers will turn Britain into an unsafe country, in danger of attacks by those who think it must be fought, due to its participation alongside the Untied States in the war of the global crusaders against Islam and Muslims."

When asked whether he planned to return to Britain any time soon, Bakri answered: "I don't think of returning to Britain as long as it does not retract its terror laws, through which it is applying terror on peaceful Muslims in Britain, with the excuse of fighting terror. The return of people like myself is forbidden according to Islamic law, since it calms under the act of 'surrendering as a hostage.' Islam has forbidden Muslims from surrendering as a hostage… to the infidels."

[CB..]

Come on..everyone is the enemy?...Being a "Born Again" Christian, I don't look at people not "Born Again" as the enemy but as potential harvest...:)...Christianity teaches...if you read it yourself CB....which I suggest you do so you would know what the Bible really says and you would find throughout a resounding theme..."Love"....love does not demand it's own way...is longsuffering bears all in silence.It is written in the bible I read Christ came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance....at the end of the last book of the Bible it Clearly says...Let him that is holy be holy still,he that is whole let him be whole still,he that is evil let him be evil still.Free Will has been Gods command from the Begining to the End my friend."Born Again" Christians believe a way back to the grace of God was provided by Jesus Christ and any who "Choose" to pick up there cross and follow the way that was shown by Christ will have life eternal in paradise...Paid in full by blood and body of the Son of God Himself.....no one is supposed to force anyone and can't...it is a personal choice and those who choose another path are pitied not despised by Christians but hey...it is there choice...hell never closes.

Every tree is known by it's fruit so is a church or a person. You decide what is right.
nuff said really---

[Skybird]

Bad link, scandium. And stop calling us hysterics. you are not competent to judge if we are, or not. So far all you have shown us about your understanding of Islam is the many fantasies you have on your mind, the kind of follies already Goethe and Lessing have fallen for, violating hard solid facts about Islam's theology and history whom you are not aware of, and in active ignoration of. Wanting to raise an educated opinion on that basis qualifies you to be a fool only - no matter how clever you see yourself.

And give us a working link, not your pathetic answer to Brad of how clever the Economist is. Let us judge that ourselves. I already can imagine what it is about, but to put it into your own words: "I give you a chance to prove me wrong first."

Come on, prove us wrong. On the basis of solid facts about Islam'S self-understanding and self-description. Should be easy for you, since you claim to be cometent to judge what is the right and what is the wrong way to approach it, and what is too radical a solution, and what is an unbiased one.

[scandium]

Bad link, scandium. And stop calling us hysterics. you are not competent to judge if we are, or not. So far all you have shown us about your understanding of Islam is the many fantasies you have on your mind, the kind of follies already Goethe and Lessing have fallen for, violating hard solid facts about Islam's theology and history whom you are not aware of, and in active ignoration of. Wanting to raise an educated opinion on that basis qualifies you to be a fool only - no matter how clever you see yourself.

And give us a working link, not your pathetic answer to Brad of how clever the Economist is. Let us judge that ourselves. I already can imagine what it is about, but to put it into your own words: "I give you a chance to prove me wrong first."

Come on, prove us wrong. On the basis of solid facts about Islam'S self-understanding and self-description. Should be easy for you, since you claim to be cometent to judge what is the right and what is the wrong way to approach it, and what is too radical a solution, and what is an unbiased one.

The link is working fine for me.

[The Avon Lady]

Bad link, scandium. And stop calling us hysterics. you are not competent to judge if we are, or not. So far all you have shown us about your understanding of Islam is the many fantasies you have on your mind, the kind of follies already Goethe and Lessing have fallen for, violating hard solid facts about Islam's theology and history whom you are not aware of, and in active ignoration of. Wanting to raise an educated opinion on that basis qualifies you to be a fool only - no matter how clever you see yourself.

And give us a working link, not your pathetic answer to Brad of how clever the Economist is. Let us judge that ourselves. I already can imagine what it is about, but to put it into your own words: "I give you a chance to prove me wrong first."

Come on, prove us wrong. On the basis of solid facts about Islam'S self-understanding and self-description. Should be easy for you, since you claim to be cometent to judge what is the right and what is the wrong way to approach it, and what is too radical a solution, and what is an unbiased one.

The link is working fine for me.
Skybird's point of the link's article being irrelevant to fact that you have yet to counter anything anyone here has claimed about Islam, solely based on Islam's own scriptures, interpretations and history is working fine for me.

What the heck! Here's another link, again with some astounding from-the-source quotes but mostly not from Muslims:

“Let Them Eat Kebab” — The New Marie Antoinettes (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/07/let-them-eat-kebab-new-marie.html).

So long, Europe. But, of course, Canada is safe. :yep:

[scandium]

I said a few days ago, that to put an end to these endless circular discussions - for now at least- that I'm content to, purely for the sake of arguement, or as a moratorium on it, accept all of your claims as to the dangers of Islam provided you can suggest any realistic method of meeting the alleged threat it poses.

Note that I'm not interested in how politically correct the solution is, only as to whether one exists, and whether you're willing to offer it.

Yet still you insist on arguing for the sake of arguement rather than putting forward something constructive.

[The Avon Lady]

I said a few days ago, that to put an end to these endless circular discussions - for now at least- that I'm content to, purely for the sake of arguement, or as a moratorium on it, accept all of your claims as to the dangers of Islam provided you can suggest any realistic method of meeting the alleged threat it poses.

Note that I'm not interested in how politically correct the solution is, only as to whether one exists, and whether you're willing to offer it.

Yet still you insist on arguing for the sake of arguement rather than putting forward something constructive.
I already present my suggestion here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=266662&postcount=31), back on June 14, almost a month ago. See thread The Future of Europe, page 2 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94424&page=2).

There, too, you tried the usual jabs at the Bible and did not respond to the specific points brought up about Islam.

[scandium]

I said a few days ago, that to put an end to these endless circular discussions - for now at least- that I'm content to, purely for the sake of arguement, or as a moratorium on it, accept all of your claims as to the dangers of Islam provided you can suggest any realistic method of meeting the alleged threat it poses.

Note that I'm not interested in how politically correct the solution is, only as to whether one exists, and whether you're willing to offer it.

Yet still you insist on arguing for the sake of arguement rather than putting forward something constructive. I already present my suggestion here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=266662&postcount=31), back on June 14, almost a month ago. See thread The Future of Europe, page 2 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94424&page=2).

There, too, you tried the usual jabs at the Bible and did not respond to the specific points brought up about Islam.

Your suggestion consisted of this: "ban Islam"; not a terribly useful suggestion without mentioning how you intend this to be accomplished. Here are the details that need to be resolved to "ban Islam":

1. Is this ban intended only in Western countries or worldwide?
2. What form would this ban take? Banning public Worship? Banning sales of the Koran? Banning the private practice of Islam? Banning any articles or forms of dress associated with the religion?
3. How would you identify those who practice Islam from those who do not?
4. What form of punishment would you use against the violators who do not forsake their religion but merely take it underground?

Those are just a few questions off the top of my mind.

[TteFAboB]

Scandium, you're making no sense.

Do you agree with that article from The Economist?

If so, you have to agree with Skybird when he points part of the solution being debate and discussion, as in the Economist.

Then why do you attempt to discard and disregard Jihad Watch? You are for freedom of speech unless you don't like what you hear, you are for free discussion untill you judge it to be hysteria. I don't see how labeling anyone as an Islamophobe contributes to free discussion either, as it's an attempt to dequalify the others.

I don't think you care at all for what I throw at you, but you might remember, somewhere else, I pointed only one solution, which is not a magic bullet to solve everything in one day, but it was: discussion! With or without Muslims. Without any fear of the Islamophobe-tagging patrol because personal offense should stand below Islam.

So, carry on in your ambiguity, you desire all good to Muslims, but limit the range or scope of the discussion, I wonder, if I were a Muslim what would be my label? Traitor?

[The Avon Lady]

I said a few days ago, that to put an end to these endless circular discussions - for now at least- that I'm content to, purely for the sake of arguement, or as a moratorium on it, accept all of your claims as to the dangers of Islam provided you can suggest any realistic method of meeting the alleged threat it poses.

Note that I'm not interested in how politically correct the solution is, only as to whether one exists, and whether you're willing to offer it.

Yet still you insist on arguing for the sake of arguement rather than putting forward something constructive. I already present my suggestion here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=266662&postcount=31), back on June 14, almost a month ago. See thread The Future of Europe, page 2 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94424&page=2).

There, too, you tried the usual jabs at the Bible and did not respond to the specific points brought up about Islam.

Your suggestion consisted of this: "ban Islam"; not a terribly useful suggestion without mentioning how you intend this to be accomplished. Here are the details that need to be resolved to "ban Islam":

1. Is this ban intended only in Western countries or worldwide?
2. What form would this ban take? Banning public Worship? Banning sales of the Koran? Banning the private practice of Islam? Banning any articles or forms of dress associated with the religion?
3. How would you identify those who practice Islam from those who do not?
4. What form of punishment would you use against the violators who do not forsake their religion but merely take it underground?

Those are just a few questions off the top of my mind.
I am not a political or military strategist but what the heck!

1. Each country must decide. Of course, the less unity in such a decision will be to Islam's advatange. Let Islamic countries remain Islamic but crush them if they try to export Islam to countries in which it has been banned. BTW, the forbiddence by infidels of Muslims to practice their faith in an infidel country or denying them to proselytize amongst infidels is grounds for Jihad. That's just a heads-up.

2. The ban would be against any individuals and institutions affiliated with authentic Islam. Lots of problems defining the scope of this ban. Dress alone is irrelevant. The most anti-violent Muslim may easily be the most modest.

3. This is the biggest problem. No simple answer. And they're as cunning as the devil (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012155.php). My apologies for directing you to Jihad Watch but I'll bet your morning paper didn't mention much of that or tossed it onto the page after the funnies and obituaries. They're employing natural camouflage techniques (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012076.php), too. Oops. Another JW article. Actually, they're both not JW articles. They're essentially links to mainstream media articles. We'll, I suppose they're all Islamophobes, too.

4. Parachute drop into the Arabian desert or a more practical form of deportation.

[scandium]

Scandium, you're making no sense.

Do you agree with that article from The Economist?
Generally speaking yes, I found the article to appear unbiased, well written, and thought provoking. They also appeared to go to pains to back up any assertions or speculation with some form of evidence.

If so, you have to agree with Skybird when he points part of the solution being debate and discussion, as in the Economist.
Skybird isn't seeking debate or discussion, that implies the question is still open to him to debate and discuss. Skybird seems to me to be solely interested in pushing his own agenda, and any discussion for him serves only to attempt to discredit the other's arguement or outright dismiss it as "ignorance".

Then why do you attempt to discard and disregard Jihad Watch?
Because, like Skybird, they have no interest in debating the issue. Their minds are made up, everyone who disagrees with anything they say is wrong, and that sums it uip. Further, they are notorious for distorting things to fit this agenda.

You are for freedom of speech unless you don't like what you hear, you are for free discussion untill you judge it to be hysteria.
Freedom of speech (or in this case it may be more precise to say freedom of the press) means they are free to print their opinions; freedom of speech does not mean that I am obligated to subscribe to their opinions or withold any criticism.

I don't see how labeling anyone as an Islamophobe contributes to free discussion either, as it's an attempt to dequalify the others.
A phobia is an irrational fear; thus Islamopobia is an irrational fear of Islam. I use the term because it best fits the anti-Islam rhetoric that is so common here among some.

So, carry on in your ambiguity, you desire all good to Muslims
I desire only that they be treated, as far as their religion goes, the same as we would treat anyone else of any other religion and not use that as a basis for caricature, intolerance, or hatred. Those who plan or commit acts inspired by hatred or otherwise criminal I fully support punishing them to the maximum extent of the law possible - no matter what their religion.

I suppose my failing, and why I don't "get it", is that I was brought up to believe that you judge a man by his actions, and not by his religion, race, income, or nationality. Thus I judge my Muslim neighbour on his actions the way I do my other neighbours, and not on the basis that he is a Muslim.

[scandium]

I said a few days ago, that to put an end to these endless circular discussions - for now at least- that I'm content to, purely for the sake of arguement, or as a moratorium on it, accept all of your claims as to the dangers of Islam provided you can suggest any realistic method of meeting the alleged threat it poses.

Note that I'm not interested in how politically correct the solution is, only as to whether one exists, and whether you're willing to offer it.

Yet still you insist on arguing for the sake of arguement rather than putting forward something constructive. I already present my suggestion here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=266662&postcount=31), back on June 14, almost a month ago. See thread The Future of Europe, page 2 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94424&page=2).

There, too, you tried the usual jabs at the Bible and did not respond to the specific points brought up about Islam.
Your suggestion consisted of this: "ban Islam"; not a terribly useful suggestion without mentioning how you intend this to be accomplished. Here are the details that need to be resolved to "ban Islam":

1. Is this ban intended only in Western countries or worldwide?
2. What form would this ban take? Banning public Worship? Banning sales of the Koran? Banning the private practice of Islam? Banning any articles or forms of dress associated with the religion?
3. How would you identify those who practice Islam from those who do not?
4. What form of punishment would you use against the violators who do not forsake their religion but merely take it underground?

Those are just a few questions off the top of my mind. I am not a political or military strategist but what the heck!

1. Each country must decide. Of course, the less unity in such a decision will be to Islam's advatange. Let Islamic countries remain Islamic but crush them if they try to export Islam to countries in which it has been banned. BTW, the forbiddence by infidels of Muslims to practice their faith in an infidel country or denying them to proselytize amongst infidels is grounds for Jihad. That's just a heads-up.

2. The ban would be against any individuals and institutions affiliated with authentic Islam. Lots of problems defining the scope of this ban. Dress alone is irrelevant. The most anti-violent Muslim may easily be the most modest.

3. This is the biggest problem. No simple answer. And they're as cunning as the devil (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012155.php). My apologies for directing you to Jihad Watch but I'll bet your morning paper didn't mention much of that or tossed it onto the page after the funnies and obituaries. They're employing natural camouflage techniques (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012076.php), too. Oops. Another JW article. Actually, they're both not JW articles. They're essentially links to mainstream media articles. We'll, I suppose they're all Islamophobes, too.

4. Parachute drop into the Arabian desert or a more practical form of deportation.

Avon: I'll have to reply to this point by point later, but I have to say you have put some thought into it and it at least provides a good framework for further discussion. :up:

[TteFAboB]

You have evaded the issue and discarded Skybird as you discard the Jihad Watch.

Stop propagating it, stop playing into it's hands and get the public informed about it's content, history and teachings by sources that are not under Islamic influence would be a good start!!! :up: ;) Get people start thinking and asking questions, instead of echoing empty phrases of those who want Islam, for whatever a reason, amnd embrace a conqueror for a mistaken understanding of tolerance or mutli-culti.


Clearly this can only be achieved by discussion, his next paragraph "the rest would come by itself" clearly means political policy as a consequence of public opinion.

If you asked me, it is you who is avoiding the debate, whenever anything is posted about Islam, the first thing you do is search for a comparison with Christianity or religion in general that would transfer the problem elsewhere while at the same time obscuring the problem in Islam, if they're all equal, nobody can spot any particular problems at all, the issue here is not that you attempt to transfer what is from Islam to somewhere else, which doesn't work because of the different historical developments of different religions, but that when doing so you cast a shadow on Islam to pretend it is impossible to spot any problems with Islam at all.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean everybody must agree with everybody without criticism, do not evade the question I raise to you, my point was that no matter what Skybird says it must be regarded as Islamophobia, even if the same is said at the Economist article, because Skybird has his mind made up, and apparently, so does the Economist and all the anti-Islam rhetoricals.

Please point a source you would agree with, mabe you are unaware, maybe every single Canadian socialist is an Islam-allied multi-culturalist, but in Europe there is a new breed of socialists rising against Islam, a truly progressive attitude, because for them it is not sufficient to be anti-fascist, it is necessary to be anti-totalitarian, just like their comrades of yesterday slowly rose against Stalinism. Then if you ditched Canada for Europe you would perhaps feel more comfortable hearing EXACTLY THE SAME words Skybird says comming from the mouth of a progressive socialist. The mere existance of these socialists means there are facts and the truth out there which should pass through any ideological glasses. "Quelle Éducation face au radicalisme religieux" is written by one of them, that's why I suggested it twice. Today any critic of Islam is ostracized as an anti-Islam rethorical Islamophobe, tomorrow the situation will be the reverse, as happened with Stalinism.

I'm not the one going to accuse you of "not getting it". But re-read your last paragraph please.

Some posts ago the Avon Lady and Skybird have demonstrated that the most dangerous Muslims, the terrorists, even according to the Al-Qaeda manual, will behave in such a perfectly normal secular manner that you would never know your neighbor is about to blow a Bus tomorrow filled not only with white-man, but a complete random segment of the population, Muslims included.

By the time you judge his terrorist action, it will be too late, you will never see it comming. The less dangerous Muslim, the one who will vote in a referendum for Sharia, might also not allow you to see it coming, but then what good is judging their honor-murdering when there's no longer any legal criminal punishment for such a thing?

[The Avon Lady]

Then why do you attempt to discard and disregard Jihad Watch?
Because, like Skybird, they have no interest in debating the issue.
Ignorance is bliss. This is blatantly false. Try searching JW for words like "debate." Robert Spencer begs for moderate Muslims to prove him wrong. So far, they have not succeeded and have either left the debate with points unanswered or with undefinitive answers that do not negate Islamist's positions.

You have a very wrong perception of the people behind JW.

[gabeeg]

I really have no problem with what the Archbishop said...actually it was very Christian of him, much easier for me to swallow than the old testament retribution most "Evangelicals" espouse here in the States.

Now I am just waiting for the first Imam or Ulema to pronounce that the terrorists have it all wrong, that the Koran states that peace and mercy are the greatest goods and they should be giving their western brothers hugs and kisses to each cheek....or at least a dual strategy of slaughter and hugs....Waiting...Still waiting...(wonder if I will be waiting long?).

[scandium]

If you asked me, it is you who is avoiding the debate

Odd that you say this, given that I've been debating this for months now and have responded, I believe, to everyone who's remarked on one of my posts. Of course, as is evident from this comment and Skybird's and AL's repeated assertions that I "dodge certain questions" and what not, I have to point out that it is usually 3 or 4 posts at a time in these threads to respond to, many of them lengthy, and its simple fact that I have other things to do in my life than respond to every single point in every single post. But I do address many, and I do engage in debate.


whenever anything is posted about Islam, the first thing you do is search for a comparison with Christianity or religion in general that would transfer the problem elsewhere

A blatant misunderstanding and/or mischaracterization of what I do. What I do, sometimes, is compare/contrast Christianity and Islam to prove that the specifice attack on Islam is not something that is unique to Islam, so why single it out?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean everybody must agree with everybody without criticism, do not evade the question I raise to you, my point was that no matter what Skybird says it must be regarded as Islamophobia, even if the same is said at the Economist article, because Skybird has his mind made up, and apparently, so does the Economist and all the anti-Islam rhetoricals.

There is no "must", I characterize it as Islamophobia because I believe it fits. And this is my opinion, not an absolute truth. If it were an absolute truth we wouldn't be having these discussions.

Please point a source you would agree with, mabe you are unaware, maybe every single Canadian socialist is an Islam-allied multi-culturalist

Nice strawman.

but in Europe there is a new breed of socialists rising against Islam, a truly progressive attitude, because for them it is not sufficient to be anti-fascist, it is necessary to be anti-totalitarian, just like their comrades of yesterday slowly rose against Stalinism.

Left-wing progressive movements are fundamentally opposed to any form of theocratic totalitariasm, whether they are Islamic, Christian, or whatever else. Incidentally Canada is very progressive, very secular, and very multi-cultural. These are harmonious policies.

Today any critic of Islam is ostracized as an anti-Islam rethorical Islamophobe, tomorrow the situation will be the reverse, as happened with Stalinism.

Another strawman. I tend to ignore the moderate and justified criticisms of Islam because all too often the thread soon crosses the line from moderate and justified to radical and hysterical and I'll not allign myself with that.


Some posts ago the Avon Lady and Skybird have demonstrated that the most dangerous Muslims, the terrorists, even according to the Al-Qaeda manual, will behave in such a perfectly normal secular manner that you would never know your neighbor is about to blow a Bus tomorrow filled not only with white-man, but a complete random segment of the population, Muslims included. There is truth in this, and there are hundreds of millions more who will not. There are also non-Muslims who will appear perfectly ordinary until they one day snap and go on their killing spree.

I don't live my life in fear of what the odd lunatic may do, whether motivated by religious exploitation or by putting up with abuse every day at his ****ty job. And statistics indicate there is no reason to live in fear of this. That's not to say that both phenomena aren't social problems that need to be addressed, but you're not going to find the solution for either in the Koran or any other religious book.

The less dangerous Muslim, the one who will vote in a referendum for Sharia, might also not allow you to see it coming, but then what good is judging their honor-murdering when there's no longer any legal criminal punishment for such a thing?

Here in Canada Sharia cannot be imposed by a referendum, and that is precisely the kind of fear mongering and hysteria that I keep talking about.

[scandium]

1. Is this ban intended only in Western countries or worldwide?

1. Each country must decide. Of course, the less unity in such a decision will be to Islam's advatange. Let Islamic countries remain Islamic but crush them if they try to export Islam to countries in which it has been banned. BTW, the forbiddence by infidels of Muslims to practice their faith in an infidel country or denying them to proselytize amongst infidels is grounds for Jihad. That's just a heads-up.

A couple questions:

a. I assume by "export" you mean exported by an Islamic state? And by "crush", do you then mean the state exporting it should be anhilated? Seeking clarification by the way, I'm not out to put words in your mouth.


2. What form would this ban take? Banning public Worship? Banning sales of the Koran? Banning the private practice of Islam? Banning any articles or forms of dress associated with the religion?

2. The ban would be against any individuals and institutions affiliated with authentic Islam. Lots of problems defining the scope of this ban. Dress alone is irrelevant. The most anti-violent Muslim may easily be the most modest.

How do you determine, in pragmatic terms, those who are authentic, and what then do you do with them? Also, how do you keep tabs on those who are not but may become authentic?


3. How would you identify those who practice Islam from those who do not?

3. This is the biggest problem. No simple answer. And they're as cunning as the devil (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012155.php). My apologies for directing you to Jihad Watch but I'll bet your morning paper didn't mention much of that or tossed it onto the page after the funnies and obituaries. They're employing natural camouflage techniques (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012076.php), too. Oops. Another JW article. Actually, they're both not JW articles. They're essentially links to mainstream media articles. We'll, I suppose they're all Islamophobes, too.

This goes back to what I wrote above, and the question is not how they conceal their religion, but how - with this in mind - you identify them.



4. What form of punishment would you use against the violators who do not forsake their religion but merely take it underground?

4. Parachute drop into the Arabian desert or a more practical form of deportation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't see deportation as a problem for recent immigrants who are not citizens. However, does this mean you are willing to strip those who are citizens of their host country of their citizenship? And if its their only form of citizenship (ie: 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation immigrans), where do you deport them. And do you also deport their spouses and children?

At any rate, its an interesting discussion so far and - as I said before, within this discussion accept it as a premise that I agree with your feelings on Islam, and thus I will not be making any comments in it about JW or Islamophobia.

[TteFAboB]

That's not to say that both phenomena aren't social problems that need to be addressed, but you're not going to find the solution for either in the Koran or any other religious book.

What about the cause, motivation or justification?

Here in Canada Sharia cannot be imposed by a referendum, and that is precisely the kind of fear mongering and hysteria that I keep talking about.

You have just strawmanned yourself.

Completely evaded the question. There are places where Sharia can be imposed by referendum, but why not the parliament itself changing the law? That's how it starts, first come demands for public jobs, presence in public councils and from there the demands start growing in ambition. It took only 15 years for Islam to become a powerfull force comming out of masked insignificance. There were radical Imams 15 years ago, there were extremists 15 years ago, but nobody listened to them, so nobody cared for them including non-Muslims, it would be hysteria and fear mongering to see them as a threat, even if they were the expression of totalitarism. Muslims didn't ostracized them, so nobody else did it either, and here we are.

Just because you don't see the threat around your neighborhood it doesn't mean Islamists won't or aren't working to bring you one in the future.

EDIT: Forgot the link for those with short memory: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008074.php From Jihad Watch with love.

[Skybird]

Anyone remembering Sire Uri from Battlestar Galactica? He lived quite a comfortable life in the middle of that mess they were in.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9634/uri2vd.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

"We need to understand our assistance to their enemies must have been a provocation for them. It is about time now that we send a signal of peace to the Cylons - it is time that we lay down our weapons and disarm the fleet."

-----

Sorry, but it is impossible for me to take scandium serious any longer. after all these long posts of his - he still does not deliver. Only bubblegum that alraedy has been used.

He reminds me of too many psychologists and pedagogics I happened to must have meet with. They too all all too often got drunk of their own intellect, and turned abstract theories into intellectual dogmas without ever making them object to reliability- or validity-tests. That way, they replaced reality with their own mental constructions. And since they are the creators of these artificial constructions, they conclude they understand relaity better than anyone else.

From the Times today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24392-2261812,00.html
From the Brussel Journal today:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1166

[bradclark1]

Saudi textbooks preach intolerance, hate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13804825/

Jews and Christians are "enemies" of Muslims. Every religion other than Islam is "false."
"The hour of Judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.""It's taught that Christians and Jews are the enemy of the Muslim," says Shea. "And that the Muslim must wage jihad in order to spread the faith in battle against the infidel."

[scandium]

That's not to say that both phenomena aren't social problems that need to be addressed, but you're not going to find the solution for either in the Koran or any other religious book.
What about the cause, motivation or justification?
That also needs to be considered.

Here in Canada Sharia cannot be imposed by a referendum, and that is precisely the kind of fear mongering and hysteria that I keep talking about.
You have just strawmanned yourself.

Completely evaded the question. There are places where Sharia can be imposed by referendum, but why not the parliament itself changing the law?
Because Sharia law is not compatible with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or our Criminal Code. Modifications to these would involve much more than an act of parliment, and even in parliment it would require a majority vote which it would never get and if it did, would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

EDIT: Forgot the link for those with short memory: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008074.php From Jihad Watch with love.
Odd that you bring this up, and I was actually in Ontario in 1991/92 when this happened. Here, in more detail was what transpired: the courts at that time were so backed up that it was often taking years for people in Ontario to be tried. As one of our fundamental rights is to a speedy trial, the courts ruled that anyone who hadn't been brought to trial within two years (I believe it was) had had their rights violated and the state had to let them go. Their was public outrage because thousands of people were, in effect, given amnesty and let go, many of them on charges for very serious crimes.

Anyway the provincial government decided, for expedience and to clear the mountain of cases that were pending in the courts, to allow religious leaders (not just Muslims, but religious leaders of any faith) to perform the role of court arbitors in civil cases - but only within a limited range of civil disputes and with many conditions applying, such as that both parties had to agree to this form of arbitration, the result had to be in compliance with our Criminal Code which religious law was not above or a substitute for, and any party not satisfied with the outcome was free to appeal to a civil court.

This was a 14 year experiment that ended when the Premier of that province decided that, being a secular society governed by secular laws, it was time to end this experiment with one law, our secular laws, hence forth being the only law of Ontario.

Its worth pointing out to that even given the very narrow range and power of "Sharia law" in arbitrating civil disputes it was an extremely contentious issue that led to much outrage, protests, and studies. The matter is now considered resolved, and this issue has been put to bed. There will be no more Sharia law in Canada, anywhere, in any form.

[The Avon Lady]

1. Is this ban intended only in Western countries or worldwide?

1. Each country must decide. Of course, the less unity in such a decision will be to Islam's advatange. Let Islamic countries remain Islamic but crush them if they try to export Islam to countries in which it has been banned. BTW, the forbiddence by infidels of Muslims to practice their faith in an infidel country or denying them to proselytize amongst infidels is grounds for Jihad. That's just a heads-up.

A couple questions:

a. I assume by "export" you mean exported by an Islamic state?
No, by the Mormons. :roll: What were you thinking?
And by "crush", do you then mean the state exporting it should be anhilated?
Do what it takes to stop it. As far as I'm concerned, spreading an ideology to eventually overtake a country's government, legal system and people is an act of law. Respond accordingly, whatever it takes. This may include non-combative operations, such as a million pig paradrop. :hmm: Be creative.

2. What form would this ban take? Banning public Worship? Banning sales of the Koran? Banning the private practice of Islam? Banning any articles or forms of dress associated with the religion?
2. The ban would be against any individuals and institutions affiliated with authentic Islam. Lots of problems defining the scope of this ban. Dress alone is irrelevant. The most anti-violent Muslim may easily be the most modest.
How do you determine, in pragmatic terms, those who are authentic, and what then do you do with them? Also, how do you keep tabs on those who are not but may become authentic?
That's the 64,000 dollar question. I'll quote one of many articles written by JihadWatch (sorry! sorry! sorry!) VP Hugh Fitzgerald:
At this point some will prefer -- since there is no solution that we find "thinkable" -- not to think about anything, and to go back to the previous state of denial. Just pretend that somehow things will work out. Pretend that Islam is not what it is. Pretend that the spicy lamb with cumin you were served at a Mosque Outreach Iftar is all ye know about Islam, and all ye need to know. Umm, the food. Umm, Muslims can be so nice, so soft-spoken, so hospitable. And that chicken with pita! No, there will have to be something a bit more substantive about the tenets of Islam. But if one really knew what Islam contained, as not all Muslims born or raised in the West may quite realize, then how could any decent person remain a Muslim? Hard to explain the hold of this belief-system on so many who cannot, out of some kind of diseased loyalty, insist on standing up for it. They needn't.

The solution is to stop all Muslim migration to the Lands of the Infidels, and wherever possible, to reverse it. This can be done by taking care to ruthlessly enforce the immigration laws when it comes to those who, by virtue of their beliefs, are not unreasonably deemed to constitute a group that supports, actively or passively, those who do not wish this or any Infidel country well, in its laws, customs, manners, understandings, and will work, are required as a duty to work, for the triumph of Islam --and hence for changing those laws, those customs, those manners, those understandings.

And along with it, in ways little and big, the country can be Islam-proofed the way a house is child-proofed. Instead of letting the Saudis buy land and build mosques, and paying for the upkeep and the staffing of those mosques, let them be monitored so that no foreign money, or any money judged tainted, can be used to pay for mosques or madrasas. Monitor what is said in khutbas. At the first sign of hate-preaching, do not merely be satisfied if a congregation removes the current imam. Close the mosque. Put everyone on notice that this kind of thing cannot go on. Nor can it be allowed in any of the textbooks used in madrasas. Close any madrasa that makes allusion to smiting the Unbelievers. Since the division between Believer and Infidel is so central to Islam, and since the Jihad is a virtual "sixth pillar" of Islam, it should not be hard to find ways to limit the spread or practice of Islam. And if in addition to whatever local, state and federal government officials do, private parties simply conduct their own boycott of goods and services offered by Muslims, in the same way that they would have refused to buy, in 1938, a German Voigtlander camera, or in 1953, to buy Baltic amber from the Soviet government's official trading-with-the-West ministry, Vneshtorg or something like it. Why should one buy an oriental rug, or dates, or curry powder, from people whose presence, in merely swelling Muslim ranks, will inevitably swell Muslim political power -- which, in turn, makes the lives of Infidels, in the end, more insecure?

If people born into Islam are at long last free to investigate fully what Islam is all about, and having done so, they still insist on remaining loyal to Islam, there is no reason for Infidels to support or indulge them on some specious theory that Islam cannot really teach what it teaches, and that adherents of Islam cannot possibly want what they are taught, according to Islam, to want: the spread of Islam, and the submission of all non-Muslims to, at best, the status assigned them in Islam of dhimmi.

Why should we tolerate this? On what theory? On what grounds?

(From: Fitzgerald: On integrating Muslims in the West (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008827.php).


3. How would you identify those who practice Islam from those who do not?

3. This is the biggest problem. No simple answer. And they're as cunning as the devil (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012155.php). My apologies for directing you to Jihad Watch but I'll bet your morning paper didn't mention much of that or tossed it onto the page after the funnies and obituaries. They're employing natural camouflage techniques (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012076.php), too. Oops. Another JW article. Actually, they're both not JW articles. They're essentially links to mainstream media articles. We'll, I suppose they're all Islamophobes, too.
This goes back to what I wrote above, and the question is not how they conceal their religion, but how - with this in mind - you identify them.
Again, big tactical problem. I suggest you thoroughly read through the article Defeating Jihad (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010835.php).

4. What form of punishment would you use against the violators who do not forsake their religion but merely take it underground?
4. Parachute drop into the Arabian desert or a more practical form of deportation.
For the purposes of this discussion, I don't see deportation as a problem for recent immigrants who are not citizens. However, does this mean you are willing to strip those who are citizens of their host country of their citizenship?
Absolutely!
And if its their only form of citizenship (ie: 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation immigrans), where do you deport them. And do you also deport their spouses and children?
Again, tactical problem. Yep, families are not broken up. Where should they go to? Frankly, I don't give a damn. Give them as many choices as possible, for all I care.
Its worth pointing out to that even given the very narrow range and power of "Sharia law" in arbitrating civil disputes it was an extremely contentious issue that led to much outrage, protests, and studies. The matter is now considered resolved, and this issue has been put to bed. There will be no more Sharia law in Canada, anywhere, in any form.
Pay attention to what they are saying (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008304.php). They will not stop. Imposing Sharia is an obligation, once Muslims view themselves as being in power. Will it take 20, 50, a 100 years? Who knows! But that's the direction they're heading in. And they will try to expedite the matter with whatever tools they are offered, democracy being one of the strongest.

[scandium]

Avon, let me see if I can sum up your position on how effectively to ban Islam from what you've posted so far here, and the articles you linked, and feel free to make any additions or corrections of course:

1. Any country that attempts to export any form of Islamic ideology must be interpreted as having undertaken an act of war, which must then be responded to with that in mind; all options are on the table in response, including military action and the nuclear option.

2. Muslim emigration to non-Muslim countries must be halted and even reversed. Further, Muslim goods must be boycotted; and in this vein we must become independent of ME oil.

3. Adherents of Islam must be denied entry into our countries, and those already here must be deported; citizenship and family issues are of secondary importance.

I have no comments of my own to make, at this point I am more interested in gaining knowledge of the various problems and solutions that make up this culture clash and your additions here are more food for thought.

[The Avon Lady]

Avon, let me see if I can sum up your position on how effectively to ban Islam from what you've posted so far here, and the articles you linked, and feel free to make any additions or corrections of course:

1. Any country that attempts to export any form of Islamic ideology must be interpreted as having undertaken an act of war, which must then be responded to with that in mind; all options are on the table in response, including military action and the nuclear option.
Nuclear? Who said such a thing? You are indeed puting words into my mouth.

Military action? If the shoe fits.
2. Muslim emigration to non-Muslim countries must be halted and even reversed.
:yep:
Further, Muslim goods must be boycotted;
As long as they actively continue to promote Islam abroad.
and in this vein we must become independent of ME oil.
This is an excellent weapon against Islam. The sooner the better. Obviously it's a good idea for environmental reasons as well. The world should be pursuing a petroleum reduction policy irregardless of who sits on the wells.
3. Adherents of Islam must be denied entry into our countries, and those already here must be deported; citizenship and family issues are of secondary importance.
Yes.

[Skybird]

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2006/06/18/1638909.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/04/010876print.html


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...e-6073a8e6ea19
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0606/p01s02-woam.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...604?hub=Canada (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060603/terror_analysis_060603/20060604?hub=Canada)
http://www.humanist.toronto.on.ca/islam.html
http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/islam.htm

[scandium]

Nuclear? Who said such a thing? You are indeed puting words into my mouth.
No, I was extrapolating from when you said states exporting Islam should be crushed and answered my question as to if you meant "anhilated" by replying "whatever it takes". I took "whatever it takes" to mean military power, if necessary, which unless you draw the line (and you didn't) includes conventional and nuclear capability. And I invited you to correct anything I misunderstood, so there was no intention on my part to put words into your mouth.

and in this vein we must become independent of ME oil.This is an excellent weapon against Islam. The sooner the better. Obviously it's a good idea for environmental reasons as well. The world should be pursuing a petroleum reduction policy irregardless of who sits on the wells. While we disagree on many things, you and I, we do see eye to eye here. For me this is a no brainer, no matter how you feel about Islam and is one issue that everyone from either camp should be able to agree on. My reasons are these:

a. it is morally repugnant to subsidize theocratic dictatorships and the atrocious human rights records that go along with them by buying their goods (minus the theocratic element, a similar case could be made for China but that is another topic);

b. dependence on a resource so critical to our own economy provides strong incentive to our governments to repeatedly intervene in these regions with the sole purpose of "stabilizing" the supply of this resource, and these interventions have long term unintended consequences that more often than not are to our own detriment (blowback);

c. Climate change is an established scientific fact, the debate is over, and fossil fuels are a major contributor to this phenomena; further, we are long past the point of peak oil and the longer we remain dependent on it and dependent upon foreign sources the more vulnerable we become to increasingly severe price shocks and turmoil within our own economies and all that depends on it.

d. Lastly, there are many competitors for this dwindling resource and not all of them have a history of cordial relations toward one another. China, in particular, is every bit as dependent on fossil fuels as we are while having an ever increasing thirst that in the coming decades will become unquenchable; if we are still as dependent on it as they are, then an energy war is a near certainty (this is decades away yet, and not a certainty by any stretch if common sense should ever prevail by developing and making extensive use of alternative energy first).

[scandium]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/04/010876print.html

From the article:

"The Province of Quebec has its own immigration policy at present. That policy does not, however, threaten only Quebec. For those immigrants, once they have been admitted to Quebec, then become citizens not of the province, but of Canada itself. And they can move freely anywhere in Canada. Thus does an immigration policy fashioned for reasons of Quebec nationalism threaten the safety of Canadians in Alberta or British Columbia. Should this not be a matter for all Canadians to discuss?"

And now the facts:

"The Québec and federal governments share jurisdiction with respect to immigration.
Québec is responsible for selecting immigrants wishing to settle within its territory and who will enter the labour market. Canada is responsible for their admission."

http://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/anglais/immigration/permanent-worker/selection-admission.html

I'm not even going to get into the rest of the JW article, but this illustrates well how they twist, omit, and distort the facts to comform to whatever slant they want to push. :roll:

As to JW's last point, almost every other province in Canada has a similar partnership of their own on immigration that's known as the Provincial Nomination program - but none of them, including Quebec, have the final say on immigration.

Edit: I'll take an objective look at the other articles you posted Skybird, and I'll try and keep and open mind.

[TteFAboB]

Water can carve the most solid of the rocks given enough time and energy.

Its worth pointing out to that even given the very narrow range and power of "Sharia law" in arbitrating civil disputes it was an extremely contentious issue that led to much outrage, protests, and studies. The matter is now considered resolved, and this issue has been put to bed. There will be no more Sharia law in Canada, anywhere, in any form.

Let's analyze this again.

It was the Canadians who chose to create special courts, and when Muslims demanded to have their own piece of the pie, all hell broke loose, and the Canadian Guv'nor rolled back.

What do we see here? We see the whole point of the Islamic threat in Europe. Can I write it in caps to pretend I'm screaming or speaking loudly?

ISLAM IS NO THREAT ALONE, BY ITSELF!

Islam is a threat in Europe because Europeans believe there will be no more Sharia law in Europe, anywhere, in any form, ever again and so they are not vigilant nor care about it. It's all paranoia, Islamophobia and hysteria.

However, there are other Europeans who back the Islamic Sharia. It is the alliance of Europeans and Islam that makes Islam a threat. If you remove the European allies or Islam the alliance is broken either way and Islam becomes powerless, harmless as it was decades ago, back to the cryogenic sleeper state, back to hiding under the Persian carpet.

Islam is only a threat when too many, too influencial, too brainwashing or too malevolent Canadians decide to adopt Islam as a rather dangerous pet.

You are right when you say Islam won't ever implement Sharia in Canada. They won't. Unless 80% of the population becomes Muslim. It's going to be the Canadians, the Premier, the parliament, the prime-minister, the Queen, the secular, the rational, your neighbor.

[The Avon Lady]

Nuclear? Who said such a thing? You are indeed puting words into my mouth.
No, I was extrapolating from when you said states exporting Islam should be crushed and answered my question as to if you meant "anhilated" by replying "whatever it takes". I took "whatever it takes" to mean military power, if necessary, which unless you draw the line (and you didn't) includes conventional and nuclear capability. And I invited you to correct anything I misunderstood, so there was no intention on my part to put words into your mouth.
Fine.
and in this vein we must become independent of ME oil.This is an excellent weapon against Islam. The sooner the better. Obviously it's a good idea for environmental reasons as well. The world should be pursuing a petroleum reduction policy irregardless of who sits on the wells. While we disagree on many things, you and I, we do see eye to eye here. For me this is a no brainer, no matter how you feel about Islam and is one issue that everyone from either camp should be able to agree on. My reasons are these:

a. it is morally repugnant to subsidize theocratic dictatorships and the atrocious human rights records that go along with them by buying their goods (minus the theocratic element, a similar case could be made for China but that is another topic);

b. dependence on a resource so critical to our own economy provides strong incentive to our governments to repeatedly intervene in these regions with the sole purpose of "stabilizing" the supply of this resource, and these interventions have long term unintended consequences that more often than not are to our own detriment (blowback);

c. Climate change is an established scientific fact, the debate is over, and fossil fuels are a major contributor to this phenomena; further, we are long past the point of peak oil and the longer we remain dependent on it and dependent upon foreign sources the more vulnerable we become to increasingly severe price shocks and turmoil within our own economies and all that depends on it.

d. Lastly, there are many competitors for this dwindling resource and not all of them have a history of cordial relations toward one another. China, in particular, is every bit as dependent on fossil fuels as we are while having an ever increasing thirst that in the coming decades will become unquenchable; if we are still as dependent on it as they are, then an energy war is a near certainty (this is decades away yet, and not a certainty by any stretch if common sense should ever prevail by developing and making extensive use of alternative energy first).
Agree 95%. I remain neutral about the cause of global warming but it makes no difference with regard to fossil fuel utilization for all the other reasons that you've given, in addition to the known environmental impact issues even without consideration to global warming.

[The Avon Lady]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/04/010876print.html

From the article:

"The Province of Quebec has its own immigration policy at present. That policy does not, however, threaten only Quebec. For those immigrants, once they have been admitted to Quebec, then become citizens not of the province, but of Canada itself. And they can move freely anywhere in Canada. Thus does an immigration policy fashioned for reasons of Quebec nationalism threaten the safety of Canadians in Alberta or British Columbia. Should this not be a matter for all Canadians to discuss?"

And now the facts:

"The Québec and federal governments share jurisdiction with respect to immigration.
Québec is responsible for selecting immigrants wishing to settle within its territory and who will enter the labour market. Canada is responsible for their admission."

http://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/anglais/immigration/permanent-worker/selection-admission.html
JW does not contradict the facts. You may wish to call it semi-independent immigration policy but it is NOT the equivalent of federal policy in the other provinces.

And then the question is how much oversight does the non-Quebecian federal authorities apply or do they more often than not rubber stamp what the Quebecian government views as their necessary immigration needs?

Jihad Watch is not twisting the facts. It's pointing out an obvious hole in the fence. Furthermore, this is one of the last points of concern stated in the JW article. What about every said before this point? Or shall we throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say?
[quote]I'm not even going to get into the rest of the JW article, but this illustrates well how they twist, omit, and distort the facts to comform to whatever slant they want to push. :roll:
:nope:

It shows how hard you will look for flippant excuses to deride anything JW states.
As to JW's last point, almost every other province in Canada has a similar partnership of their own on immigration that's known as the Provincial Nomination program - but none of them, including Quebec, have the final say on immigration.
Rubberstamping. Rubberstamping. This is what happens when you let bureaucrats shift their workloads onto others.

[Skybird]

"Was hat er denn jetzt schon wieder?" Can't add much myself to what AL said.Wasn't it also you, Scandium, or do I mix you up with another guy, who said some weeks ago that he cannot see Western societies being under increasing influence by sharia laws - because so far not one parliament has started a debate on how to implement it? With that kind of logic, you will not reach far. It's the typical bureaucrat-thinking: if something is not said on a piece of paper with a stamp on it, it does not exist.

[aaken]

Wasn't it also you, Scandium, or do I mix you up with another guy, who said some weeks ago that he cannot see Western societies being under increasing influence by sharia laws - because so far not one parliament has started a debate on how to implement it?
I don't know if Scandium said it as well, but definitely I did.

[Skybird]

I withdraw my statement above and apologize, then. But as I indicated, this time I was not 100% sure about Scandium anyway.

[scandium]

It was the Canadians who chose to create special courts, and when Muslims demanded to have their own piece of the pie, all hell broke loose, and the Canadian Guv'nor rolled back.
They were not courts, the whole point was to reduce some of the load on the court system by allowing religious leaders to arbitrate some civil disputes that would otherwise be handled by the courts.

As to all hell breaking lose, it began when the government had to let thousands of possible criminals go because they had underfunded the justice system to the point that the trial system had essentially collapsed.

Sharia was the straw that broke the camel's back, although many were very much opposed to seeing religious leaders of any stripe being granted the role of arbiter in our secular society, Sharia and its connotations was something everyone could rally against and it became the poster child for the opposition movement to this style of arbitration. And when one looks at countries that do have Sharia, the opposition to it is legitimate and well founded, no matter how "defanged" our own particularly mild form of it that was permitted. It is a slippery slope and the wrong direction to go. And, by the way, I was one of the ones who opposed this form of arbitration, though my opposition wasn't limited to Sharia; I simply felt religion and the state are things to be kept separate and Sharia was tangible proof of what happens when you allow the two to mix.

What do we see here? We see the whole point of the Islamic threat in Europe. Can I write it in caps to pretend I'm screaming or speaking loudly?
There is no need for caps, no. Sharia is not a thing that belongs in any Western country (or any other for that matter) and if Europeans feel they are in danger of it being implemented than its entirely reasonable that they take appropriate measures to prevent this from happening.

Islam is a threat in Europe because Europeans believe there will be no more Sharia law in Europe, anywhere, in any form, ever again and so they are not vigilant nor care about it. It's all paranoia, Islamophobia and hysteria.
If they are in danger of Sharia being implemented, then it is neither Islamophobia nor hysteria; it is a legitimate concern. If they are in no danger of this happening, then perhaps they are paranoid. I don't know, to be honest. I will allow though that it is a legitimate discussion that belongs in both the private and the political sphere and that if this can happen there, then measures need to be undertaken to ensure it cannot happen.

However, there are other Europeans who back the Islamic Sharia. It is the alliance of Europeans and Islam that makes Islam a threat. If you remove the European allies or Islam the alliance is broken either way and Islam becomes powerless, harmless as it was decades ago, back to the cryogenic sleeper state, back to hiding under the Persian carpet.
Point taken.

Islam is only a threat when too many, too influencial, too brainwashing or too malevolent Canadians decide to adopt Islam as a rather dangerous pet.
If you're referring to Ontario's 14 year experiment in religious arbitration, then you are citing the wrong factors as none of those things were involved. If you're not, then having already allowed a limited form of Sharia in one province before abolishing religious arbitration, I would say we are Sharia proof in part because our experiment with the limited form put it on trial here where the discussion and the studies have already taken place and the awareness has already been raised. Then there is the fact that full blown Sharia would violate our Charter of Rights and freedoms which is the supreme immutable law of the land in Canada that trumps all legislation.

You are right when you say Islam won't ever implement Sharia in Canada. They won't. Unless 80% of the population becomes Muslim. It's going to be the Canadians, the Premier, the parliament, the prime-minister, the Queen, the secular, the rational, your neighbor.
Do you believe this is a likely scenario? I don't, and the facts bear this out: 77.1% of Canadians are Christian, 17% have no religious affiliation, and only 6.3% are affiliated with other religions of which category Islam is among (along with Satanism, Wicca, Buddhism, etc).

In terms of natural population growth, the fastest growing demographic group in Canada are the aboriginal peoples. We rely more on immigration, however, but these come from all parts of the world: Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia and New Zealand, the U.S., Mexico, South America, and the Middle East. Many of those regions are not known for their Muslim populations, and as poverty is a fact of life for many of them and as travel from Africa or the Middle East to Canada is not cheap, we attract far fewer Muslims than does Europe which is closer and more accessable.

Now then, all of that aside, to impose Sharia they would not only need to take control of Parliment but also the Supreme Court of Canada (which can overturn any legislation that is not in conformance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), and there may still be other barriers as well. Based on the above this is about as likely as Parliment being taken over by immigrants from Alpha Centauri.

[SUBMAN1]

Wow! Is this thread still going on?

[SUBMAN1]

What is the solution to the problem of Islam? There isn't a politically correct answer for that problem and you know it.
I agree. Simple solution - buy yourself a big gun and get ready to use it. I have an extra if you have $$$.

-S

PS. Bible says you should arm yourself for the end of time. I suggest you follow that advice! :)

[SUBMAN1]

Come on..everyone is the enemy?...Being a "Born Again" Christian, I don't look at people not "Born Again" as the enemy but as potential harvest...:)...Christianity teaches...if you read it yourself CB....which I suggest you do so you would know what the Bible really says and you would find throughout a resounding theme..."Love"....love does not demand it's own way...is longsuffering bears all in silence.It is written in the bible I read Christ came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance....at the end of the last book of the Bible it Clearly says...Let him that is holy be holy still,he that is whole let him be whole still,he that is evil let him be evil still.Free Will has been Gods command from the Begining to the End my friend."Born Again" Christians believe a way back to the grace of God was provided by Jesus Christ and any who "Choose" to pick up there cross and follow the way that was shown by Christ will have life eternal in paradise...Paid in full by blood and body of the Son of God Himself.....no one is supposed to force anyone and can't...it is a personal choice and those who choose another path are pitied not despised by Christians but hey...it is there choice...hell never closes.

Every tree is known by it's fruit so is a church or a person. You decide what is right. nuff said really---

Agreed. Only problem is, Islamic solution to a Christian conversion is death.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Saudi textbooks preach intolerance, hate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13804825/
Jews and Christians are "enemies" of Muslims. Every religion other than Islam is "false."
"The hour of Judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.""It's taught that Christians and Jews are the enemy of the Muslim," says Shea. "And that the Muslim must wage jihad in order to spread the faith in battle against the infidel."

Book of revelation clearly states that this will actually come to pass, and they will fail against the Jews who are gods choosen people. No harm will come to Isreal in the end of time because they will become impregnatable. The chariots of fire still have to come about though. I assume this is a tank with a laser weapon. Could be just a modern day tank however. Regardless anyone who tried anything against Isreal will be killed with no hope of suceeding. The wall they talk about (imagine that - it is already under construction, yet how did they know about it 2000 years ago?) will be completed. The birds that will be destroyed (gutted from the inside out) in the end of time are probably unmanned aerial fighting vehicles.

So quite frankly, I don't have any fear of what will come of one of our allies in the East - it is already written. Islam will already fail and this was already written before Islam even had a foothold. This is one way to prove that Islamic religion is false or lacking in that it does not have such a detailed account of the end of time. It is very vague, but anyone can be very vague.

Now the bad news - The US of A will eventually fail. Even though it was listed as the seventh head of the beast, and has risen up to near world dominance without crossing a single border, and it has also satisfied its mark for being the richest country the world will ever known since ancient empires don't even come close, it is doomed due to the 8th (not a head, but representing self indulgence) - the gluttoney of itself - ie. money grubbing Our Enrons and Worldcoms, and Tyco will kill it. The merchants on the sea will cry for they have no where left to sell their wares and no way to make a living (Chineese I assume). Problem is, when is this supposed to happen? It is not too far off. 20 years? 50 years? Even 100? I assume between 20 to 50 years.

Anyway, I'll quit babbeling now.

-S

PS. Little did we know that the Unions in the end of time that cause the most trouble would turn out to be corporate unions like the RIAA and MPAA.

[Iceman]

Come on..everyone is the enemy?...Being a "Born Again" Christian, I don't look at people not "Born Again" as the enemy but as potential harvest...:)...Christianity teaches...if you read it yourself CB....which I suggest you do so you would know what the Bible really says and you would find throughout a resounding theme..."Love"....love does not demand it's own way...is longsuffering bears all in silence.It is written in the bible I read Christ came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance....at the end of the last book of the Bible it Clearly says...Let him that is holy be holy still,he that is whole let him be whole still,he that is evil let him be evil still.Free Will has been Gods command from the Begining to the End my friend."Born Again" Christians believe a way back to the grace of God was provided by Jesus Christ and any who "Choose" to pick up there cross and follow the way that was shown by Christ will have life eternal in paradise...Paid in full by blood and body of the Son of God Himself.....no one is supposed to force anyone and can't...it is a personal choice and those who choose another path are pitied not despised by Christians but hey...it is there choice...hell never closes.

Every tree is known by it's fruit so is a church or a person. You decide what is right. nuff said really---

Agreed. Only problem is, Islamic solution to a Christian conversion is death.

-S

Exactly....Christians say turn the cheek...Muslims appear to say kill em all if they are not with us and Jews hold true to strict law....all 3 are opposite an Can Not Ever see eye to eye...the Christian awaits the return of Jesus to put it right...The Muslim attemtps to kill everyone into submission and really I am not sure what the Jew is doing.. :) According to Christian scripture the Jews have a veil over there eyes at the moment hiding the truth from them until a time appointed...

Christian belief has an answer....those who choose life will go with God those who choose death will go to a wormy exsistence...either way what can be learned is that there will never never never be peace until all beliefs go there seperate ways...which this is not the movie 2010 where some new worlds will be made so each belief can go there way...it has to end before it can begin again. :)

A storm is coming...
http://www.jsu.edu/news/july_dec2004/Night%20Storm%20From%20Lake%20-%20June%202003%20-0015A.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Come on..everyone is the enemy?...Being a "Born Again" Christian, I don't look at people not "Born Again" as the enemy but as potential harvest...:)...Christianity teaches...if you read it yourself CB....which I suggest you do so you would know what the Bible really says and you would find throughout a resounding theme..."Love"....love does not demand it's own way...is longsuffering bears all in silence.It is written in the bible I read Christ came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance....at the end of the last book of the Bible it Clearly says...Let him that is holy be holy still,he that is whole let him be whole still,he that is evil let him be evil still.Free Will has been Gods command from the Begining to the End my friend."Born Again" Christians believe a way back to the grace of God was provided by Jesus Christ and any who "Choose" to pick up there cross and follow the way that was shown by Christ will have life eternal in paradise...Paid in full by blood and body of the Son of God Himself.....no one is supposed to force anyone and can't...it is a personal choice and those who choose another path are pitied not despised by Christians but hey...it is there choice...hell never closes.

Every tree is known by it's fruit so is a church or a person. You decide what is right. nuff said really---
Agreed. Only problem is, Islamic solution to a Christian conversion is death.

-S
Exactly....Christians say turn the cheek...Muslims appear to say kill em all if they are not with us and Jews hold true to strict law....all 3 are opposite an Can Not Ever see eye to eye...the Christian awaits the return of Jesus to put it right...The Muslim attemtps to kill everyone into submission and really I am not sure what the Jew is doing.. :) According to Christian scripture the Jews have a veil over there eyes at the moment hiding the truth from them until a time appointed...

Christian belief has an answer....those who choose life will go with God those who choose death will go to a wormy exsistence...either way what can be learned is that there will never never never be peace until all beliefs go there seperate ways...which this is not the movie 2010 where some new worlds will be made so each belief can go there way...it has to end before it can begin again. :)

A storm is coming...


Cool pic! Anyway, yeah - Islam must use scare tactics to scare people into following a set path. I think I would choose death instead of worshipping and serving a tyrant god. That is the difference. A god who cares about my existance is the only way, not a do or else god. I feel very sorry for Islamists. They follow a false path of your damned if you do, and your damned if you don't, and in the end you are damned anyway. That is why it is easy for jhadiists to recruit suicide bombers by pointing out that a lifetime of doing rights to correct the list of wrongs is nearly impossible to achieve, and the only way to rectify that is to blow up the infidels which wipes the slate clean (And gives you 72 virgins in heaven! yeah right!). Why die for a tyrant? All this over one man who was not allowed to be a diciple, and he created a violent religion because of it. Was this in spite?

Saw this on Discovery again. Mohammed went his own path when he was not allowed to be a diciple of Jesus. Maybe he saw himself as a prophet in time because that is what he wanted to be. I wish I could remeber the name of this one. It was very interesting as they analyzed Mohammed's life.

-S

[scandium]

JW does not contradict the facts. You may wish to call it semi-independent immigration policy but it is NOT the equivalent of federal policy in the other provinces.
It is not "a semi-independent" immigration policy at all, and it is in fact very similar to the Provincial Nomination systems that other provinces also have. In both cases the province is involved only in the selection process, but the actual application for citizenship is made to the federal level where the power to grant or deny the application solely rests.

From the Government of Canada Immigration website on Provincial Nominations:

Most provinces in Canada have an agreement with the Government of Canada that allows them to play a more direct role in selecting immigrants who wish to settle in that province. If you wish to immigrate to one of Canada’s provinces as a provincial nominee, you must first apply to the province where you wish to settle. The province will consider your application based on their immigration needs and your genuine intention to settle there.

Before applying to immigrate to Canada, provincial nominees must complete the provincial nomination process.

After you have been nominated by a province, you have to make a separate application to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) for permanent residence. A CIC officer will assess your application based on Canadian immigration regulations.



http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/provnom/index.html

Now compare it to the policy with the Canada-Quebec partnership:

The Quebec government and the Government of Canada have an agreement that allows Quebec to select immigrants who best meet its immigration needs. Under the Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration, Quebec is able to establish its own immigration requirements and select immigrants who will adapt well to living in Quebec.

After you have been selected by Quebec, you have to make a separate application to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) for permanent residence. A CIC officer will assess your application based on Canadian immigration regulations.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/quebec/index.html

Notice the similarities?

And then the question is how much oversight does the non-Quebecian federal authorities apply or do they more often than not rubber stamp what the Quebecian government views as their necessary immigration needs?
It is not a matter of oversight or rubber stamping; as I pointed out, the application must ultimately be made to the federal government and there lies the sole power and responsibility for granting or approving it.

All a Provincial Nomination does, and the Canada-Quebec program as well, is grant the applicant a waiver on certain criteria that other applicants must meet. The process is identical otherwise.

Jihad Watch is not twisting the facts.
To again quote JW:

The Province of Quebec has its own immigration policy at present. That policy does not, however, threaten only Quebec. For those immigrants, once they have been admitted to Quebec, then become citizens not of the province, but of Canada itself. And they can move freely anywhere in Canada. Thus does an immigration policy fashioned for reasons of Quebec nationalism threaten the safety of Canadians in Alberta or British Columbia. Should this not be a matter for all Canadians to discuss?
Again, this is simply misleading and factually wrong. Quebec has an arrangement with the federal government that is almost identical to that of many other provinces, and in either of these cases the responsibility and power to approve or deny citizenship lies solely with the Government of Canada.

Finally, I like how they name Alberta and BC as "victims" of Quebec's "unique immigration policy" when in fact both Alberta and BC are partners in the similar Provincial Nomination program, and thus enjoy the same rights as Quebec.

What about every said before this point? Or shall we throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say?
Yes. This time out they make a seriou factual mistake right from the outset, while in other articles people have posted by them I've noticed a tendency (and I've pointed these out before) to distort facts and present things out of context; given this pattern, the significant factual mistake presented here that serves to both distort and to inflame, and that nothing in the article is cited with outside sources I am supposed to accept the rest of it anyway? No, I don't think so.

Rubberstamping. Rubberstamping. This is what happens when you let bureaucrats shift their workloads onto others.
The policy is intended to allow the provinces a voice in our immigration policy, it is not to "shift the workload onto others". And as to the rubberstamping, again under either program mentioned the only difference between them and the regular immigration program is that certain criteria are waived; the rest of the process is identical.

[Skybird]

With lethal precision missing the point.

[Ducimus]

What is the solution to the problem of Islam?
There isn't a politically correct answer for that problem and you know it.

Bingo.

Genocide seems to come to mind, but so does Hitler in the same sentence. Not quite an easy pill to swallow.

The problem i think islam for the most part hasnt cought up with the rest of the world, and are at odds with it. For example, christianty stayed with the current times and abanonded such obsurdity as Trial by ordeal, burning at the stake, or the like. Islam however, has not. Its a religion that, from all outward apperances is stuck in the past. They still call westerners "crusaders" and "infidels", leftover rhetoric from the crusades. That speaks volumes.

Islam must adapt itself to the modern world, or be pushed aside. Plain and simple.

Edit:
I see negative pressure on islam, and lots of it, a good thing. It will force moderates (if any exist) to seperate themselves from the not so moderates. If it doesnt coherse Islam to adapt to modern times, then it will polarize the world against it to take action - either way the problem will be solved.

[VipertheSniper]

With lethal precision missing the point.

No matter if they favor francophone people who are islamic or not, Quebec doesn't have the final say, so it'd be actually the Canadian government at fault.

However, I'd like to see some figures, like how much of the immigrants to Quebec/Canada actually have been muslims? There are no numbers, not even a link to support the myth, of a rapid influx of muslims into Canada... (I know the writer didn't say that, but he's implying just that)

If that article wasn't fearmongering and creating hysteria (it probably wouldn't if it would cite those numbers I've asked for) I don't know whatelse it is.

[Skybird]

Use Google, like I did this afternoon. Figures I found (from Canadian government, so for some they may be trustworthy, for others not) since 2000 show that Ontario has the largest and Quebec the second largest Muslim communities in Canada. Figures also showed that during the last couple of years the total number of Muslims in Canada has doubled. what needs to be known is that the spreading pattern is not euqal everyhwere, and that Muslim colonies tend to build huge accumulation in major towns. So even a smaller group can gain more power in a location than a greater group that is scattered around.

But all that is not contradictory to what is said in that article. Peoiple just need to read it more precisely and at the samr time stop wanting to split hairs. Scnadium seem sto be unaware that most of ehat he has given in argument against that description in that article - is not in contradiction, partially even is supporting it.

Stop looking at single fields, Scandium. Watch the whole board.

This thread becomes worn out. So this thread i leave - exactly here.

[scandium]

With lethal precision missing the point.
No matter if they favor francophone people who are islamic or not, Quebec doesn't have the final say, so it'd be actually the Canadian government at fault.

However, I'd like to see some figures, like how much of the immigrants to Quebec/Canada actually have been muslims? There are no numbers, not even a link to support the myth, of a rapid influx of muslims into Canada... (I know the writer didn't say that, but he's implying just that)

If that article wasn't fearmongering and creating hysteria (it probably wouldn't if it would cite those numbers I've asked for) I don't know whatelse it is.
I did some digging around on Statistics Canada's website, and according to the most recent published census (2001), the population of Muslims in Quebec is 108,620, which is 01.5% of Quebec's population.

Now with that in mind, let's look at another quote from that JihadWatch article:

French Jews who are reported to be more than uneasy might still move to Quebec, but the large-scale presence of Muslims might dissuade them.
Large-scale presence indeed. :roll:

And here is the link to see for yourself by the way, since I don't want you to take my word for it anymore than I'd expect rational, thinking people to take JihadWatch's word (since citing published facts, studies, and statistics would tend to undercut their agenda):

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30b.htm

[Etienne]

Just to clarify how immigration in Canada works - Althought I'm not a lawyer in any sense of the world.

Immigrants apply to the government of Canada, via an embassy or consulate, for visas or citizenship, stuff like that. The government of Canada decides wether they get in or not.

Where the provincial government gets involved is in selection. Suppose Québec needs pharmacists, or nurses. A guy in Ouganda feels like moving to Quebec - Rouyn-Noranda in particular. He can apply to the government of Quebec for selection. Since he's a pharmacist, and his wife is a nurse, and Rouyn can alway use some cultural diversity and immigration, Quebec selects them.

They phone Ottawa, and after twenty minutes of transferring and language problems, they tell each others that So-and-so would be welcome in Quebec. Immigration Canada will waive such thing as checking for profession, abillity to work, I don't know what. Then, they, and they alone, will handle the security checks and related stuff.

I don't see how the JW accound can be said to be factual. But then, I've been told long ago that that site was an unbiased news source, and I don't question what I'm told. Ever.

[VipertheSniper]

Figures I found (from Canadian government, so for some they may be trustworthy, for others not) since 2000 show that Ontario has the largest and Quebec the second largest Muslim communities in Canada. Figures also showed that during the last couple of years the total number of Muslims in Canada has doubled.


I'm asking for absolute numbers, when there was only 1 muslim in Canada it would now be 2, ok it's not like that but an increase by hundred percent, or doubling as you put it just sounds so much more dramatic, doesn't it?

Stop putting a spin to facts here.

[Skybird]

You guys are queer, so before I got to bed, again: read that article again. There is the talk of a PARTY PROGRAM of a Canadian party. And there is the talk of what COULD happen because of that - if that program is made real, eventually. It is not about what already is. Scandium has successfully distracted all attention away from half a dozen other articles, and this article in it's true meaning as well, and has locked it all by pinpointing one single, but not really important sentence, and then clinging to it. He has admitted himself that there are differences between the practices between provinces, and between provinces and the central government. He has written it himself black on white, in an endless stream of words, it seems. The article just sums it up more economically: "that province has a policy of it's own". And by consequence, that is true. Period. What is your problem when most other readers seem to have understood during the first reading what it meant? You are stumbling over your own feed.

Stop staring at one and the same single field hours long. Watch the whole board. A movie is more than just one picture. In fact, in a movie you even cannot perceive the single picture.

And now - really, run this thread without me.

[TteFAboB]

To Scandium.

No I don't believe the population of Canada will ever be 80% Muslim, unless Canadian Muslims hide in a cave, nuke Canada and return once radiation is gone.

That was sarcasm, just in case.

I don't think you are alone when you think the Supreme Court and taking over the Parliament to be too ambitious. Any devouted Islamist thinks just the same. It shouldn't be hard to discover any lesser plans though, there aren't that many Imams and Muslim organizations to keep track of in Canada.

I added secular and neighbor in the end because whatever Islamists do, they can be stopped, countered, or favoured. The Premier in question didn't favoured Islam. What happens the next time a decision has to be made or a policy discussed or implemented, will depend as much on Canadian Muslims as on non-Muslims.

[VipertheSniper]

You guys are queer, so before I got to bed, again: read that article again. There is the talk of a PARTY PROGRAM of a Canadian party. It is not about what already is.

I have to say that the article does a fairly good job of hiding that under the carpet...


When the government of Quebec instituted the policy of favoring francophone immigrants, it did not consider, and was not even thinking about, that larger gulf between Believer and Infidel that is permanent and is more than a matter of nouns and verbs.

So what now, is this policy already in use or not, because the article clearly suggests it is.

[Etienne]

AFAIK, there are already incentive for French-speaking immigrant to move to Quebec. I don't know if the provincial department of immigration has a policy to the effect, but Québec traditionally attracts French speaker because... Well, that's obvious.

Wether the policy would favor the immigration of Muslims, who, AFAIK, aren't in majority French speaking (I mean, there's Morroco, Senegal, Algeria and Tunisia, but otherwise, where do they speak French?), I don't know.

And if it's the party I'm thinking off, Skybird, it's only canadian by geography :lol:

[scandium]

Figures I found (from Canadian government, so for some they may be trustworthy, for others not) since 2000 show that Ontario has the largest and Quebec the second largest Muslim communities in Canada. Figures also showed that during the last couple of years the total number of Muslims in Canada has doubled.

I'm asking for absolute numbers, when there was only 1 muslim in Canada it would now be 2, ok it's not like that but an increase by hundred percent, or doubling as you put it just sounds so much more dramatic, doesn't it?

Stop putting a spin to facts here.

According to the Stats Can website, there are 579,640 Muslims in Canada, or 2% of the population based upon the 2001 census. I don't know by what factor their numbers are increasing, but I do know that since we don't only import Muslims its not reasonable to conclude from a "doubling of their population", as Skybird doubtlessly does, that their proportion of the population will also double; in fact it may remain the same, or even decline. Immigration in Canada is not static and the number of immigrants from different groups varies from year to year.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30b.htm

[VipertheSniper]

Figures I found (from Canadian government, so for some they may be trustworthy, for others not) since 2000 show that Ontario has the largest and Quebec the second largest Muslim communities in Canada. Figures also showed that during the last couple of years the total number of Muslims in Canada has doubled.

I'm asking for absolute numbers, when there was only 1 muslim in Canada it would now be 2, ok it's not like that but an increase by hundred percent, or doubling as you put it just sounds so much more dramatic, doesn't it?

Stop putting a spin to facts here.

According to the Stats Can website, there are 579,640 Muslims in Canada, or 2% of the population based upon the 2001 census. I don't know by what factor their numbers are increasing, but I do know that since we don't only import Muslims its not reasonable to conclude from a "doubling of their population", as Skybird doubtlessly does, that their proportion of the population will also double; in fact it may remain the same, or even decline. Immigration in Canada is not static and the number of immigrants from different groups varies from year to year.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30b.htm

I read that, I was just too lazy to quote your post too...

[scandium]

You guys are queer, so before I got to bed, again: read that article again. There is the talk of a PARTY PROGRAM of a Canadian party.

The party mentioned by the article is actually a provincial party only. They do not campaign outside of Quebec, nor do they run in any federal elections.

And there is the talk of what COULD happen because of that - if that program is made real, eventually.

The program they talk about is already real, they just mischaracterize it completely in order for it to comform to the usual hatred, intolerance, fear, and hysteria that is so rampant on their website. It just happens that in this case they've been caught lying as well.

It is not about what already is. Scandium has successfully distracted all attention away from half a dozen other articles, and this article in it's true meaning as well, and has locked it all by pinpointing one single, but not really important sentence, and then clinging to it.

I only post news articles here from reputable, mainstream sources because they are bound to the journalistic standards of ethics and independent verification, and are also rigorously fact checked by their editorial staff; sometimes they get it wrong anyway but at least the better papers make the effort. JW is a blog, and as such it is not governed by any standards of journalism; additionally, they have an obvious agenda to push and facts seem secondary to them to spin. Of course their readers like you share the same agenda so naturally you dismiss a mistake that formed premise of the article, and one that five minutes of fact checking could have caught - but what do you or JW care about facts? Its the spin that matters right.

He has admitted himself that there are differences between the practices between provinces, and between provinces and the central government. He has written it himself black on white, in an endless stream of words, it seems. The article just sums it up more economically: "that province has a policy of it's own". And by consequence, that is true. Period.

No, this is not true. The article implies that in Quebec - and Quebec alone - the province determines who is and isn't allowed to immigrate there. This is wrong because Quebec has not that authority; it is wrong because the involvement in the process Quebec does have is not unique to the province of Quebec, several other provinces also have a similar say in their provinces immigration; and lastly it matters because the article uses this faulty premise as a basis to stir up resentment toward Quebec by going to great lengths to insinuate the "Jihadists" that Quebec can allow in are then free to roam Canada, when this piece of rubbish is already debunked by my first two points.

What is your problem when most other readers seem to have understood during the first reading what it meant? You are stumbling over your own feed. It doesn't seem that way to me Skybird. Refresh your browser and read what other people are saying about this.

[scandium]

To Scandium.

No I don't believe the population of Canada will ever be 80% Muslim, unless Canadian Muslims hide in a cave, nuke Canada and return once radiation is gone.

That was sarcasm, just in case.

I don't think you are alone when you think the Supreme Court and taking over the Parliament to be too ambitious. Any devouted Islamist thinks just the same. It shouldn't be hard to discover any lesser plans though, there aren't that many Imams and Muslim organizations to keep track of in Canada.

I added secular and neighbor in the end because whatever Islamists do, they can be stopped, countered, or favoured. The Premier in question didn't favoured Islam. What happens the next time a decision has to be made or a policy discussed or implemented, will depend as much on Canadian Muslims as on non-Muslims.

Fair enough