That you cannot see the difference speaks volumes about yourself.
Then again as earlier you had thought you could speak for the families its really no surprise that you can't view anything due to myopia

Let me make it real easy for you...there are some that will not agree with you no matter how you attempt to beat them into submission. It is the simple fact that the mosque being 2-3 block away (IMO) is insensative and uncaring for what has happened with the towers. Maybe in your world that does not mean one iota of crap but in some peoples world who are living with the aftermath of the attack it does. Sorry if people are going to have opinions concerning this structure that differ from yours.

I will however say that protesting such a building in this particular area does raise concerns and some how affirms the feeling of anti-islamic sentiment from the USA. This speaks volumes in the Islamic community. Then again...I can understand were this sentiment stems from. It is certainly not unfounded.

It is really no surprise that you continue attempting to brow beat people into seeing things your way and as the only way. Then again this is your one way street and modus operandi. Shove your myopia.

Sigh.. so much semantics....

It was struck by a piece of the plane.. to me that means it was invollved and damn close to if not a piece of 'ground zero'.

It was condemmed immediatly after the strike pending assesment and removal of the debrie. After it was inspected repaired and deemed structuraly sound it re-opened. :doh:

But I also know trying to point out things like this is pointless so carry on with your discussion.. have fun.

And once again you fail to see that to some of us you're words are as frightening as theirs are to you.

It's simple really: You say that extending freedom to someone who wants to take it away is dangerous. I say that you want to protect freedom by denying it to some that you are afraid of. The problem I have is that YOU BOTH want to take away my freedom. You just couch it in the language of doing it to protect me from someone else.

That's because you already know that you're right, and there is no tolerance in your thinking for anyone who might disagree with you.

And what she doesn't see (and apparently you can't either) is that you want to destroy freedom in the name of protecting it. You are no different in that respect. You both want to destroy freedom, just for different reasons.

Very true, and I don't negotiate with anyone who wants to take away my freedom, including you.

We have an old saying here: "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." Since that is somewhat self-centered, I like to reverse it: "My freedom ends where your nose begins." What it means is that I have a natrural right to do anything I want, short of the point where it interferes with your right to do the same. In my country we guarantee the right to say what you want, do what you want and yes, build what you want, as long as it doesn't actually affect my equal rights. If that building is used for some illegal or dangerous purpose, then we'll deal with it. Until then, if we deny equal protection to them, I might be next.

Yes, it's a fine line, but one that must be protected, or we all lose. One of the most important figures of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine, wrote:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his own enemy against oppression."

That you don't understand that is what makes your way of thinking dangerous in my eyes.

[addendum] You keep saying I preach absolute freedom. Actually that comes with a qualification: I don't have the right to do anything that takes away your rights. I don't have the right to take your life, your liberty, your property or your pursuit of happiness.

I don't say that freedom itself is absolute, but only because of those limitations. But I do stand by what I actually have said all along, because as I see it it is absolute: Either you have freedom or you don't. There is no in-between.

Bravo, Steve. :yep:

No, that is not what I said, the difference seems to be small, but is vital. I do not take away freedom from people of whom I am afraid. I, like Popper, talk of people who are deliberately determined to use that freedom I give them to destroy freedom itself, and thus mine and yours and everyone else's. You still have not said how you would prevent this somebody from doing so if oyu grant him all the freedoms he needs to follow his idea and make his vision true. In principle you are a complice in his crime, helping him to destroy freedom becasue you only know two modes: one, and zero. Freedom, and no freedom at all. Black, and White.

Or it is becasue you are not convincing. the major contradiction in your thinking i have repeatedly pointed at, and asked you how you would solve your dilemma, your paradoxon. This must be the third or fourth thread. And stil you hve not shown a convincing answer. Because it is a paradoxon. And it wopuld not be a paradoxon if there would be a solution to the problem.

And there again is your absolute black-white thinking, 0% or 100%, black or white. How to make your freedom not getting destroyed by the one who uses that freedom to destroy it, you still have not answered.

and more black-white-thinking. It either is total freedom for all (even those using it to destroy it), or it is no freedom at all.

Check the laws and social conventions in your country. You are constntly confronted every day with situations where your total freedom is being stopped. In no way yopu are free to do everything you want. You can claim that right, do something violating the rules, and possibly get shot. That is the only total freedom you have.

Correction, you have a right to do most of the things you want, but not all. If you want to be free to murder people, you will run into problems. If you threaten the state, FBI, NSA or whomever will take care of you and show you that your nose is not too long indeed. If you violate the law, police will have a word with you, and a juidge, and a prison director.

Man, get real. Would you claim that all thes example sindeed should mean that we should abandon laws and law enforcement, becaseu it limits freedoms? Tell you what, your country nevertheless is one of the most free countries in the world. but that it only is becasue it accepted to grant people a very big ammount of freedoms, but not a totally unlimited ammount of freedom. In order to protect the state order that guarantees that huge ammount of freedom.

I doubt that. What will happen instead is that the unwelcomed reality will be rejected, and when it cannot be rejected anymore, it will be covered and deceived. Slowly, the normality will shift it's routines and definitions, incredibly slowly so that it is not to be seen by many. Slowly, normality will include a slow growing of tolerance for not beeing tolerated, and the demand of the enemy will slowoly creeping into what defines norms and defintions of normality, and slowly, so slowly so that nobody cares, the enemy's thunling becomes mroe and more influential and wide-spread, and slowly, so very ver yslwoly this limits your freedoms for sure, a bit here, a bit there, and you will still live in the illusion that you are so very free. and then 40 years are over, you look back and remember how things have been half your life ago, and you wake up in shock and ask "Hell, what happened, where have we lost it, where has it gone to?" - This mechanism of slow-changing normality is a known phenomenen in social sciences. In German it is sometimes referred to as "Landschaftsgedächtnis". It means that you do not note the changes in the landscape yround from one day to the next, or from one year to the next. but when you see old photos from 60 years ago - then suddenly the scaring difference jumps into your eyes. islam knows this phenomenon too, and has turned it into a strategy in order to spread in the West while minimising resistence to it.


Yes, it's a fine line, but one that must be protected, or we all lose. One of the most important figures of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine, wrote:
I wonder if he would have told that to the German people 80 years ago. Thinkling like this assisted in Hitler's rise and that he was not confronted while he maybe still could have been prevented. But Hindenburg legitimised him, and a majorty of people refused to stand up against him while he still was weak. see what happened. Was that - freedom...?

However, that is a noble-sounding, pathetic quote. It is a generalisation that ignores quite many mind experments oyu can now set up where doing like this quote advises would speeol utmost disaster. And perosnally thinking, i think it simply is stupid and wrong. I again counter it by the freedom-paradoxon as Popper called it. If oyu give freedom to the bully wanting to destroy the very idea of freedom, then he will destroy freedom,. becasue that is what he wants to do - and you gave him the freedom and opporutnity to be successful. Maybe it gives a masochistic satisfaction of that it is noble and honorable to be a defeated victim, and that that is better than to defend yourself and by that confronting the other in conflict. But I see nothing honourable and noble in victimhood. If you become somebody else's victim, then all that means is: he was successful in his intention, and you failed to stop him. and that smells more of weakness than noblesse.

You deal and think in absolutes (total, unlimited freedom - or no freedom it is at all), and that is why you fail to adress reality. Because total, absolute freedom, would be a form of perfection. but the world is not perfect. The world only presents you situations of needs where oyu must decide, whether you want it or not: you must choose. Choose to not adress a growing problem in time, and it will overwhelm you later on. The wise man, says Lao Tse, solves problems by solving them while they are still small and not waiting until they are too big to be solved. That way problems get solved so easily and without so small effort that most people do not even see that there was a problem.

Quote:

That you don't understand that is what makes your way of thinking dangerous in my eyes.

To a thinking like yours, I am. I would not allow you to create the opportunity for our enemies to destroy freedom, and to hinder us to defend ourselves against themk becasue that would villate your seriously flawed concvept of a total, a perfect, an absolute "freedom". One Third Reich was bad enough. I do not want another one. I have seen some places in the ME - and that has healed me from any romantic illusions about what Islam does to a culture, the freedom of people, and the creativity of man.

Now you have totally encircled yourself. If I would borrow your argument, I would reply: you have very well the right to kill me, because if I tell you that youb are not free to do so, then I would violate your freedom to do it, and that is bad. You also have the right to enslave me, Steve, or to deny me a free vote, or legal justice, or to kidnap me, if you want. Because you are a free man, a totally free man. Denying you these freedoms to do as described, would mean to limit your freedoms in a way that in your thinking strips you of all the very freedom alltogether. Let'S assume, Steve you would be a mixture of a KKK racist, a scientologist and a Nazi, all in one. just a mindgame, I know you are not any of these. You thus would claim the freedom to call blacks as "******s", you would be in favour of slavery, you support the psychic manipulation of people to strip them of their money and lead them into total pathologic dependency from yourself, you let them work for free for your own wealth, and as a Nazi you would support the agenda of establishing KZs in america and sending the Jews into gas chambers and turn the FBI into a Gestapo, replace the legal system with a Volksgerichtshof, and wage wars of expansion against Canada and Mexico. You would want to do that, becasue that is your agenda as a KKK guy, a scientlogist leader and a Nazi.

Now here comes little Skybird, borrowing argument from the real Steve, and saying: I do not like all that what you want, but I defend your freedom to want it. I would violate the very idea of freedom if I would hinder you to realise these things that are your agenda. therefore, you are free to destroy the freedom in our society, I will leave you the freedom you need to succeed in that. I know that you want all these bad things, but you bought that place legally and yoiu have any right like any other, so go ahead, build your oarty centre, your propaganda minstry, your secret service HQ, your recruitment centre and carry on telling people what they want to hear, or tell them what yiu really want. The first people will beoieve becasue it is what they want to hear, and the second they will just ignore and not believe becaseu it is not what they want to hear, so it makes no difference. In freedom we are united! In freedom we see freedom falling! As free people we become unfree!


Oh, i prefer freedom, too. That's why I do not give that freedom to anybody whose deliberate intention is to destroy it. Because then - he would destroy it, and I and many others, inclduing you, would not have it anymore.

I have a slightly different slogan, though. "Freedom cannot be given, if you accept it to be given to you, you are not free from the someone giving it. Freedom needs to be taken." And once gained, I follow, but also demand the other to follow, Kant's categorical imperative. But that imperative I accept as a valid rule only on a basis of reciprocity . where the other does not follow it, I do not bind me to it as well, if he violates my freedoms and rights. My tolerance ends where he does not tolerate me. I defend his freedom where he defdns mine. Where he wants to take freedom away from me in favour of his, I do not defend his right to do so, but I fight against him to render him so weak and powerless again so that he cannot put my and our freedom into danger anymore.

Freedom is a give and take. It is no card blanche for just one side.

You say a small but vital distinction. I say you still will take away freedom. I'm not talking about the freedom to destroy freedom, I'm talking about the freedom to talk about it. You would deny even that, which is what I consider dangerous.

I have said that I cannot deny his right to say what he wants, or else I would be just as bad as he is. If he proves dangerous, I will take action. Otherwise it's just talk on his part. Watch him carefully, yes. Fight him if need be, certainly. Silence him by making it illegal to say something I don't like? Never. That seems to be your answer, and you fail to see how dangerous it is.

Not at all. I could respond by saying you wish to stop his crime by becoming a criminal yourself. Do you want to silence him by killing him before he has taken any action at all? Lock him up before he has commited a crime? Maybe, maybe not; but you do want to take away his freedom to express his ideas, which makes you a totalitarian in my eyes.

What dilemma do you mean? What paradox? That if I allow it he will certainly take away my freedom. I have said, on every occasion, that it is a tricky problem, and I don't have a complete answer. But your answer is as evil as the evil you claim to fight, and you can't see that you are the enemy of freedom as much as he is. And in all of this you have carefully avoided that accusation, and that is your dilemma and paradox. Do you have an answer for that?

Thorny, isn't it? But again, you haven't told us how you will save our freedom by destroying it. You are just as much a destroyer as they are.


I never said that wasn't true. In fact I just explained to you where freedom truly begins and ends. We make governments to protect our rights. We make laws to protect us from each other. I have no right to harm another human being. I have no right to break the laws, unless they are in themselves dangerous. And I can't take away the right of another to express himself, however distasteful I find his speech, without endangering my own right to the same.

Didn't I say that exact thing? I have no right to infringe anyone else's rights. This includes the right to free speech. And it includes the right to equal protection under the law, which includes the right to build a building in a place I don't like.

You're creating your own straw man here, arguing against what you claim I've said while paralleling exactly what I did say.

Perhaps, but you had no way of knowing just how bad Hitler would get before the fact. That's one of the risks of living in the real world.

And Paine's reality was that when he said that, he had enemies on every side. People threatened his life for his religious beliefs, yet he wrote that in the midst of it all.

That you find that pathetic and stupid shows me just how different we really are.

And again you ignore the part where I said that's not strictly true.

I got tired of trying to answer every accusation you make, so I'll just repeat this:

You say I avoid reality, and you say I don't give an answer to my paradox, or dilemma. I say that you have studiously avoided my one challenge to you - that you are also an enemy to freedom. Rather than another long-winded philosophical explanation, can you show me why I should not be afraid of you, or treat you as an enemy for the same reasons?

In my simple little world , he who has the biggest stick has the most freedom. If you don't like hearing the truth quit doing stupid s--t.

I believe that is called Tyranny and is probably not a good model to base a society on. :nope:

Welcome to America ,Like Spydy {Spider Man} says , with great power comes great responsibility. I think they should let them build the mosque but, on the very top of the building if there is a dome should be a Cross and the Star of David, then it can be called a bridge. Also, there should be a hall of shame showing all the atrocitys of radical islam.

My first post in this thread and that being after 14 pages. That must be almost a record. :oops: And just for everyone's info I have followed this thread from the beginning and read the whole 14 pages top to bottom.

Firstly I have to agree fully with Sailer Steve regarding the actual right of those to re-build at this location. What has occurred is fully within the laws and all requirements have been met. I also agree with Steve regarding the freedoms debate with Skybird. I do not want to live under or in a totalitarian society. The ideas to which Skybird has espoused are the antithesis to the very ideals of what the United States of America were founded on.

Now to the mosque debate itself I come to. Off the bat I will disclose that my views come from one who is an Australian Muslim. When I first heard about this story when it came under the media spotlight I felt uncomfortable about it. I wasn't convinced that this was the right thing to do. It was clearly within the law and indeed was their constitutional right. But my gut and heart felt that it was to say the least an unwise decision.

As the days have past and the mosque controversy has intensified and rumbled on more information has filtered out into the public domain. I was not originally aware that the actual site is at this time a functioning mosque but is cramped and in a poor state. Apparently there is also a mosque also nearby Ground Zero named Masjid Manhatten that has been there since the 1970's. Should the community centre and mosque being proposed be smaller? Should it be moved to another location and if so how far away from Ground Zero? Does that also mean that Masjid Manhatten (catchy name by the way), need to be pulled down and or re-located as it is so close to Ground Zero?

Another thing is that the rhetoric and emotion has been ratcheted up on both sides. Speaker Newt Gindrich and Governor Sarah Palin were loose with inflammatory words and President Obama was also clumsy in speaking out. Then you have those crazy loons on the far right thorwing verbal bombs out there to crank up the atmosphere even more. The results of which will only be discovered with time.

Needless to say I would rather not read stories such as this New York taxi drivers experience or the pipe bomb attack in a Florida mosque just before Jammat (congregassion) Isha (nightime) prayers. And also I saw video of the protest that took place over the weekend. There was some footage of a really big black man wearing what I would describe as a tight beanie within the crowd and apparently some in the crowd thought that he was a muslim and suddenly the guy was surrounded by people on all sides He had to be escorted out of the crowd and thankfully it didn't escalate. Turned out the guy wasn't muslim at all.

As I have said earlier both sides should take a step back and take a breather for a moment before then coming to the table to seek a compromise that is in the best interests of all US citizens. American Muslims are not the 5th column. Al Qaeda muredered 3000 citizens of the world on that terrible morning in September. Most were American and some of those (approx 300) were American Muslims.

Gotta go now as need my beauty sleep as will be getting up at the uncivilized time of 3am to have breakfast before beginning the 15th day of Ramadhan and fasting. Only 16.5 hours without food or drink tomorrow. :88)

Let me make it absolutely ******* clear to you, you don't speak for those families and attempting to do so spits in our faces.
Simple isn't it.
Understand yet?
I am sick of gob****es pushing their bloody agenda on the empty graves of the innocent of that day, it angers me to levels you cannot possibly comprehend as it nothing but an insult to their memory.

yeah its amazing I deal with them people regularly, I been dealing with them since the day, so don't you dare talk for them .

If a nice reasonable fella from Great Neck says he wants to nuke the whole middle east I can understand him. If a regular guy from Tribeca says he wants every muslim in the world slaughtered I can understand him.
But you, you ain't even on the same platform so shut the hell up about sensitivities for the families.
How many friggin empty caskets did you go to after the attack?

Though on another note, if the city wants to honour someone then please don't name a street after a real party animal when the street doesn't have a single bar on it.

You try to distract attention for what you said about freedom in this and past discussions. In the recent such debates you strictly and totally refused that theose destroying freedom maybe should not be given the opportunity(=the freedom) to do so. Your implication, you cannot avoid it, is that it is better to leave them the freedom and see them abuzsing it, than to deny them this freedom they need to abuse and by that abuse to destroy that. That is what you have said time and again, you indicated, it, you implied that, and if you did not mean it, then you wording has been extremely unprecise.

Now you just refer to the freedom to talk about freedom. That has been different in the past. Well then, let's talk about freedom. First, I did not indicate that I want to ban talking abiout freedom. second I nevertheless ask if we really need a debate about freedom with somebody or with an ideology that is in explciit rejection of freedom and in explciiut demand for totalitarian control, under the explicit exclusion of freedom. What do you hope to gain from such a "dialogue", if oyu know that the other will tell you whatver you want to hear in order to make oyu giving him the oppoetunity, time and freedom to nevertheless destroy your freedom? At best it is a waste of time and energy.

That claim that you now want to talk about freedom, I assume with said enemies of freedom, reminds of a debate we have just had in Germany. Politicians and lawyers have triggered a debate on the quesiton if visiting terror camps where you get training in terrorism, bomb cinstuction, assassination, mass murder and such, should be put under penalty, or if that should be considered as free travel activity that means nothing and the criminal energy just manifests itself in the moment when the terror bomb of the adventure tourist is being triggered and people get killed. So, there were people that argued that visiting a terror camp of ideological fanatics and learning how to kill as many people as possible with maximum PR effect, possibly could have had another interest than just joining said ideology's forces and learning to kill as many people as possible for maximum PR effect inorder to actually kill as many people as possible for maximum PR effect. These people argued that the preparation, the training for and the learning of needed knoweldge for suich a terror strike copuld not be persecuted, because there is the chance that somebody embarks for Pakistan and gets trained as an islamic terrorist becasue it is summer holiday and he has nothign else to do and is bored and just wants to see how it is to train as if one were a terrorist. when a tewrrorist prepares an attack, that is pretty much okay and not to be objected, just after the bodies have been collected from the street the terrorist actually is a terrorist.

What I think of all this oh so sohisticated reasoning?

Gequirlte Babykacke.

Similiarly, I am not accepting that we just sit and watch when our rights and freedoms get turned against us in order to destroy them and to make us hostages of our own ideals. I have explained it in several threads, either you missed them or you do not understand the dangeorus imploication: in the special case of islam, or anarchists as well, you are delaing with a thuinkling that explciitly denies the valdity of your claimed values, as well as the validity of the legal system, and the separation of religion and politics, state and church. islam doe snot know such a separation, and it refuses such a separation for itself. The consxequence is that it cts poltiically and pushes political intentions for which it claims the guaranteed freedom for religious practicing as written in our constitutions that base oin the separation of poltics and relgion. that now means that islam claism untouchability for its poltics - under the umbrella of religious freedom. Said politics are explicitly desiogned to replace freedom with the rule of sharia, and to repalce our legfal sytem and laws with those of Sharia as well. By design of our legal systems and constitutions and the separation of church and state in them, both are almost helpless to defend us against the policy of islam to repalce these laws and constitutions with Sharia.

And you accept that - that is the implication of what you say. I can only wonder while giving you the benefit of doubt, if oyu really are fully aware of these implications of your demand that we must give them the freedom they need to destroy us innorder to be hionest and true in our claim to defend freedom. as a matter of fact, and in perfect confomrity with the explanation of Popper as well, we destroy our own freedom. In the name of freedom, but still we destroy it. If we follow your way of thinking, at least.

Wjhat we see is that more and more laws and policies get designed in favour not of our freedoms, but in favour of islamic demands. In Euroland, criticising religion now is a criminal offence and a hate crime that could bring you to court. That means that not supporting relgions is a crime now. This was not brouzght in due to demands by the churches, or the Jews, or the buddhists. It were muslim lobby groups, and leftist gutmenschen. Our freedom to be critical of relgion - or Islam, to be more true - already has been reduced for the very reason you defend you bitterly: total freedom for them.

I also point to this thread. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=174036 ,
the matter pointed at there, also touches the issue here.

This restriction you introduce now at least is a small progress, although I so far did not memntion freedom of speech explicitly. I am about conspiracies aiming at overthrowing the constitutional order. And that is somethign that you must not check and watch for anymore, it already is happening, and in germany for example since many years the intellogence authorites time and again wqarn of the anti-cinstitutional actiivites of oh so very many islamic "culture centres" and mosques, espeically those financed by Saudi arabaia, Marocco, pakistan and Turkey. the orgnaisaiton beiond the GZ project also is no unknown faction, but a known radical ultra-porthodox organisation with it's top names lined to internal jihad and radcial muslim supranatiponal organisations. You may not be aware of it, although i linked according info five times in three threads, info that was supoported by different source slinked by one or two other board members as well. but you already could and should know whom you are dealing with. you say you want to react not before they started to act holstile. they already do since many years, if only you would taker a closer look!what else are you waiting for? what else must happen? You say you consider an umbrella not before it starts to rain - that you alrready are swimming in a deep, wide river is something that escaopes you for some reason. an umbrella is your smallest problem now, really.

What is wrong in taking him by his word? What is wrong in watching what he does, seeing that his preparations support what he says, and draw the consequence and take him oput BEFORE he has had the time to raise his knife to my throat? why do you think you must know it better than he knows himself? When there is somebody and his teachings he is preaching say that he wants to destroiy your value system and your freedom, and you comlare that to how his faciton has done in the past and oyu find: yes, that is what they were doing - what is the problem then in takling him by his word - and act accordingly on him...??? Must the roof really fall down on your head before you maybe start to be willing to onsider the chance that the noise in the wall indicated a proiblem with the house?

I cannot help but must assume that for you the demand to always collect more and more and more info and never using it, just is anexcuse for not doing anything and just letting the thing slide until it is too late. reminds me of the apttern we have seen in global warming debates - that there is no evidence and no data and that more decades of research must be spend before we could know if something like GW does exist, and earlier any action is just an irresponsible wasdte of money etc etc etc. Sounds pretty much like the same pattern, really.

In other words: do not prevent murder, just clean the scene of the crime and then spend the murderer a drink. That's how it reaches me.

Have you? Where? I nailed oyu on that so-called tolerance-dilemma and freedom paradoxon several times, and linked to the original formulation of them several times, and at least two times just in debates with you. A consistent reply you have not produced. Just a counterattack that when putting into doubt that it already is a complete taking away of freedom if one questions the wqisdom to give somebody who wants to destroy freedom the chance and opprtunity (in freedom) to actually succeed with that. the paradoxon is that you cannot have that ultimate, absolute, total fereedom that in these debates you demanded time and again. You can secure a very hiuge ammount of frfeedom only when accepting to sacrifice the general validity of a principle of total, unlimited freedom. The dilemma is that if oyu want to defend the chnace to be tolerant of others, you also must be aware of that there are things that you cannot afford to tolerate, else those not tolerating you will destroy you when you tolerate them doing so.

You have encircled oyurself with your fomrer statements on freedom, and now realsie that you cannot escape the contradictions in your psoition, and try to escape. That can be good - but do not hold me responsible for yourself doing so. I just stubbornly pointed out the basic misconception, the inner contradiction in your position.

Oh, and the criminal you mentioned. A crime is not similiar to any other crime. some are minor, asome are serious, thats whwy there are different penalties. However. A soldier defending his country and it'S order, or a policeman chasing a criminal, both do not become criminals in themselves just becaseu they arrest some crimnals, enemies of the state, gangsters, fraudsters, terrorists. Yiu cannot fight against your enemies and defend your side against them if you refuse to - well, to fight against them. and the defintion of fight includes the use of force (preferrably not more than needed but as much as necessary), and limiting the freedom of the enemy, even denying him certain rights and freedoms that citizens of your side enjoy. Citizens have a right to defend their state, too, btw, i would even say if a citizen wnats to benefit from the priviligesof laws and freedoms that his state guarantees, than it even is his moral duty, a manadotry service, that he stands up in defence of this state, land, country, state order, legal system. Yiuj do not only take from your country. you also have to give back. and the German constitituion even guarantees every German the constitutional right to resist to everybody who wants to overthrow the constitutional order. I have linked for you some key articles of the Basic Law some weeks ago, maybe you remember, where this was said and also the limitaiton of basic laws were illustrated if peopole abuse these laws in order to propagate their destruction. The general layout and the federal structure of the modern Germany - has been hammered out in the basic law last but not least by pressure of the United States after the war. So it cannot be so much in violation of american thinkoing on these things. And I am pretty confident that comparing articles can be found in American laws and the constitution as well - even before Bush cracked down on certain civil liberties and before the Patriot Act.

The policeman uses force, but that does not make him the same like the gangster. In the last thread we had I gave several very pragmatic ideas of what to do. i do not all repeat that, you cahn read it yourself if you want. I just reiterate two things. that we need an amendement in wetsrn constitutions that rule adamantely that only persons and ideologies (=relgions) fully subscribing to the non-negotiable principle of strict separation of church and state, can claim the protection of free religion. This is to give our legal system the chance to defend against being hijacked by supremacist actors/ideologies for political purposes that are claimed to be relgion and thus: untouchable. And the second point is: I pointed out that every citizen has the right, and I even say: the duty to act with civil disobedience and public protest and boycott and practiced unloyalte to the state, if he sees the state or it's bodies acting against the communal interest and against the will of the people. In other words: if the people of america indeed would care for that osque not beign errected, they could as a mater of fact march the place over and over and break every police cordon
and render the officials helpless. no mosque must be built anymore if the people would raise and stand up against it.

If people are too lame and lazy for that, or even like islam, well, then there chilkdren'S children will get what their grandparents deserved: more and more of islam.

Migration also is a problem linked with islam, but okay, let'S keep this focussed a bit.

If you want to be free, and not be a subject to tyranny, you're going to either shed blood or run ,when they catch you they will kill you. Less we forget our buddy Stalin. Talking nicely to tyranny won't stop it.