Yesterday I read a brief note in a paper that the first german bank has started to charge its customers a penalty interest if the customer do not use their creditline. The charge is then on the maximum of the creditline.

Again: you have to pay interest if you do not take the credit.

:doh:

You read that right. No joke.

It may be just a regional small bank. But still, if you consider this as well as the total rape of reason and logic behind misleadingly so-called "negative interests" : Does it need any more hints how totally insane and rotten and broken the money system has become? What money? There is no oney worth the name. What we use and wrongly think of as money, is notes of debts without material securities.

Stealing and plundering, nothing else it is. Stealing and plundering. And the politicians help in that as best as they can, and become incredibly creative in hiding this behind meaningless newly invented terms and phrases. Criminal scum. Its all a mafia syndicate.

In the same essay I read that the global total debt is around 365% of the total global GDP. - If it does not get further explained, "debt" usually mean explicit debts only. But there are also the inherent debts, which usually are multiple factors higher: pensions to be paid in the future for staff hired today, interests for credits to be taken in the future in order to pay the interests of the debts there already are, and so forth. So, I assume, and that would be more in line with what I have learned over the years in the past, the actual debts on the globe probably are much higher than just 365% of the global GDP.

You can bet your life on it: no politician in the world plans to seriously tackle this. It is completely out of control. FUBAR.

You're saying this as if this behavior is unjustified.
Remind me.
How many synagogues have to be searched by police units due to religious motivated terror attacks committed by jews?
How many rabbis do they arrest because they preach about killing unbelievers?
How many synagogues can be connected to being safe houses or recruitment centers for terrorists?

And how often do the examples above apply to mosques?


So again: Why is the behavior you've mentioned unreasonable or "disgusting"?
I sure do not want some hate-center next to me that preaches anti-western propaganda or worse.

Give me a hundred synagogues any day, please!

To be fair while this may not have been a threat in recent history, brits did have issues pre creation of the state of Israel.

And in the end - muslims would continue practicing their religion even if you don't allow mosque constrution.

My two cents - the better way to lower the rate of extremism may be to not ban mosque construction per say (because that would push muslims to the prayer houses that you have even less control over) but to regulate how they are run, say via a moderate state backed councill which would burn the radicals at the stake so to speak.

I agree and this is, well, they "act" as if they'd try to do that, but in the end our politicians don't dare to question the mantra that "Islam means peace".
Yesterday, in German TV, some show started with the question (the question!) if "Islam has a problem with violence", AFTER saying "terror attacks nearly every week".

That is the problem. People being cowards.


Of course, if it would be up to me, there would be no Mosques anymore, no Minaret, no Muezzin and surely no Muslims until this ideology goes through a severe reform (which can and will never happen, we all know this).

Until then, I do not see why I would be expected to "tolerate" Islam, though.
If so, I ask why we cannot tolerate Nazism?
Oh right, radical ideology and all that... :hmmm:

Sounds very anti liberal.
Freedom of throught and conscience.

Am I "a liberal"?
Also, to me it sounds sane and just. And reasonable considering the consequences of not getting rid of it. Just wait... it's going to happen.

Tell me, what is freedom of thought and conscience worth in, let's say...
Iran?
Saudi Arabia?
Nearly every Muslim country?


You cannot have any of these when you "tolerate" an ideology that seeks the destruction of these values.

And this doesnt matter.

You can and you should, as your freedom of thought and consience depends on your acceptance of those rights of others.

Which means that you cannot prosecute people on the basis of what their ideology is or what they think, only if they break the law through action (or inaction when specified) for example by violating the right of other's to life via murder. Because if you do, those values and rights you have are destroyed by yourself.

Don't be cheap.
Yes it matters.
Otherwise explain why it does not.

"Rights"?
Islam has nothing to do with rights, it has everything to do with taking away rights, especially those of Women, gay people or whoever doesn't fit their radical views.


You're basically saying I must not stand up against someone threatening me with a gun. It won't help us, our values or societies, if we tolerate what seeks to destroy us. This would be nonsensical, as we can see all over the world.

What more do you need?

If you do not you are destoyed. However to explain my point of view in German context.

To me it appears that the core of the problem (that Germany has) is not in that Islam is bad, but in that the people practicing Islam receive positive descrimination by the state (ie not prosecuting muslims equally and fairly for the crimes they have commited, ie illegal imigration), to avoid accusations of negative descimination and thus keep the state feeling good about it's morality.

Thus introducing negative descrimination specifically against the muslims would not solve the problem, because the problem is not the Islam but the fact that muslims get special treatment and thus undermine the rule of law and introducing the negative discrimination would do the same, as people would be prosecuted not for what they did but for what they are.

Hence in my opinion the solution would be to resume the rule of law and prosecute people for crimes they commit and not for ideology they are a part of. The list of such potential crimes can be lengthy, in this context apart from the obvious crimes against an individual (murder, rape etc) one has to add the crimes against the society at large and the state (illegal imigration, incitement of violence etc).

Well, since it is now clear, again, that Islam cannot be the problem, we have nothing to talk about any further.

Correction, Islam cannot be the problem, what people do (ie commit crimes) can (and is) a problem.

Or that the people can (and do) do something (ie commit crimes) because the rule of law is broken by positive descrimination.

Morever while prosecuting people on the basis of their religion (or ideology) is wrong (because they have a right to freedom of thought and conscience), you can and should descriminate against groups (ie muslims) in your crime prevention/crime investigation work (ie for incitement of violence) based on the objective statistics (ie that muslims are more likely to incite violence than christians) while presuming innocence of an individual untill it is proven otherwise with due process in the court of law.

How do you want to threaten or better prevent people from crimes with penalties early enough, when even death is not a threat for them? They kill themselves, and are not interested in anything happening after this.

Those who do the assassinations cannot be prosecuted before they kill others and committed the crime. So what to do?

What some propose is to take all others in hostage, giving out the message like we kill your family if you do something wrong. Somehow this cannot be the answer, and even then some of the radicalised people will still think it does not matter for their 'martyrdom'.

As Ikalugin said, we should not fall in the trap of acting like them. Keping calm and carrying on will probably really be the answer in the long run, since when people are not interested in the terrorists they will die out. Maybe..

So what would you propose to do instead? Act like the Nazis and condemn muslims, like they did with the jews?

Excuse me?

I do not want to cut anyone's head off, or want to blow myself up - for whatever reason.
All I want is to live my life in peace, or is it unreasonable to want that?

So don't tell me I am like them, just because I want to protect myself from what seeks my destruction.

Apples and Oranges.
Jews were no threat to Germans, or anyone, and also not to Germany, at no time whatsoever, nor do their beliefs demand to kill others. They lived their lives and that was it.
Muslims follow a radical ideology that commands to destroy what we today call "the west", its values, its false Gods and beliefs, demands the killing of gay people, the abuse of Women and to conquer what is not under Islamic rule yet.

As I said. Apples and Oranges.

You appear call for thought policing and prosecuting on the basis of ideology they are a part of, not the crimes individual members of that ideology commit.

Which doesnt make the carriers of that ideology criminals as long as they do not break the law by doing all those things or incite others to do it.

On the other hand what you can and probably should do (in addition to restoring the rule of law) is to restrict entry of those people into the country by introducing additional checks but base those instruments not on the ideology (islam) but on the crimes that individuals affiliated with it may commit.

Confronting and defendign against totalitarianism and its expressive ideology is as much anti-liberal as it made me a violent thug when I defended myself against a junky drawing a knife and trying to slit my throat all of a sudden.

Your freedom ends where you start to take away my freedom in favour of yours. My tolerance ends where the other does not meet it with reciprocity.

---

Defending yourself against a crime, does not make yourself a criminal. Confronting a totalitarian aggressive ideology that pushes you all the time, does not make you an aggressive totalitarian person yourself. Using force to fight off him who attacks you, does not justify to accuse you that you are not better than him becasue he forces you to use force yourself in defence against him.

This kind of relativism is an offence to so many victims that one cannot count them all. In the end, it denies the right of self-defence.

Well said.

Basically we can separate this discussion into two separate points.

First of all, the one where we have common basis. If an individual commits a crime (for example murder, rape, incitement of violence), state must prosecute him in accordance to the law regardless of who he is (for example muslim). If an individual is a member of a group that is most likely to commit a crime (ie a newly arrived male muslim "refugee") then the law enforement efforts should be more focused on him (for example in terms of crime prevention, crime investigation, etc), however that individual should not be prosecuted by the state unless found guilty of a crime by the court of law, with due process.

Secondly, the one where we differ substantially. Upholding any ideology or belief by an individual is not a crime in itself, only specific action by that individual (murder, rape, incitement of violence) or inaction (when this is proscribed by law) is.

Prosecuting against an individual on the basis of an ideology or belief said individual holds, however horrible that ideology belief may be, provided said person did not commit crimes via action or inaction, is in my opinion an act of opression and violates individual rights and de-facto is an act of thought policing.
Thus any policy that does so is, in my opinion, is both against the common good and immoral.

Quote:

This kind of relativism is an offence to so many victims that one cannot count them all. In the end, it denies the right of self-defence.

Actually it does not deny the right to self defense, it denies agression without cause.

I hold a Stalinist responsible for the Stalinist ideology he upholds. I hold a Scientologist responsible for the ideology he upholds. I hold a voter responsible for the election vote he casts. I hold a militant nationalist responsible for the nationalistic ideology he upholds. I hold a Nazi responsible for the ideology he upholds.

Why should I make an exception for the Islamic ideology that a Muhammeddan upholds?

It does not matter whether that person is actively or silently supporting the claim of Islam, or just helps it by white-washing it and glossing over it. Like it did not matter whether every single German back then indeed had strnagled a Jew with hois own hand, and indeed was a Nazi by the book or not. Nazism nevertheless was - rightfully - associated with the Germany of that time. It makes no sense to claim that Nazism was no problem of the Germans. It was a problem of the Germans, and Germany. Even of the polite, the friendly, the law-obeying Germans.

So it is with Islam as well. You uphold it, no mmatter whether by conviction or just by mere, unknowing word - I hold you responsible for that, due to the content of that ideology. You claim to be Muslims? Walk away and leave my hiome country, or change yourself. Accepting you I never will. Because that ideology's content is what it is.

An addon for the above post. In German.

https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommenta...hleichend.html

And this story, again in German, is about how political correctness and dilletantism of the defence ministress destroys the moral and spirit in the Bundeswehr.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...a-1152274.html

Many defence ministers in germany of the past have not been good ones. But van der Leyen, Emanzenpüppi as I call her, is by far the worst I can remember. And she has no clue of military matter. None. Rien. Zero. Nada. The army deeply mistrusts her, and I think dispises her, and she has no clue of the army.