Indeed. In every Western country, from Belgium ovber germany to sweden, from Spain over the United Kingdom to the Netherlands. even orthodox Poland is softening up.

There are around 60 videos by him. It seems you have not read some of those tens of tbosuands of comments. Plus youtube is not his only activities.

For Islam, relations to the infidels are a necessary evil at times of own weakness. If "own weakness" is over and rpalced with "own strength" again, the others getvtaken over if possible. that is no relation in the meaning of contacting th eother on same eye level, and a basis of tolerance and coextsince. Islam wants to dominate, it wants to be the only thing in power. Everything else is just "lesser being". It is self-declared supremacism as pure as you can imagine it. A Herrenkultur.

Yes, you state the obvious. you indeed do not know about CAIR. That's why you fall for their "stated purpose".
Ask yourself if maybe it could be possible, maginable, if there is any chance for their stated purpose and their real purpose not being the same, and then start some search for informaitoj about them that is not coming from the giovernment spokesman or sources liniked to CAIR. If you want objective information on a suspect, maybe it is a good idea not to ask the suspect himself.

If I had my will, CAIR and orgsanisation would be immediately shut down and their staff arrested due to conspiracy and anti-constitutional activities in order to destroy the state. What Spetznatz was meant to be in a war against NATO, organisations like CAIR are meant in the jihad to take over the West: infiltrating, disrupting communication, deceive action, seize bridges and vital keypoints. Nothing else such organsiations are doing as well with regard to manipulation of public opinion and perception of islam deceiving jihad, infiltration education, legislation, manipulating politics, and erode resistence to Sharia.

I can and do not comment on a book I have not and most likely will not read.

And again you avoid the simplest question. Can you not answer it, or will you not answer it?

I protest nothing, and you understand nothing, except what you want to see. You only answer what you want to answer, and none of what I actually say. You are as dangerous to me as they are, and you won't even answer that.

Yes, they are dangerous. How many times must I agree on that. But your way is tyrrany, and you don't see it.

Then maybe you can enlighten us with your personal ideas on how to deal with religious fanatics who want to kill all infidels in the name of Allah. I hope you will not going to give us Obama solutions.) With fanatics it doesn`t work, in case you don`t know or don`t want to know.

--------
This will be probably ignored, but worth a try.;)

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Pat and Popper are skys heroes, all we need now is a nice rant about securing the freedom of soccer by banning blacks and muslims to save the western world

Pat Condell hits the mark in many cases where I've heard him, but he also misses at times. His attitude regarding religious freedom, or perhaps freedom in general is "wrong" from an American standpoint—it strikes me as very european, in fact.

In that one he mentions nazis being outlawed in Europe, and I have to say that as much as I hate Nazis (heck, I've never even looked at the SH4 u-boats since I don't play even play nazis in games, lol), I disagree with banning them, 100%. OTOH, in that same video, he mentions the propriety of said Muslims building their mosque. he's right on that, if they really wanted to pay even the slightest lip service to local sensitivities, they'd never have considered the project in the first place. Also his observation that they themselves are hyper-sensitive to ANY perceived slight of Islam is also spot-on.

I remember seeing one of his vids where he talks about freedom of expression being "sacred" to Westerners, and demanding that the Muslims in the West respect THAT. I liked that one quite a bit.

thats strange as when that pillock wilders wanted to cause offence by going out of his way in slighting Islam he managed to get bugger all reaction really apart from lots of people saying his film was crap.

But then again those danish cartoons got a big reaction....eventually after many weeks of trying to get a crowd going to take real offence and weven then they had to make up additional fake cartoons to say they were so outraged.

Its the people ranting against the mosque that are ones ignoring local sensitivities. The locals buck the national trend of manufactured outrage

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7...ealonelion.jpg

Yes, he is another one of these tyrannic dictators who say that tolerance is a deal on reciprocity, and freedom must end where it is abused by the enemy to destroy freedom. How unreasonable. How unfree. How - tyrannic!

Why? Have 56 million dead still not been enough?

What - now limiting their freedom a bit, suddenly is - not tyrannic?

Watch out Steve, if you keep pushing for him to discuss topics and answer questions instead of lecturing from a high horse he will put you on ignore:har::har::har::har::har:

So 19 pages.

Has anyone's opinion on this matter been changed? :nope:

No, but I learned something.
I knew about the Japanese war memorials at Pearl harbour but I didn't know about the Shinto shrines or the courts ruling on them

You have freedom of expression—or you don't. Pick one.


Again, political freedom is political freedom. If they did not violate you constitution, they are no threat. If they violate the constitution, you jail them. Hateful talk... is just talk. This is interesting, because you are in fact now making the same arguments some are making about Islam WRT nazism. SOME belief systems are incompatible, and must be disallowed. Interesting.


It doesn't limit their freedom in the least. In the US, expression is explicitly guaranteed. They can complain all they like, but actually ACTING instead of complaint is the problem. Make some art that shows Jesus doing something horrible. See how many people get killed. Do the same with the pedo Muhammad and see what happens. Or you could just do a body count for the Brooklyn Art Museum anti-Christian stuff vs the Danish cartoons.

NBo one cares in the least about muslims complaining. It's their hateful actions in response that are disgusting.

I've never said I have answers, or even ideas. In case you missed it, I hate this thing as much as anyone. All I've ever done is defend the legal right to build a building. If the law turns around and denies them that right, I'll probably defend the law in that case as well.

I fight enemies of freedom wherever I find them. Are you one?

You? Ignore me?

I can only hope.

I thought you said goodbye. Three or four times.

Still hiding from the question, eh?

I'll say you are missing the point. The point is that:
1) Even nominally free-speech countries often have limitations already imposed.
2) While such limitations may be debated on their merits, the historical evidence suggests that limited restrictions do not necessarily landslide into Gestapo II.

If we grant that a station will perform the scenario, then there would be a significant viewership making it worthwhile. And after a few years, you'll be used to the fact a major TV station is running 4-hours of radical Islam a day, which opens the path for them to be running it six hours a day, then 8, and so on.

Having a lot of faith in people, are you? But if you have that much faith, certainly it can be possible to block Islam without necessarily leading to a cascade.

I'll say that people are creatures of habit, and while there may be significant numbers that groan at first, if it is kept up eventually they'll adapt, thus freeing the path for another advance.

You do have to remember just a hundred fifty years ago, not particularly immoral humans thought having slaves was a-OK.
====
As a rule, the slippery slope is a fallacy, mostly because its proponent would tend to skip over or understate counterbalancing forces which will stop the "ball" before it reaches an dangerous position.

However, IMO there is an exception case, and that's when one side continuously feels compelled to lift their counterforce away from the balance. In such a case, the slippery slope has the potential to become fact.

That, IMO the essence of Skybird's position (and if I have indeed determined his position through his Walls of Text approximately correctly, I am sympathetic to it), and that, I'll say is why Skybird's position is ultimately less dangerous than Islam. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to be extremely careful about freedom restriction (as we can see here), and though the potential may be reduced as Skybird's proposals open a passage, there will still probably be a fair counter-force left to stop further advance. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to not feel the same away about Islam (and in fact most other religions for the matter no matter what ugliness may be in their Holy Scripts), so there is only a low reserve counter-force, which leaves us vulnerable to Islam.

So, what to do about it? AFAIK It is the Constitution of Western countries to either "grant" the right to free speech and religion, or "guarantee" it. However, nobody mandates that every speech and every religion must be equally well supported by society. Some views go on TV in front of 200 million citizens while others are on a fringe Internet site or a local pamphlet that only a few would have real access to. And I'm certain it won't do Western countries great harm to make Islam closer to the latter.