Indeed they are.

Unnecessary.

No, you did fine. Thankyou sir. :sunny:

My compliments to you, sir. That's the idea. These people must not be allowed to feel welcome nor comfortable. I pitty that active voices like you are spread thin all over Germany, even if the majority of the Germans oppose in silence events as despicable as the caricatural diabolic circus you've described.

**************************
Self-entitled Apostles? Mormons and some Protestants aside, this is heresy. The first guy, dressed in blue with a white cap, he laughs when the jihadist starts talking, is he one of "them"? Of the group of the Apostles? Or was he a "moderate"? If he was a moderate that's pathetic. The young-Ahmadinejad look-a-like then goes on and talks so kindly and softly I'm almost convinced he's afraid of the other guy or doesn't have enough faith in his own words. I don't believe anything he says, I need to see more conviction, if you show weakness in your own speech, why would I ever conceive putting strong trust in you or your words? "Oh, ladies and gentlemen, or should I say, boys and girls, this man is very naughty, sorry....but he's so bad, really, sorry, I didn't meant to offend you..... he's really evil, no, not at all, sorry, sorry I'll go back to my seat now like the good boy that I am....mommy!." Granted, the lawyer point was a good one.

Anyway, "Can I speak?"?! Do you think that's how you deal with a jihadist buffoon? You've shown respect! You must not respect him at all! He is using your tolerance in his favour you freaking idiot! He doesn't show respect for other people's right to live, to exist, and you're going to demand him to abide by the rules of a formal debate? Had it not been for the police this guy would've chopped your head off already! You don't say "can" I speak pleeeeease. You demand:

Silence imbelice, I will speak now. I've had enough of your insolence.

If he doesn't silence, you speak louder. Untill he either behaves and lets you speak, runs away from the debate or interrupts it.

Not that I don't recognize the attempt to answer the radicals. That's commendable, as long as it is honest and sincere, unlike some proeminent figures who are just playing a game of make-believe to pretend that the radicals are harmless and under control, like Tariq Ramadan.

I do recognize it. I applaud the effort to corner the radicals, congratulations to those who oppose them. My sympathies to the son of Ahmadinejad here, so long as he's being honest. The problem is that he's not up to par with the Apostle of Jihad.

Muslims...:roll: If you intend to succeed Christianity you better do your homework or else let somebody more qualified do the talking. It doesn't matter what Mr. Jihad BELIEVES in, he can believe in gnomes, tooth-fairies and alien anal probes. A battle of beliefs, he believes that, you believe this, leads nowhere nor does it prove him wrong. He must be DEMORALIZED before the public, he must leave the debate ASHAMED and silent and nervous. You must make it absolutely clear that this is heresy and nothing else, if somebody wants to follow him and if they believe in 7, 14 or 21 virgins then they must also believe in hell because that's where they're headed to if they continue to follow this man. Religious speakers and debaters of any denomination, including non-denominational, learn:

Granted, we've only seen a little part of the debate. I am simply assuming that the rest of it is on the same level.

This is about the only time you're going to get me plastering my personal opinion on a religious debate, but here it is:

None of this should matter. Religion has become a weapon just as much as the rifle and bomb. In an ideal world, people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe, worship who they want to worship. Be they Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jedi whatever.

Its about time people stopped getting up in arms about religion, and work on a sound principle, respect and be respected.

I'm in no way saying that any cause is right, but everyone seems to be shoving their beliefs down everyone elses throats, rather than just saying 'Here's what I believe' and accepting that other people are going to think different. I dont know about you folks, but just because someone's beliefs dont correspond with what people have been brought up with or what they have begun to believe sure as hell isnt a cause to start any conflict.

I just wish people could get on with their lives without fearing extremists, radicals, terrorists and war.

Sorry, rant over.

Totalitarianism, Stalinism, Nazism, Tamerlan, Mao Tsetung, Inquisition, Scientology - believe whatever you want: well, really? Some belief systems include statements and demands that are exlcusive to the idea of mutual tolerance. In your list above, Islam qualifies for that. It has divided the world nicely into black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, peace and war, believer and infidel. Note that of the major world religions, no other brings me up to anger so easily - although I know that there are things like American Christian fundamentalism, superstitious pervertion in much of Buddhism, and widow burning in Hinduism. It's just that Hindus don't show up on my door and demand me to hand over my home to them. And at least all Buddhist I ever met had one thing in common: they asked if they are welcomed, and if not, they peacefully left and moved on. Not so Islam.

And if you are confronted with an ideology that teaches to ignore such claims and demands like yours - what do you do, then? Live and let live, nice and well, but if the other does not obey this principles, moves toeards you, besieges you, says "I live and let you live only when you live according to my rules", if he wants to own what is yours, wants you to give up what is yours, wants you to obey HIS rules - what then? "Those without swords - nevertheless can get killed by a sword".

In Muslim countries, Jews or Christians certainly do no longer dare to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats. We are talking of ethnical/religious cleansing in these countries, since centuries. You would risk a serious world war if you try to force them that for every mosque in Europe being built, not a synagoge or church should be built in Muhameddan countries in return. At the same time Muhammedans demand infidels in their own western home countries to give ground to Islam and serve it's interests more and more, directly and indirectly, and beouev in a version of Islam that hs little or nothing to do with the brutal reality to be found in the quran, laid down in a harsh plkace and a violant time 1400 ago. Islam comes to us and puts up demands that we shall accept it's presence, no matter if we like it or not. It demnds to be seen as an equal, although it wants to be a superior, but has given up the process that led to Arabia'S relative cultural superiority one and a half century ago - BEFORE Muhammad arrived. And you write the answer you did just above...? It is a dangerous move these days, that all and everything is relativised and put into relation until no more categories are left that could give us guidance what we may tolerate, and what we better refuse and shall not tolerate, for our own benefit. All scales of judgement are neutrlaised, all differences that are relaities are nevertheless ignored. Such lack of differentiation is neither tolerance, nor a sign of hukmanism or pacifism - it just leads into anarchy and the absence of any scales, rules and categories. And in anarchies not the reasonable ones survive, but the strongest.

I wish the same. But although wishing so I still can get killed by an extremist, radical, terrorist or by war. What I hope reality to be, and what it really is, is two different things.

I keep saying that to the Jehovah Witnesses that are always doing our neighborhood.

You might as well wish we didn't have to breathe air or eat food to live. All those things you mention have been part of the human experience since man first climbed out of the trees. To deny it is to deny reality.

Radicals vs. moderates: British Muslims at crossroads
 

I agree with much of what you wrote in your earlier post, Skybird. With your anger about the arrogant attitude of the Pakistani 'German'. But your anger carries you too far.
Your mistake is that you are generalising and targetting all Muslims in a 'Them against Us'-structure.

The result is this:
...pure discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation!

According to my standards your opinion deprives you the right to criticise others who promote the same kind of discrimination.
:down:

Dont we all Kaptain _Phillips dont we all.

But complete tolerance breeds complete intolerance.

Rant on young man some one will have to carry the flag when us more experienced people are gone.:sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

I understand what he is saying and I understand what you are saying.
The simple question is how do you tell the good from the bad? You can't.
You call it discrimination. Skybird calls it survival.
Realistically though Skybirds stand just drives Islam underground which would only worsen the situation and probably ignite a growth.

That is what has already started isn't it? It will be more pronounced with time as fear overrides PC.

Wrong. I talk of political affiliation! You don't get even the basis of my argument. You do not understand how far-leading consequences it has that Islam does not differ in the way the West does between religion, and politics, and sociology. It's conception of a social community does not compare to that of modern Western communities - in no way. In Islam, Islam is ALL.

And that leads to a conception of a worl to live in that is too alien, too radically diffrent from what the Wetsern mind would like to see as if it could accept that such a conception couold even exist. That's why people like you with the best of intentions try their best to ignore it or try to evade realising it. It cannot be what shall not be.

What you want is a critical relation to what you consider to be Islam - but only your own conception of it. And under no circmstances the "critical" in your relation shall be accepted to lead as far as open confrontation, and conflict. That would mean to fight. You/we/the West does not will any fight anymore. That way you make sure that you deal with something that your own set of mental tools of analysis, negotiation and reason can handle. You are not adressing the real thing, and you are not aware of that. You and the wstern society in general does not have the tools to deal with Islam on it's own terms. No wonder then that what you consider to be the virtues of Western culture of mind and reason - is perceived as the most weak and disgusting by Islam, a weakness that is to be exploited and increased - and that is what is happening. We all know that when it gets to the real deal, the West will not be willing to face an open confrontation. If Islams pressure only becomes strong enough, our institutions will bow to it, will fall to it, will surrender. In parts this is already happening inside nations, and on a bigger scale inside the administrative structures of the EU. Islam ism willing to push that far, knowing that we will shy away. It's the fourth attempt to make Europe it's own, and this time it will win it all. Thanks to our own naivety and self-perception of being so irresistable as a cultural system that nobody could resist to wish becoming like we are. And this arrogance is what will destroy us. And it will be a long-lasting darkness that follows.

You call the behavior of that man arrogant. But his attitude is not an exception, it is a rule. It has not been the first time I clashed with Muhammedans in public, and hopefully it will not be the last. I also had debates in privbate, or with colleagues. "Islam is better than your world, and it simply will outsit you" - this attitude is what I meet - by far - the most often. Of course, this will not make you think or worry. Like Blair is not worried that such a huge ammount of Muhammedans in Britain want the Sharia replacing the British law system, and even accept violance if it helps that cause.

You have choosen your stand very unwisely, as I see it. It reminds me of psychologists and sociologists, many of whom also think they are perfectly equipped to totally understand man, without limits, and know no limits themseves in their ability to help or to change a man's life and attitude and perception. I call it the "God-complex" of psychologists, or the "syndrom of omni-potential helpers". To think that one's own ability to deal well with the other knows no limits,a nd that one knows him better than he does know himself. - But truth is - we are not half as attractive for Islam as we believe, to motivate it to change itself. No, not even that much. Our only attractiveness lies in that we are the next prey.

And if the kindly friendly Muhammedan neighbour living in that house is aware of that or not, does not change the going of the great game a bit. In Germany in the past, most Germans were no Nazis. but still a majority of them ended up in direcly or indirectly helping the regime to survive and going on with it's political and military goals. Because many thought deeds were not necessary, that they were too weak anyway, and that it is enough not to like Hitler. See where it led to. I oppose fascism. And for that reason, I nessarily must oppose Muhammedanism and any other kind of religious or politcal totalitarianism as well. It is a contradiction in itself to oppose the one, and accept the other.

Radicals vs. moderates: British Muslims at crossroads
 

Well, I said:
And since Islam is generally considered to be a religion, you propagate religious discrimination.
You know me well enough to know that I understand the basis of your argument. 'Islam is politics as well as religion' and all of that. And you are right, as I have told you before on this forum. But again, don't target whole groups and don't discriminate religions - if only because it will be totally counterproductive.

How about the hundreds of thousands, if not millions - of Muslims who live in your country and mine and just try to make a living and be proper western citizens, be it with a non-western religious background?

Extreme Muslims call for a jihad against The West, so let's call for a dahij against The Muslims and start a nice little civil war in Europe.
Probably the US will have to invade Europe to restore order...

I love freedom, Human Rights and democracy, so I don't want to live in a country where on the basis of their religion (Islam) a part of the population is outcasted and/or deported.
:down:

And this is the basis of it all - it is a misperception. Islam is NOT a religion, like others. It is a religionpoliticalsystemsocialtotalitariansim. It is not just a religion. You may have noticed that I used to call it an ideolgy, repeatedly. It is NOT just a religion, with some political ingredients. It is just one thing, no construction of three things. ONE. We have no parrallel to that in Western history. That's why minds like yours have so much troubles to understand this major, essential, all-decisive difference. Forget the scales of comparisons you are used to. They do not fit.

Thank you, Skybird.