I'll simply respond to the original article linked to in this thread. As an Australian and a Muslim I am disgusted and angry at the release of JI's Abu Bakar Ba'asyir.

That headline is a little misleading. To quote from the article:

"The study found 40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western values and democracy."

At least it is misleading unless all "young Dutch Muslims" are also Moroccan, and all Moroccans are Muslim.

Seems that way.

Netherland statistics.

Prove it. We still wait for proof to your absurd statements. As long as you don'T see that the motives of the churches for acting often violated clearly the teachings of Jesus, but where actings in it's own political interest, you do not have any argument here. And it seems I am not the only one being completely unable to see how one could call that church policy to be in the following of Jesus. It often was in violation of Jesus. Where as Islam showing a violant, war-mongering kind of behavior, it is not in violation of Muhammad, but in precise recognition of his demands. And that is the decisive difference you for whatever a reason try so hard to kill, but it is pretty obvious for most people here. How could you dare to compare a Ghandi with a Saddam Hussein, a Siddharta or a Jesus with Muhammad, simply stripping them off any differences because you say (yesterday) all ideas could be abused, and not ideas do kill, but people? Was Hitler a victim or an executor of his ideas? I bet the latter. But according to your absurd logic, fascism is of same value than pacifism, tyranny is of same value than democracy, Jesus' altruism is of same value as Muhammad's murderous selfishnes, becasue all ideas can be abused, and thus it is not worth to see the qualitative differences between them. But ideas are the reasons why people may want or may not want to kill. Ideas do make people act, or not act. Even you are driven by your ideas, and since your idea in this debate is queeer, your arguments are also queer. But according to you that doesn't matter. Ideas planted in people'S heads can even be a reason why people enjoy killing. Those thugs on those Iraq videos killing hostages even enjoyed it and thought to commit an act that earns them some heavenly praise. How could you dare to reject the differences here? How could you dare to say that Jesus' teachings are of the same value as the ideology that these thugs are follwing? How could you dare to deny any value in any cultural achievement, philosophy, idea - for the simple reason that it could be abused, if one is trying that? How could you spit on the efforts of generations during centuries that tried to improve life and living since the medieval, who often failed, that is right, nevertheless there can be no doubt that we live a far better life today than our ancestors a thousand years back? How can you reject all that with a single snip of your finger?

Time and again you are offending mindlessly hundreds of thousands of >true< Christians, what do i say: millions and millions, who turned away from the church in disgust for exactly this reason: the violation of Jesus teachings, and the fact that the empty facade the church is today for most people cannot offer them anything of what these people look for in a religion. Nevertheless the overwheliming majority of these still have no problem to see themselves as Christians, and to refer to Jesus as a valuable example to base your acting upon. I myself have left the church long time ago, but despite practicing Buddhist Zen, I have no problem to see the value in the teachings of Jesus and christian mystics like Meister Eckehard or Thomas a Kempis and so many others (all of which are not better than any given bad ideology, because Scandium says they can be abused and thus are not better than these bad ideologies), and I even have taught people in both and urged them not to look into the far away culture of the East, but stick to what this their own tradition has to offer. But in your attempt to level out all qualitative differences so that noone can politically incorrectly claim that one thing may be better than another thing (the big lie of the political left: everything is equal, each man is as valuable as another), you said yesterday that all this doesn'T matter.

You said it is not ideas that kill, but man. You said there is no difference between chru8ch and Jesus, and between Jesus' focussing on peace - and muhammad's wars. Well, the ideas that I follow do made people try to avoid war and violance. where they seek war and violance, they are not Christian or buddhist at all. Islam, as an idea, has made peopoe commit more war, violance, conquest and subjugation than any other in world history as we do know it. but according to Scandium, all this does not matter.

I do not know if I should shout at or laugh about you, sorry. It is ridiculous, all this hyper-intellectual reasoning of yours. But such ignorrance surely is the reason why politics and communties are desintegrating, and thus it raises my anger. The opinion you represent I call the EU-desease, and it does nothing constructive, it only destroys, it adds no conture or form, but deletes them; it kills identity and replaces it with the dictation of "solidarity". Growth without limits and rules is no structural order. It is cancer. Cancer kills.

I do not like this perspective a bit, and cannot bring it together with some of the buddhist and Christian ideas that I value, but when thinking Islam to it's logical end, he is right. Islam has come to the same conclusion - more than one thousand years ago.

It is rampant worldwide.

Ideas in themselves are powerless. In fact they are much preferable to the alternative, which is ignorance.

No ideas only inform the choices people make, and they are at least as likely to make the "wrong" choice out of ignorance as they are out of having too many ideas. And in any case, it is ultimately the action and not the idea that has consequences. Where you put the blame on Islam for the world's ills I'd be much more likely to put the blame on ignorance. Ignorance by virtue of people who are born and kept into a state of ignorance by the theocrats who enforce this ignorance through tyranny.

By the way, you should read 1984 Skybird. As you are equating action with the same kind of "thought crime" that Orwell warned of in the fictional Big Brother world the book is set in.


Am I the one spitting on it? The enlightentment, and all of those things you speak of there, were driven by novel ideas (at the time) that lifted society out of the primitive conditions that oppression and enforced ignorance had forced them into because people had known no other way, no alternatives.

That is their right in enlightened societies such as ours that permit freedom of religion. Freedom to choose Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Wicca, or whatever else they would choose so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. If there is anyone in these threads who supports that, I would say it is me as I'm not the one who would begin to take this right away starting with Islam; for though it may begin there, it surely would not stop there.

I'm not so familiar with the EU, as I don't live in Europe. What is the EU disease that I represent?

I give it up. Hopeless. Against such solid determination to grant others the right to overthrow us and label that "freedom for all", both reason and argument, even historical example, must necessarily fail. Islam is harmless, Europe does not need an idealistic identity of it's own - that is the EU desease.

Read the comments from Muslims at the end of this news from today:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...6.php#comments

Probably these Muslims commenting there are not representative for Islam, and as usual they just misinterpret their Koran and misunderstood Sharia...? Maybe we should teach Muslims in Koran and Hadith and Sharia. Oh, wait, we already tried that. I wonder what has come of that.

Here in Canada, the multi-culturalism that you regard as the "EU disease" has existed here forever and is not considered a "disease". Rather, it is part of our own distinct identity as Canadians. I guess that is part of why I'm more optimistic about other cultures and don't feel threatened by them the way you seem to be by Islam ;)

When you tolerate the intolerable, it becomes a disease.

Canada faces 'jihad generation'.

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.;)

Let's see how healthy you Canadians are.

Hot off the press: Sistani to Muslims in Canada: obey Canadian laws..."insofar as religious values are not ridiculed".

Islam does not tolerate multi-culti. Islam only tolerates islami-culti. Other culti is a target of subjugation in case of a theistic target, killing in case of an atheistic target. Islam and multi-culti are excluding each other. Plain and simple, proven by the example set by over thousand years of history and the explicit demands and teachings by Muhammad. Practice corresponds with theology, without significant exception. Like the EU, Canada is sitting on a time-bomb. Maybe it will blow up a little bit later than the EU, but it will. Thanks to people who do not want to understand the difference between Islam and true mutli-culti, and do not want to realize the aggressive nature of this sly "guest" they are hosting. Relations of this kind are one-sided and parasitic and usually end with the death of the host.

Well I think it is time that all these isalmiwahtever threads had their own forum to go into, whatever the title they descend into the same opinions as written by the usual suspects getting involved.

The subject at hand condemns the Christian Church for terrorizing native Canadians, however, he has no problem with a multi-culturalism that allows Muslims to form their own ghettoes where they can terrorize their women, treat them like objects, arrange marriages and kill for honor. He does not feel threatened by such culture, rather, it's part of his distinct identity as a Canadian. ;)

I suggest everybody take a look at French journalist and writer Caroline Fourest, she recently published a book called "La Tentation Obscurantiste". She writes at the Charlie Hedbo, a magazine that printed the Mohammed Cartoons in refusal of automatic-censorship. She's also in the Pro-Choix and also wrote the book "Frère Tariq" which introduced me to her (a book that proves Tariq Ramadan is a "Moderate" who speaks what Europeans want to hear but supports Islamists and even has connections with terrorist groups).

It's about the European Socialists who refuse to be anti-totalitarian, to recognize the totalitarian nature of Islam, and oppose it.

The point is, those who pretend not to choose between Democracy and Islamic totalitarianism, already chose not to defend Democracy.

To her, Europeans commit the same mistake commited in the days of Stalinism, while some are only "usefull idiots" (her words), others outright flirt with the sharia for it's resemblance with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In their refusal to recognize the nature of Islam, any "progressive" and "enlightened" groups within Islam are mixed with the majoritarian (Bolshevik) field and obscured.

And then the anti-totalitarian leftists are labeled as islamophobes, racists, bushists, sharonists, traitors, etc., when in fact they are only denouncing the totalitarianism of Islam in the name of universalism.

She says: "Not saying Who is Who is taking the risk of putting everybody in the same bag". To her the USA is a Democracy even with Bush's Christian fundamentalists while Muslim fundamentalists openly dream with a global theocratic dictatorship.

To her the world cannot be reduced to a struggle between Bush and Osama and the 9/11 attacks were not an attack against the USA alone, but against each and every Democracy in the world. When the real danger of Islamic fundamentalism is denied, part of the Left hides behind a false neutrality that never criticizes Islam, but attacks those who dare doing so. She distinguishes a Left that recognizes Islam as a totalitarian threat and another which believes it to be a progressive libertation movement.

The "usefull idiots" of Islam usually also fall blind for cultural relativism too, which leads to the acceptance of any behavior or action originated from a Muslim. Sexism, homophobia and totalitarianism are taken as folklorical and considered harmless, so these "real Muslims" are prefered to the laic cultural Muslims who are not sufficiently folklorical. She includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali as one of the laic cultural Muslims who refuse to be sacrificed in the altar of multiculturalism.

To end with a phrase of hers: "Is it possible to fight for another world in the company of fundamentalists who also dream with another world of their own?"

You're full of crap scandium, yet again.

You do not represent even a fraction of Canadians or their viewpoints. In fact you are probably in the smallest minority of all Canadians who so solidly support fanatical, or even terroristic muslims.

Most Canadians do not like radical muslims and would readily send them packing to where they came from. You are the exception, don't go spouting that Canadian multiculturalism includes supporting terrorists (Which a hell of a lot of muslims are).