[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Or perhaps what you see as "inherent logic" is only logical to you. Like all 'true believers' you have a sacred scripture and it 'proves' you are right.

And again you evade from the obvious logic in the statement, because you insist even the destroyer of freedom being given the freedom to destroy freedom. That is too kind of you. And very suicidal. But kind.

Then what exactly do you advocate? Please tell us your solution, in plain language, not what the problem is (believe it or not I not only understand but I actually agree with you that they are dangerous). Saying that they are dangerous solves nothing. What do you want us to do about it?

First, please see that I am leavong out the debate of what person is kidner than another competely - I most of the time talk of Islam, not people. Second, do not evade by trying to open a sidetrack in the discussion and distract attention to it. You used the term of "premeptively eliminating Muslims" and gave an impression as if I said that or hinted at that. I have not mentioned such a form of genocide anywhere. what I have indicated in other debates is that we should stop being uncritical on migration being used as a demogapohic weapj to overthrow Western social ordery by demographic pressure and social pressure, and that we should not accept any further muslim migration into the west, and that we should stop to accept all the time foul compromises over special status and special rights for the followers of the precious relgion of peace in order not to offend them. I said that when a stranger comes to a foreign nation, he has no right to demand beign accepted, he has only a right to ask if he would be accepted, and that the hosting people that are the owners of the plce and call it their historic home have any right one could imagine to say No, or to ask what he hs to offer in skills, and to demand him that he obeys local habits, rules, values and laws. I said that the foriegner has nor ight that the natives must adapt to himn, but that integration mans the newcomer adapots to the locals, and I said the differenc ebetween migration and colisation is tzhat a migrant adapts to the circumstance of the new place he goes to, and the colonist tries to make the new place like the one he comes from, and demands the native to accept. I migrants do not like needing to adapt to the place instead of the place adapting to them, then they should pack their things and go back to where they came from. That too is freedom. And a right. And both for the locals, and for the newcomers.

Of preemptive elmination of Muslims I never spoke of, anywhere. maybe you must just fall back to such an extreme statement because else your arguments are too weak to make a point.

But what do you want us to actually do about it? I do understand. What you fail to see is what I pointed out - that you walk a very fine line when you want to fight those who would take away freedom by taking away the freedom yourself.

I see this line, but you talk of freedom in absolutes - all or nothing at all. and absolutely agree with Popper's logic that this means to allow freedom even to those who explcitly use freedom to destroy freedom. And this I do not accept. The german constititiuon for example explcitly prohibits this, too, even goes so far that the guaranteed rights of the constitution get lost by a person if it used these rights to destroy the good if the constitutional guarantees, or tries to destroy the constitutional order. that is not tyranny. that is not an acceptable reduction of freedom. that is simply healthy, reaosnably, vital self-defemnce and self-protection. That is to safeguard againstt he destruction of freedom. Your idea of absolute freedom - simply does not work. It can't because you are not alone on this planet. You are object of limitations to your wanted abslute freedom all day long.

I'm sure you do, but where you are wrong is in the lack of understanding of just how dangerous your own argument is. You don't defeat your enemy by becoming him.

Absurd, and another extreme quote because you have no reasonable arugment that would be realistic. I am not becoming like my enemy because I do not will him the space and opportunity and time to destroy me. With the above quote you just have rejected every cause for self-defence. If I take you by your word, nobody has the right to defend himself or his freedom because by that he limits the freedom of the other.

Two years ago, longer ago, i was all of a sudden attacked on open street by a junkey, unprovoked. He tried to slam a knife in my stomach, and only my earlier training and some reflxes saved me. I have told the story before. I got his knife in the right hip, while taking him out of action with two or three very brutal strikes that injured him severly. If I would follow your logic, I have hindred this fellas freedom (to kill me), and I had no right to do so. If I woul follow your logic I should have accepted to get killed. but I must disagree with you. not only do I claim the right to limit his freedom becasue he took action - also woudl have cliamed the very same right if he postioned himself in a threatening posture and making it clear that he was about to strike at me - I would have moved heaven and hell to take him out first, like I made sure i took him out while he did what he did - and i payed a price for it, I got injured (and that s.o.a.b. even tried to sue me for using unproportional violence while he tried to kill me because he was toned - bastard).

Sorry, i claim the right to limit the freedom of those who want to use this freedom to destryo this very freedom. It is elemental self-defence, and it is a very vital and very reasonable and morally totally valid interest to do so. And I absolutely agree with Popper's view of things.

Or in plain english: I tolerate the other if he tolerates me on equal terms. I give him the peace and freedom that he accepts to give to me. I insist on both terms, freedom and tolerance, being understood as qualities that only can work and must be demanded to base on reciprocity. this Christian mess of holding the other cheek as well, or referring to Ghandi, isnot my thing. Ghandi was lucky becasue he dealt with a relatively civilised opponent. If he would have faced the Nzis, or Saddam, he would have shot on the first day of his engagement, and we would not know of his name.

Ah, now you're getting personal. Where did I ever say I supported Islam, or even liked it? I disagree with the belief, and the extremists do indeed scare me. This is about building a building, and the freedom to do so. Stick to the subject, please.

I juudge you by what you say here, and what you say here puts you into the same camp of inbterest that supports the islamophile group. This is not about just a building, if it were, they would evade and build a Muslim bookshop in some place that does not raise any concerns and does not offend the victim'S families. this is about a mosque, which is the centre of communal islamic life and a temple at the same time, with towers that traditionally both in the orient and the occident serve as symbols of claims formpower (please save me to discuss this cultural meaning of towers that play a role in practivally all era of history of ther past 3000 years). This is not just about any building, this is about an islamic symbol, an Islamic claim - every mosque is. And once again I link to this article about the nature of those muslim fnaatics that are behind the mosque at GZ - i am not surprised that although I brought this four or five times in two threads now nobody refers to it, becasue it leaves little space for allowing these people going on.

Rauf’s Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble
Meet the Ground Zero Mosque imam’s Muslim Brotherhood friends.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the imam behind the “Cordoba Initiative” that is spearheading plans to build a $100 million Islamic center at Ground Zero, the site where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by jihadists on 9/11. He is also the author of a book called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America.But the book hasn’t always been called that. It was called quite something else for non-English-speaking audiences. In Malaysia, it was published as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.

Now it emerges that a “special, non-commercial edition” of this book was later produced, with Feisal’s cooperation, by two American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. The book’s copyright page tells the tale.

Both ISNA and IIIT have been up to their necks in the promotion of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ruthless Palestinian branch, which is pledged by charter to the destruction of Israel. In fact, both ISNA and IIIT were cited by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.

Dawa, whether done from the rubble of the World Trade Center or elsewhere, is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. As explained in my recent book, The Grand Jihad, dawa is proselytism, but not involving only spiritual elements — for Islam is not merely a religion, and spiritual elements are just a small part of its doctrine. In truth, Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, sharia, which aspires to govern all aspects of life.

This framework rejects core tenets of American constitutional republicanism: for example, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, equality of men and women, equality of Muslims and non-Muslims, and economic liberty, including the uses of private property (in Islam, owners hold property only as a custodians for the umma, the universal Muslim nation, and are beholden to the Islamic state regarding its use). Sharia prohibits the preaching of creeds other than Islam, the renunciation of Islam, any actions that divide the umma, and homosexuality. Its penalties are draconian, including savagely executed death sentences for apostates, homosexuals, and adulterers.

The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia. Scholar Robert Spencer incisively refers to dawa practices as “stealth jihad,” the advancement of the sharia agenda through means other than violence and agents other than terrorists. These include extortion, cultivation of sympathizers in the media and the universities, exploitation of our legal system and tradition of religious liberty, infiltration of our political system, and fundraising. This is why Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, boldly promises that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” through dawa.

In considering Imam Rauf and his Ground Zero project, Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood are extremely important. Like most Muslims, Rauf regards Qaradawi as a guide, and referred to him in 2001 as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” And indeed he is: a prominent, Qatar-based scholar whose weekly Al Jazeera program on the subject of sharia is viewed by millions and whose cyber-venture, Islam Online, is accessed by millions more, including Muslims in the United States. Not surprisingly, his rabble-rousing was a prime cause of the deadly global rioting by Muslims when an obscure Danish newspaper published cartoon depictions of Mohammed.

Qaradawi regards the United States as the enemy of Islam. He has urged that Muslims “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” In 2004, he issued a fatwa (an edict based on sharia) calling for Muslims to kill Americans in Iraq. A leading champion of Hamas, he has issued similar approvals of suicide bombings in Israel. Moreover, as recounted in Matthew Levitt’s history of Hamas, Qaradawi has decreed that Muslims must donate money to “support Palestinians fighting occupation. . . . If we can’t carry out acts of jihad ourselves, we at least should support and prop up the mujahideen [i.e., Islamic raiders or warriors] financially and morally.”

Qaradawi’s support for Hamas is only natural. Since that organization’s 1987 founding, it has been the top Muslim Brotherhood priority to underwrite Hamas’s jihadist onslaught against the Jewish state. Toward that end, the Muslim Brotherhood mobilized the Islamist infrastructure in the United States.

The original building block of that infrastructure was the Muslim Students Association (MSA), established in the early Sixties to groom young Muslims in the Brotherhood’s ideology — promoting sharia, Islamic supremacism, and a worldwide caliphate. As Andrew Bostom elaborated in a New York Post op-ed on Friday, Imam Rauf, too, is steeped in this ideology.

In 1981, after two decades of churning out activists from its North American chapters (which now number over 600), the Brotherhood merged the MSA into ISNA. In its own words, ISNA was conceived as an umbrella organization “to advance the cause of Islam and service Muslims in North America so as to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life.” That same year, the Brotherhood created IIIT as a Washington-area Islamic think tank dedicated to what it describes as “the Islamicization of knowledge.”

After Hamas was created, the top Brotherhood operative in the United States, Mousa Abu Marzook — who actually ran Hamas from his Virginia home for several years in the early Nineties — founded the Islamic Association for Palestine to boost Hamas’s support. One of his co-founders was Sami al-Arian, then a student and Muslim Brotherhood member, later a top U.S. operative of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which he helped guide from his perch as a professor at the University of South Florida. In 2006, al-Arian was convicted on terrorism charges.

Marzook and other Brotherhood figures established the Occupied Land Fund, eventually renamed the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), to be Hamas’s American fundraising arm. The HLF was headquartered in ISNA’s Indiana office. As the Justice Department explained in a memorandum submitted in the HLF case:

During the early years of HLF’s operation, HLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account it held with ISNA. . . . Indeed, HLF (under its former name, OLF) operated from within ISNA, in Plainfield, Illinois. . . . ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/[North American Islamic Trust] account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahideen,” the original name for the Hamas military wing. . . . From the ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook . . . and a number of other individuals associated with Hamas.

Ultimately, the HLF raised over $36 million for Hamas. At the height of the intifada, this was not about the social-welfare activities Hamas touts to camouflage its barbarism. As the journalist Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism has observed, “Ordinary Americans should be shocked and outraged to learn that Hamas was running its terror campaign from a sanctuary in the U.S.” In addition, prosecutors showed that ISNA was central to a 1993 meeting of top Brotherhood operatives, who were wiretapped “discussing using ISNA as an official cover for their activities.”

Meantime, in 1992, the IIIT contributed $50,000 to underwrite an al-Arian venture, the World & Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), a front for Palestinian Islamic Jihad that ostensibly employed several members of the PIJ governing board. IIIT has been under federal investigation since 2002 — and after his terrorism conviction, al-Arian went into contempt of court rather than honor a grand-jury subpoena in the probe.

In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood’s American leadership prepared an internal memorandum for the organization’s global leadership in Egypt. It was written principally by Mohamed Akram, a close associate of Sheikh Qaradawi. As Akram put it, the Brotherhood

must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

The memorandum included a list described by Akram as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” working together to implement this sabotage strategy. Prominently included in that list were ISNA and IIIT.

The Ground Zero project to erect a monument to sharia overlooking the crater where the World Trade Center once stood, and where thousands were slaughtered, is not a test of America’s commitment to religious liberty. America already has thousands of mosques and Islamic centers, including scores in the New York area — though Islam does not allow non-Muslims even to enter its crown-jewel cities of Mecca and Medina, much less to build churches or synagogues.

The Ground Zero project is a test of America’s resolve to face down a civilizational jihad that aims, in the words of its leaders, to destroy us from within.

If you have a problem with the site or the author, it does not matter, what he says has been revealed by others as well. I choose this one because it was the first I had at hand back then. I could as well dig out one of the others as well - in English AND in German, if wanted.

No, I called your ongoing extremist ranting "hate", and nothing else. I agree that they are dangerous, and I agree that we must keep an eye on them. But you apparently don't see how frightening your own diatribes can be sometimes.

Yes, I am totally aware that the islamophile basic climate in the West results from fear, I have said that before - the fear of needing to make a stand, to be found by a conflict one does not want to fight becasue that is to stressful and too uncivilised and oes not match one's own thinking of hopw shining and cin vining one is so that all enemies of ours fall to us just becaseu our mere glory cinvinces them that they should want to be like us. Also, there is great fear of freedom these days, becasue defending it in word woiuld mean to also be ready to defend it in deed, which maybe could cause uncomfrotable consequences. The top prioirty for many people is to avoid conflict at vall cost - no matter how hight the costs become. My priority is to prevent freedom getting detsrtoy completely, and to fight back Islam like in the past it was a necessity to fight back fascism and nazism. To avoid conflict, is secondary to me only. I want as little conflict as possible - but will as much conflict as is needed to assure this priority - pro freedom, anti Islam - becomes real. Maybe it is a family thing. The brother of my mom's father got executed by the SS while serving in the Wehrmacht. My grandfather only mentione that once. He indicated that he refused to carry out SS orders for this certain kinds of special operatons behind the frontlines. He did not need to describe the details, I understood it all by myself.

As opposed to fighting the Nazis before they actually did anything.

If only they would have done! Would have saved many lives, would have saved the world from plenty of misery. Chamberlain was no wise man. He was a fool, driven by wishful thinking that maybe can be explained by the memories of WWI - but not excused.

Again, exactly what do you advocate we do?

See above wzhen I replkied the second time to you "elimnination" thing. I would also list social issues here, but the damn search function with that string code does not work for me anymore, I cannot search and find the link to the thread I have on mind. 3-4 weeks ago, about the fianncial costs of ongoing lower class migration from Muslimc out nries into Germany, and how it effects future tax burdens, debt levels, and the balance between academical families and social wellfare cases massively shifting towards the latter. This is also a form of jihad that even has been called that and indentified as that by several Muslim leaders and clerics: piutting nations uner stress and bringing them to collapse by overloading their social security nets.

Only in your own mind.

And once again you show your inability or unwillingness to prove him wrong by logical terms. If he is so wrong, it should be so easy for you to prove it in argument. But you can't, you only can say "Total freedom or no freedom", and beyond that: ignore him when he shows right this statement of yours to be suicidal. You did it not back then, not now, and I do not expect you do it in the future. Conclusion? He's right, you're wrong.

How so? I support freedom of speech. They can say what they want, and do what they want as long as they don't break any laws.

Hitler also did not brake the constitution or the laws. Instead, he legally changed them in his favour. And that is what Muslim organisation try to do all over the Wetsern world.

You keep talking, but you haven't yet said one particular thing: WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO?

I'm really getting tired of it. Take Islam by its own scruipture, and its own history, and draw the consequences. Understand that it is hostile to your constitutional order and known cultural values. Do not give it any more ground. Insist and enforce muslim communtiies to integrate in full, to fully adapt - like all other migration communities we have at least over here are doing), and if they do not accept that and instead demand special status for Islam and chnages ot the laws in the name of Sharia, and Islam getting a word in oublic schools educaiton: kick them out. You are not dealing with migrants then, but with colinists. Hosile colonsts who have no intention to integrate.

I am aware that in the US you are lacking ebhind in developemnt of Muslim migrtation, comparedmto europe.But the probelsm in europe, in Germnany are alraedy frightening.where we are now - you will be in two or three decades at the latest. Don 't waste the time. I do not think that Europe will make it, even more so since we have the EU on our heels. Even in
poland they have sztarted to give ground to Islam. If america does not manage to protect it's non-Muslim identity, nobody will be left who could be able to restore the humanistic culture and pre-Islam order in the West again. russia will not do it, has different interests.China, india and Brazil also walk on other ways.

Then you took it completely wrong. I simply came to recognize that the right to protest against your own country when you believe it is wrong is one of the greatest rights we have. Dissent is vital to a free society, and any attempt to quell that dissent, even in the name of patriotism, goes against everything America stands for.

I do not disagree, id critise Germany myself very often, over it's foreign policies and EU obedience for example.
But the debate is not about protestiong against your country when you disagree with the government, the debate is about freedom being used to destroy freedom and replace it with Shariah. And that, Steve, is something totally and completely different.

Nice quote. Please show one thing I have said that disagrees with it. And please show one thing in that quote that justifies your desire to deny freedom in order to preserve it.

Alsmost all, that's why I have given it. You ignore that your concept of total freedom will destroy freedom, and that by insistong on your cocnept you helped to make this possible. And Popper illustrates here that only having a desire of freedom, like you or me have, does not guarantee things will end well automatically.

You indicated,like many before you, that you think I am hateful and fearful, maybe you think I am phobic or irrational.

I am not - i am detemined because I have good and solid reason to beoieve that I have a solid understanding of at least the basis of Islamic ideology, in fact I think that i know much more abiout it that most people in theWest who may have an opinionl, but who never took the time to read even a signle book about the issue. I also have had experience at location. And I was, and since some months again: I am engaged in civil right movement work against islam. I have faced death threats in letters two years ago from Muslims, and now again - from people using a leftist slang. This only confirms me views oif how the tide of thr times are shifting, and it makes me even more detmerined to defend freedom in the ways it is available to me to help in the fight. Because: a fight it already is.

Maybe we all lose, I think this is what the signs are telling, and I would not even say that it is undeserved, because those who do not appreciate their freedom do not deserve freedom, i think. but I will fall while having done my part to deliver a fight. Yyou will have created the opprtunity for the other side to win. And this is why your closed eyes on the issue make me so angry. even more so sine I consider you to be a far more intelligent guy. You should not be satisfied with your view of things.

plenty of typos here, I know, but I am already out of time and need to go NOW.