[Skybird]

Is it also eugenic to brandmark Naszism as something bad? If an ideology by content and historical example has proven itself to be of "evil", must it nevertheless be tolerated, in the name of a greater tolerance? If a majority of people whose "faith" is so much diverse, as you indicate, remains silent and inactive and do nothing efficient to ban those "radicals" that claim to represent this faith in it's true form (and I insist on that they have Muhammad and Koran and history on their side in this claim), does this not allow to make logical conclusions about these silent majorities attitude towards those (infidels) at whose cost this abuse of their precious ideology is being practiced (like it is argued that the Palestinians are not responisble for having elected Hamas in to office?). Must I not believe a Muslim who preaches my subjugation and my second-class value as a human being, if his own people do nothing, nothing, nothing, to make him shut up, quit his rank and office, and make sure that he and people like him cannot get back to representative and administrative powers? Should I mistrust those truly secular groups in Turkish population that warn the West to acceopt Turkey or Islam and ignroing it's agenda to bring down Western values and coinstitutional orders and make them submit to Islam? when i see these observations and comapre them to the theology and the history of Islam and see it in correspondence since over a thousand years, should I ignore it and think of it as pure random chance? Is it a peaceful attitude of mind if people do not commit bloodshed with their own hands - but allow that some commit it, in their names and the name of their belief? Is that reasonable, convincing, civilized, unbiased? Should I assume that a robber and thief, a warmonger, massmurder and narcistic psychopath, a greedy sly desert gangster for whom all world he knew still was not enough, and who has ordered over 70 wars and predatory raids, who tried to wipe out whole tribes because their intellectuals were superior to his own self-made education, who murdered by his own hands before he preached the first time, who sent hundred and thousands of captured females into slavery, who murdered critics and people who did not believe his megalomania - should I assume that such a man could be the origin of a cult that promises peace, justice and reason? Should I take people who still believe in this sick figure and stubbornly reject to ever ask question about themselves and never test their belief (as has been done by almost every other greater religion that has survived until today) as people whose civilisation is of equal value and as worthy a set of ethics than ours? - Truth is, I do exactly as you recommend: I judge Muslim communities in cities, countries by their deeds, and what they alloow to be happening in their name, or not. And this is what speaks against them, loud, and with an alomost yelling voice. - A US GI enters A German house and sees the bright spots on the wall where the photos of the Führer were hanging. The houseowner comes down the stairs and says he was no Nazi, and he still is no Nazi, and Fascism is bad. He insists that Hitler is a great man, and the party always is right. You take him as an honest democrat and ignore the contradictions. I do not trust him a bit, and label him a Nazi. I let the deeds and facts speak, for words are cheap and must not be true. - Deeds, dear Islam, no words, promises, declarations, all of which you, dear Islam, explicitly allow to be abused in lies and deceptions if it is for the purposes to weaken the infidels and strengthen Islam. Some days ago, the British Muslim community sent a speaker to the microphones, after one year the finally said that it is not legitimate to kill innocents in the name of Islam. At the same time statements by even higher-ranking clerics from ALL Muslim countries that population of wetsern coutries are no innocents, since years and decades remain anquestioned,unchallenged, uncritizised by public Muslim organization and communities. Cheap wordplays only, not worth anything. But according to you, Scnadium, this just means nothing. But it is sly indeed, and greed and env plays a major role in Muhammad's demand to rule and own all world. Islam is his baby. Like it never was enough for him, it never is enough for Islam as well. That is no cheap slogan by me, that I conclude after having studied Islamic history and Muhammad's biography and character qith quite some effort and material. If I really were that stupid like you indicate, then you might want to explain why I do not attack races, other religions and cultures (burning widows inHinduism isn'T nice, is it?) thta are also present inGermany and europe. Africans for example, in huge numbers. Hindus. Indians. Jews.... Poor Islam (or shall I say Muhammadanism, becasue it exclusively is about what Muhammad has created in word, deed and sermon), mean evil Skybird just misunderstood how wellmeaning you really are. That you, poor Islam, has fought more wars against other Islamic factions than any other world religion ever has fought within itself (you can simply count it out in history books), and that innocent peaceloving Islam has started more wars of attack against other cultures than any other religion (including the bad evil "Christians", please do the counting thing again), I'm sure is only accidental. That Muslims today destroy cemetaries of foreign religionsin their territories, and destroy cultural monuments of historic value because they remind them of the time before the arrival of Islam, the time of chaos (if that is not ironic), and that all this take splace without a single Muslim country raisng it's voice against that, and withoiut a single muslim organization makes itself heared and noticed by effective dcededs to stop those who do it, certainly has no meaning that is worth to think about. Because we must be solidaric in our decision to think of Islam as being an equal.