NYC Mosque Gets the go!

[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.

[AVGWarhawk]

So anyway, besides Skybird and Tribesman.....this project two blocks from ground zero will cause ongoing issues. It is in poor taste to construct such a building IMO.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Wrong on both counts. It seems logical to you because you already believe it. Please show exactly how what you said follows the correct rules of logic.

Secondly, I don't insist the "destroyer of freedom be given the freedom to destroy freedom". You're making that up yourself - putting the words you want to hear into my mouth. What I insist on is freedom of speech, nothing else. Actually not even that. What I have insisted on in this thread is the legal right to build a building. Kindness has nothing to do with it.

Can you possibly stick to the actual subject, rather than derail the thread into your pet hobby horse?

And quote what I actually said, not what you want me to have said so your can make your point, however off-topic it may be?

Second, do not evade by trying to open a sidetrack in the discussion and distract attention to it.

The subject is whether a group of people have the legal right to erect a building. Nothing more. You are the one who sidetracked it into your favorite tirade.

As for preemptive elimination of anybody? Okay, you win. So tell me: Exactly what are you talking about all the time, and what do you propose we do about it? You haven't actually given us a hint about that one.

Absurd, and another extreme quote because you have no reasonable arugment that would be realistic.

Always easy to dismiss an argument by calling it "unreasonable" or "unrealistic". You are only reading my argument in the light of what you think I've said, not what I've actually said.

I'm 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.

You don't give him the space and time? How exactly to accomplish that prevention?

And I've never rejected any cause for self-defence. You're making that one up as well. I've supported free speech, not freedom of attack. I fully support self-defence. Do you support free speech?

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.

When have I once denied the right to self-defence? Please show quotes. You keep making this up as you go along.

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.

Show everyone here where I have once said anything of that kind. That's not my logic at all, and you know it. You are either resorting to putting words in my mouth or you truly have no clue what I'm talking about.

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.

Yes, it is. Or rather not about the building itself, but the legal right to build it.

Once again you build a huge wall-of-text argument, challenging me to dispute the logic of your newest prophet. I'm not even going to bother, because you have steadfastly refused to answer the simplest of questions, and one that you need to answer now:

You say you don't advocate preemptive elimination. You say I feel a need to let them take away my freedom before I'll listen. You say I have no logic.

Okay, so quit dodging the question and tell me:

WHAT? EXACTLY? DO? YOU (not Popper, but YOU)? WANT? ME? TO? DO?

[mookiemookie]

[Bubblehead1980]

Very much a "**** You" to the US to build this so close to ground Zero.The Imam heading this is a radical and should not even be allowed in America.Clear example of Liberal "tolerance" being used against us.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Very much a "**** You" to the US to build this so close to ground Zero.The Imam heading this is a radical and should not even be allowed in America.Clear example of Liberal "tolerance" being used against us.

Yup, because radical thought has no place in the United States!

So how exactly is this Islamic community center a F You to the United States while a mosque that is 3 1/2 blocks away is ok?

Or are you for retroactively tearing down religious buildings?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You went down that slippery slope quick.

Where's the slippery slope? If one is suggesting that one organization has the right to, in bad taste, erect a building of some kind, why then can't any organization do it?

Or are you conceding that there are indeed some organizations should be disallowed from erecting facilities (if not, explain Walmart...)?

If you are indeed conceding the latter, please justify how you would permit this organization under this particular leadership while not allow another extreme organization under extremist leadership.

As an aside, I love how Bloomberg repeatedly refers to "tolerence" on this issue. So wait - we're supposed to tolerate those who wish us and our way of life destroyed?

Perhaps America stands for tolerence, but shouldn't there be pragmatic limits to that?

PS: Here's another one - should NAMBLA be allowed to build a facility across the street from an all-boys elementary school? If you were the a parent of a student there would you attempt to block that? (If not, what the hell is wrong with you?)

[Aramike]

Or are you for retroactively tearing down religious buildings?

Are you suggesting that, simply because something is already there, it makes no sense to oppose something new?

I tend to believe in the principle of "control what you can control". Just because one can't do anything about the preexisting mosque doesn't mean that one is therefore disqualified to prevent another one.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Very much a "**** You" to the US to build this so close to ground Zero.

Whether it is or not, you need to read the rules on swearing in these forums; even pseudo-swearing.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq...._item_language

[TheSatyr]

I am feeling more and more that it is Skybird and those who think like him that are the real threat here. His views towards the Muslims is frightingly similar to Hitler's views towards the Jews. He may not say it out loud,but he seems to hint at wanting some kind of "final solution" when it comes to Muslims.

It's obvious that there are some segments of the German population that have learned NOTHING from history.

[Sailor Steve]

I wouldn't go that far, but I am curious to find out what his actual "solution" is.

[Aramike]

I am feeling more and more that it is Skybird and those who think like him that are the real threat here. His views towards the Muslims is frightingly similar to Hitler's views towards the Jews.

This statement tells me that you either have no clue what Skybird's views on Islam are or you have no clue what Hitler's views on Jews were.

The former is easily remedied by reading without a predetermined repulsion.

The latter, well, I just find it intriguing how it seems that, every time someone disagrees with something strongly, Hitler and his facism finds a way to creep into the discussion, despite the merits.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Aramike

PS: Here's another one - should NAMBLA be allowed to build a facility across the street from an all-boys elementary school? If you were the a parent of a student there would you attempt to block that? (If not, what the hell is wrong with you?)

Well, then we shouldn't allow any Catholic churches to be across the street from schools. After all, I've heard in the news that they do some pretty nasty things with children in those places.


The difference is that NAMBLA is an organization dedicated to a certain wrong behavior, while the Catholic Church is an organization with some members who have engaged in a wrong behavior.

If someone wants to build a mosque on their property, that's fine. If someone want to open a branch office for Al Quida, that's not fine.

(No offense to any Catholics)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Wrong on both counts. It seems logical to you because you already believe it. Please show exactly how what you said follows the correct rules of logic.

And another time you evade to indicate why Popper is wrong in his warning. Instead you want me to start running around in circles, to the rythm of your drum.

Secondly, I don't insist the "destroyer of freedom be given the freedom to destroy freedom".

Imn the context discussed here, that is the inevitable consequence of your demand for absooliute freedom.

You're making that up yourself - putting the words you want to hear into my mouth.

No I draw the ob vious logical conclusion from what you say. you say it is either absolkute freedom, or no freedom, and you said that there is no inbbetween, whioch can only be understood as exactly what you said: either total freedom, or it is no freedom at all.

What I insist on is freedom of speech, nothing else.

I insist on freedom of speech not beeing abused to propagate the destruction of freedom of speech. i am in total agreement with the German constitution here -w hcih was desogned under massive influence and pressure by the United staes, France and Britain, btw.

Actually not even that. What I have insisted on in this thread is the legal right to build a building. Kindness has nothing to do with it.

And you totally ignore the cultural implication, the symbolic implication, the claim for power that is symbolised by not just any building but a mosque. you ignore that löand.taking dimension that the erection of towers traditonally has in both the orient and the - dman, I already explained that in my last reply and you did not bother, so why should you now. i take from your reply that it is just any building then you have no püroblem with a nazi culture centre beeing erected near the gate of the auschwitz memorial. It is just a building, after all. with even less cultural meanign for Nazis than a mosque has for Islam.

Do you know that islam claims that every country where ever a muslim'S foot touched the arth shall be seen as property oif Islam, that can never be given up, never become another culture's property again, and must be defended to be Islamic until the end of all time? You do not cionvince me when you tell me that you do not like Islam. You are worried enough by it that you accept to give it the opportunity to strengthen it's options to finally overcome your oh so free society - to mock he victims of 9/11 that got killed due to the motivating power and teachings of islamic ideology, and to spread its seed even further in your free country with every damn mosque that gets build. That relatives your statement of how much you despise islam quite clearly. To me, in this question you are just like any other "Mitläufer".

Can you possibly stick to the actual subject, rather than derail the thread into your pet hobby horse?

I stick to the obnject of olur collison all the time. you just do not like to be reminded of the implications of what you say. Where as the solutiojn to your problem would be so simple: if you wish to imply something different than what you do, maybe chose your argument accordingly.

And quote what I actually said, not what you want me to have said so your can make your point, however off-topic it may be?

Oh, I am almost fixiated on what you say and by that imply, thats why refer on both your quotes, and the implications of your quotes. And you just do not like to be exposed to such unwavering ammount of attention.

The subject is whether a group of people have the legal right to erect a building. Nothing more. You are the one who sidetracked it into your favorite tirade.

A mosque is not just any building, nor is the motivation behind wanting to build one just like any other. Intersting that you also must compeltey ignore the background described in that essay I linked (no, last time I think I quoted it in full again, didn't I). Once again i refer to the historical symbolic meaning of such special buildings ( a church also is not just any building, you see, or a palace, or a tower in the heart of an opposing peope'S land). I refuse your claim - it's just your claim - that this is jst about any building being erected. You want to refuse that there is more, because seeing that would put your passive posture on the question of Islamci advance into question.

As for preemptive elimination of anybody? Okay, you win. So tell me: Exactly what are you talking about all the time, and what do you propose we do about it? You haven't actually given us a hint about that one.

I have, three times in my last reply alone. and in one of the immediate replies before that reply I also did. (Not to mention many threads in the past, but these do not count here, okay). Must I really do it once again ?

I do not, since you can already read it by yourwself, I just add another one to the list: our constitutions should be changed, so that any ideology, no matter what, that does not strictly obey and accept the strict difference between religion and state, religuous practicing and an public interest and politics, can no longer demand to benefit from the guarantee of free religious practicing in order to make its pltial gioals untouchable. Any ideology being practiced in a relgious group or a poltical party has to fully submit to the secular basic order of wetswrn states like Germany and the United states. Else we leave our constitutional order completely defenseless to islam, because Islam does not separate between relgion and polltics, and claims religious prtection when aggressively pushing anti-constitutional politcal goals.

And I add another point that I forgot earlier, just for you. We shoudl stop crucifying ourselöves over our laws if these laws get constantly and massively abused by islamic interest groups to serve against our communal interest, the identity of our nations and people. we should stop allowing our freedom and our tolerance and our laws being turned against us to destroy these freedoms and laws and to propagate shariah. Propagating shariah law should be banned as a threat to the constitutional order. Integration should become a mandatory duty by law for any immoigrant coming into our nations - without compromise. Migrants have to adapt to their new home nation, not th eother way around. Oh wait - i already had that the last time. That last time you claim I did not adress your question.

And you, personally, should be doing what is possible in america to oppose planned polktics and decisions: civil disobedience, protest marczhes if that is your cup of tea, joining "Bürgerinitiatven" against islam, joining information movements about islam, blocking thre constuction site, sending angry letters to associated compoanies, boycottying them - man oh man, there is so much you can do. Years ago I joined a civil rights mvoement that successfully prevented the extension of a mosque becaysue the addito0nal ground was bought on the basis of fraud. Since some months I am engaged again, in a less civil, more official context linked to monitoring Islamic networks and local organisations, I also help out another local movement in information campaigns again since some weeks.

And you ask what you can do? Precidntion for that is that you even want to do somethign agsimnt Islam, or that mosque. And both obviously is not the case.

Always easy to dismiss an argument by calling it "unreasonable" or "unrealistic". You are only reading my argument in the light of what you think I've said, not what I've actually said.

Says somebody who at that point just had to refer to an extreme to make his point. You declared the victim to be the same like the perpetrator when the victim claims the right of self-defence. If that is not extreme, or again aguing according to "all or nothign at all for me, please".

You don't give him the space and time? How exactly to accomplish that prevention?

Rethoric question, you lready know the answer. By not allowjng freedom of speech being absued for destroiyjg freedom of speech. By not allowing fereedom being used to plan for the destruction of freedom. By not allwoing any more special status and special rights that Islam alraedy enjoys in wetsern culture, media, legislation, public attention. It already is the religion No 1, if you consider the ammount of media time spend on Islam issues, and how much time we need to spend with dealing with it in our daily perception. And by doing all the things I just have listed two or three paragraphs before, and the reply before: migration and integration, etc etc etc.

And I've never rejected any cause for self-defence. You're making that one up as well.

Wrong, you reject the right of self defence by insisting that freedom must accept the other the freedom to destroy oneself, and one's freedom. that is self-defence, and you reject it.

I've supported free speech, not freedom of attack.

You give the other the freedom of attack by refusing to limit hi9s freedom when he used that freedom to attack you in order to destroy your freedom.

[quote9I fully support self-defence. Do you support free speech?[/quote]
Yes I do - as long as it is not used for propagarting and attemtping the destruction of free speech. The constitution of my country sees it exaclty hte same way, in case you have forgotten by now that I already have mentioned that twice. Your memory seems to work a bit selective today. I think your country does not work much different, i think. you call it not "activities that are a threat to the constitution", like in Germany, you call it "national security". Which by your logic already means that there is no freedom in your country.

When have I once denied the right to self-defence? Please show quotes. You keep making this up as you go along.

I just confront you woith the implication of what you say. and I do so as often as you bring it up.

Show everyone here where I have once said anything of that kind. That's not my logic at all, and you know it. You are either resorting to putting words in my mouth or you truly have no clue what I'm talking about.

Yoi insist on freedom needing to be total and absolute., else it is not freedom. while I hindred that guy to kill me as he intended, I was limiting his freedom. which in your argument is not acceptable, because you insist in absolute, total freedom. Which implies that I just even will to get stabbed to death, else the other guy diod not enjoy this total freedom you want to give to everybody - even to those abusing it, as you insist.

Yes, it is. Or rather not about the building itself, but the legal right to build it.

Oh, it is only and exclsuievly and was from the beginning on about the cultural and symbolic meaning of that building, do not be mistaken in your intentional naivety. The plan to put it there and nowhere else, pushed by this orthodox, djihad-driven Muslim group that in other parts of the world (that are not as free as your freedom definition, btw) released publications on how the event of 9/11 and the destruction site can be used for Islamic propaganda and to drive the teeth of Islam even deeper into american legislation and media acceptance, is not just any random coincidence. Like the Gaza convoy incidcent, the controversy is wanted, and was aimed for, followed by victory and raisjng the flag of the perpetrator over the masgrave of the victims.

you maybe have no problem with that. But I have. I would sshove them their damn plan into the one ear, and out of the other.

Once again you build a huge wall-of-text argument, challenging me to dispute the logic of your newest prophet. I'm not even going to bother, because you have steadfastly refused to answer the simplest of questions, and one that you need to answer now:

You say you don't advocate preemptive elimination. You say I feel a need to let them take away my freedom before I'll listen. You say I have no logic.

Okay, so quit dodging the question and tell me:

WHAT? EXACTLY? DO? YOU (not Popper, but YOU)? WANT? ME? TO? DO?

What - AGAIN...?

I have a befgame for you. Instead og counting sheep this night, try to correctly count how often I have now said that I agree with Popper on these mentioned quotes by him. BTW, on tolerance I have said like that quote by Popper since I estimate three years so. I had at least two full threads just explainign why tolerance needs limits else it leads to its own destruction and or anarchy and the law odf the strongest. Just to make that clear: I do not just parrot Popper. Maybe you mistake me with Letum. i remember that he was a great fan and reader of Popper. I have on book, in the free society, but do not think i know it in and out and can quote from it at will, without preparation. I meanwhile forgot most of it.

[Skybird]

I refuse to waste breath for just another round around the house - the grass already is flat like asphalt, so I am out of this thread. Either you get it now, after numerous repetitions of mine, or you don't.