NYC Mosque Gets the go!

[Schroeder]

O.K. I indeed have made the mistake of writing immigration instead of integration and it was rightfully pointed out.
The rest of my statement however remains.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

BTW since we are talking about free speech. The newly assigned minister for social affairs of Lower Saxony, Mrs Özkan, a German born Muslim of Turkish decent, wanted to get representatives of the German media to sign a so called "Media Charter". This charter included that all the media should only use "integration supporting language" in their articles. In other words, if a crime has been committed by a member of the religion of peace then don't mention to what ethnic group he belongs. Another blatant attempt to gloss over the real situation here. Thank god that she failed.
Here is an article about it from a Turkish source: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.p...fer-2010-08-02

I do not know what devil has ridden Wulf to give her that post. He probbaly wanted to create a pro-Turkish Obama-effect at all cost. The woman Mrs. Özkan is a known close and trusted buddy of Vulgar Öger, former owner and chief of holiday flyer Öger tours. Mr. Öger himself is closely attached to the fundamentalist Mili Görus movement, he tries to deceive the public over his attempt to make Mili Görus cooperate even closer with the radical Muslim Brotherhood, and some also link him to the Turkish ultranationalistic Grey Wolves. He is also said to have good links to fundamentalist Turkish premier Erdoghan, who encourages Turks in Germany to not integrate, and called such demands by Germans to Turks that they should integrate, a "crime again humanity". So, Öger means you get four hits with just one name! To make a close adviser and friend of a highly suspicious activist like Öger a minister for social affairs in Germany, illustrates the discouraging ammount of lacking sense of realism and naivety in the political landscape in Germany when it comes to Muslim and especially Turkish migration and integration.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Please answer all three questions, without saying "I've already done so"...

Originally Posted by Skybird

I already asnwered that,

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The reason you get so much resistance from me is not that you disagree, but that you come across as 'preachy'. In fact in my own head I see you as a religious fanatic, talking down to people because you "know" that you're right.

I say that not to insult you, because I don't know you at all or what you are actually like. But that's how you come across, at least to me.

I, on the other hand, "know" that I'm wrong, or at least that there's a good chance I am. My absolutism on freedom is nowhere near as absolute as you might think, but the people I deal with daily are the ones who want to take away freedom from a different angle. They would erode our freedoms in the name of "saving our country", i.e. take away freedom in the name of preserving it. I see this not in you personally, but in some of the things you've said. It really is a fine line, and to me some of your ideas seem to be of the nature I fight against the most. I really do see some of your ideas as just as dangerous as those you oppose.

That said, I won't address the answers you gave, not because I dismiss them, but because they were reasonable and certainly have some merit, so I have to think about them for awhile. Thanks for actually laying all that out for me.

The rest of my statement however remains

How can the rest of the statement remain when it is based on a false premise?
As was pointed out in the Spiegel article once you cut through the "outrage" she was calling for something in the media that Saxony journalists already have themselves as part of their own charter, and her other "contraversial" thing was about the preservation of a secular state.
So since she was argueing for integration which you want, and against a religious state which you don't want then how can your statement remain when she is in agreement with you and you are objecting to the very things you are calling for???????

Though its not as funny as Skys attempt to link her to people who link to groups who want completely different things and paint it as part of his united jihadi conspiracy theory.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How can the rest of the statement remain when it is based on a false premise?

Does it? I guess all the media outcry and that she was called back by her own party was also based on a false premise?

As was pointed out in the Spiegel article once you cut through the "outrage"

What Spiegel article?

she was calling for something in the media that Saxony journalists already have themselves as part of their own charter,

What has Saxony to do with it?
As a matter of fact the representatives of the media in Lower Saxony felt that they were supposed to sign a self censor agreement.

So since she was argueing for integration which you want, and against a religious state which you don't want then how can your statement remain when she is in agreement with you and you are objecting to the very things you are calling for???????

First of all, who brought that crucifix issue into this debate? I did not. So why are you referring to this now? I never even mentioned it.
Second arguing for integration is one thing. To make the media write only positively about a certain ethnic group is not arguing but simply glossing over realities. Why should a newspaper whitewash things just because immigrants have been involved? Again extra rights for them? Being untouchable for the media while they can write what they want about every native German? This is not integration! It's censorship and whitewashing of realities.
Maybe we should ask ourselves why there is supposedly a need to do so? Is it that certain people appear more often in the negative news than they should according to their numbers?

Does it? I guess all the media outcry and that she was called back by her own party was also based on a false premise?

Media outcry is media outcry, it doesn't need any basis for it to occur, as for her party making it an issue that means nothing as thats what politicians do when the media spout as an issue. Look at the American example recently with Breitbart creating a huge story which outraged the public and got the white house to step in decisively to tackle the issue ....before it emerged it was all just bull cooked up by a wingnut with an agenda.

What Spiegel article?

Sorry I didn't realise views on an issue had to be limited to one source.

What has Saxony to do with it?

It was for the state of Lower Saxony.

As a matter of fact the representatives of the media in Lower Saxony felt that they were supposed to sign a self censor agreement.

Hmmmmm.....
"A representative of the German Journalists' Association in the state described Özkan's initiative as superfluous, noting that similar language was already contained in the journalists' code of conduct in the state."
Damn that German media for reporting that eh.

First of all, who brought that crucifix issue into this debate? I did not. So why are you referring to this now? I never even mentioned it.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you don't want people to read the links you post.
So if you don't want to bring it into the debate Schroeder then don't link to a story its in.
It does nicely illustrate the media outrage angle though doesn't it, as they got all flusterd about banning crucifixes as thats popular outrage the muppets can really hate, while ignoring banning the headscarves as they don't want them damn muslims stealing their thunder on popular outrage that they are selling the muppets.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The first time I was ever told "With freedom comes responsibility" it was a WW2 vet who was also in the habit of saying "I didn't fight and watch my buddies die so you could protest against this great country of ours!" It took a trip to Vietnam to make me realize that that's exactly what I was fighting for - so others could say what they wanted, including the negative.

It's true, freedom does require responsible use, just like any other weapon. The responsibility to guarantee it for everyone. As Thomas Paine said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his own enemy against oppression."


Glad to hear it. How do you define the "responsibility" part then?


Not sure exactly what you mean by that. Please elaborate.

Sorry for taking so long SS. I had a bit of trouble finding the thread. I hope you understand.

let me address your queries.


It all comes down to; the liberty one enjoys must be accompanied by the threat of giving it up for the current fad; and fighting that fad, even if it means ones life, to allow others to enjoy the possibility. In my mind that is the responsibility of which I am speaking.

It may sound trite and easy to say, but I believe it and am willing to procede on that course.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Sorry for taking so long SS. I had a bit of trouble finding the thread. I hope you understand.

Of course. Communication by any means other than speech always takes time. No problem.

It all comes down to; the liberty one enjoys must be accompanied by the threat of giving it up for the current fad; and fighting that fad, even if it means ones life, to allow others to enjoy the possibility. In my mind that is the responsibility of which I am speaking.

That parallels what Jefferson wrote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

I agree that the responsibility, the duty and the necessity to defend it is there. As I say, I've just had too many encounters with people who used similar words as a cover for the very opposite. Makes me paranoid sometimes.

But beware. Liberty itself is sometimes considered "the current fad".

I agree that the responsibility, the duty and the necessity to defend it is there. As I say, I've just had too many encounters with people who used similar words as a cover for the very opposite. Makes me paranoid sometimes.

I have matured enough to both understand and know the meanings of my words. I also know that to believe in anything less is to surrender to the tyrany which is omni-present. A quick look at what we used to call Europe reveals the danger of government.


But I am happy to see we are on the same path.

[Skybird]

Whatever, Steve. As I said, I see myself as determined - not fearful, phobic, irrational, hatefilled, or missionary, and I consoder myself to be reasonably well-informed about Islam both by academic input and literature, and experience in Muslim countries, and in fact I see myself as much better informed than the average person in this country. At least I am not more fearful, phobic, irrational, hateful about Islam than were resistance thinkers, -doers and - fighters in Nazi Germany. I only say that to indicate that to me and others Islam is as much a "clear and present danger" as this term can indicate, a twin in mind of fascism, Stalinism, Nazism, all these three are totalitarian systems. Nor do I tell people that they should take over my own ideology - I present none, and I do not hold one, at least if you do not claim freedom to be an ideoloigy (to me it is not). This I say not to compare myself with resistance fighters of the past, or to claim their courage and determination for myself, in no way - I do not know for sure if I would have the courage to go as far as many of them did, and I have no reason - by own example - to take for granted that I would. Such things you cannot answer in advance, you only know it for sure once you are in a situation where you must make a decision and cannot escape it - before that, you only know what you hope you would do in such a situation. But my level of alertness about Islam is why I even accept consideration of means that no longer are covered by "civilisational" or "legal" consensus. Getting rid of this monster Islam that already has done more damage in human history than any other ideology or empirial claim ever had made mankind to suffer from, to free and save as many people from it as possible within our home countries - this is the ultimate priority. Formal or abstract concerns are of secondary importance only. As i say all the time: use of as liottle force as possible - but as much as is needed to acchieve the priority objective. Sticking to legal rules that to significant degree already got tailored to make islam unavailable for criticism and attack, is no priority I accept, even more so if the cultural climate (the "mood" of a society) in which these rules get implemented already is extremely islamophile and in favour of interpreting the law in favour of islamic interests, and sometimes even manipulating it, ignoring parts of it where that is opportune, and bending it.

I have told the story before of how the policer greeted me two years ago when I showed them the letters with death threats from obviously muslim persons that I had gotten. They warned me to stay silent on it, else the Bundeskriminalamt may want to question me on the possibility of me being a threat to the constitution by having worked in a civil rights movement against islam. To say I was pissed, was an understatement. It was not the first time the legal system in Germany has let me or my family down. I put no trust into it anymore - and with the EU grabbing more and more powers, I do trust it even less.

I have no family of my own, but I know two cute little ladies 5 and 7 years old, I am their "Pate" (=godfather?) and I know the mother since almost half my life now, and thus am a very close friend of the family. It's as close to an own family as I will ever get. I can not embrace the perspective that they will spend a good part of their adult life in a society and country that I once called my "home" but then forces people to live under quite a bit of influence by an evil ideology like Islam. I would also fight against Christian fundamentalists turning over the country, or scientology, or Judaic orthodox. Or Nazis. and that is why I want people to stand up and fight for what is ours: freedom, home, historic identity, cultural identity and tradition - all of which islam has not and shall never have any word in. If that means confrontation, conflict and fight - okay, bring it on. The traits i listed, are worth it to me.

My replies match the questions - and their format context - of yours. Before the last exchange, as well as before. Your last questioning was different, that's why I came in again. Else I would not have answered anymore.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Media outcry is media outcry, it doesn't need any basis for it to occur, as for her party making it an issue that means nothing as thats what politicians do when the media spout as an issue.

Maybe, maybe not. I've actually never heard our media respond like this. So this was a special occasion, besides politicians have no call in how journalists should have to work, so the entire charter thing was uncalled for.

Sorry I didn't realise views on an issue had to be limited to one source.

I ask again, what Spiegel article?
Do you have a link?
If you claim some source, then provide it.

Hmmmmm.....
"A representative of the German Journalists' Association in the state described Özkan's initiative as superfluous, noting that similar language was already contained in the journalists' code of conduct in the state."
Damn that German media for reporting that eh.

First off, why would anybody see the need to hand out charters if everything was already going as they wished? The media charter could have been the beginning of more and more demands to be "friendly to integration". Let's see with what we can get away with and push it to the max.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you don't want people to read the links you post.
So if you don't want to bring it into the debate Schroeder then don't link to a story its in.

I made pretty clear what my initial post was about and it didn't contain anything about crucifixes. You brought it up. My post was about the media charter. If there had been a recipe for apple pie below the article, would you have assumed I was talking about baking something?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Whatever, Steve. As I said, I see myself as determined - not fearful, phobic, irrational, hatefilled, or missionary. At least not more fearful, phobic, irrational, hateful than were resistance thinkers, -doers and - fighters in Nazi Germany. I only say it to indicate that to me and others Islam is as much a "clear and present danger" as this term can indicate, a twin in mind of fascism, Stalinism, Nazism. Nor do I tell people that they should take over my own ideology - I present none, and I do not hold one, at least if you do not claim freedom to be an ideoloigy (to me it is not). This I say not to compare myself with resistance fighters of the past, or to claim their courage and determination for myself, in no way - I do not know for sure if I would have the courage to go as far as many of them did, and I have no reason - byown example - to take for granted that I would. But my level of alarmness about Islam is why I even accept to stray into consideration of means that no longer are covered by "civilisational" consensus. Getting rid of this monster Islam that already has done more damage in human history than any other ideology or empirial claim ever had made mankind to suffer from, is the ultimate priority.

I have noi family of my own, but I know two cute little ladies 5 and 7 years old, I am their "Pate" (=godfather?) and I know the mother since almost half my life now. I can not emvbrace the perspective that they will spenad a good part of their life in a society and country that I once called my "home" but then forces them to live unbder quiote a bit of influence by an eviol ideology like Islam. I would also fight against Christian fundamentalists turning over the country, or scientology, or Judaic orthodox. Or Nazis.

My replies match the questions - and their format context - of yours. Before the last exchange, as well as before. Your last questioning was different, that's why I came in again. Else I would not have answered anymore.

If you think your neighbors are of an evil start why don't you use your political power as an individual to stop the march of islam?

This would be a 'victory' mosque, much like many distributed through out the mid-east, designed to show muslim dominence.

[AVGWarhawk]

You mean more crap like this also:

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...y-taped-girls/

If Yaser Said killed his daughters, what was his motive? His American wife Tissy claims he did so because their girls were dating boys that weren’t Muslim.

Lovely...........

The building is nothing but a slap in the face for those closely involved with those towers.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

If you think your neighbors are of an evil start why don't you use your political power as an individual to stop the march of islam?

None of my neighbours in this house or street is a threat to me; I have been active in a local civil rights movement against a mosque and now am engaged in another, more official way again, I have confronted muslim info desks in the pedestrian zone years ago and anaged them in loud and confronting arguments that at two times even made them withdrwing their desks; and the political system is such that you cannot climb in any party's hierarchy if you are violating it's usual ways and rules (not all of them are in favour of democarcy, but own oarty power); and finally there are regional movements against Islam all of which either accepted to collaborate with Nazis claiming to also fight for freedom and against Islam (hahaha, the latest report by the German Verfassungsschutz frokm just some weeks ago show a massive increase in cooperations between Muslim groups and Nazi groups, because both want the destruction of the constitutional order) , or allowed to get hijacked in their public perception by rightwing fanatics - I am neither right-wing, nor am I a Nazi; I am anti-totalitarian, anti-institutionalised-religions, anti-EU and anti-islam and anti-fascism, I am pro-freedom-with-responsibility, i am "away from the nations and supranations, back to the local regions", and personally I am a secularist and atheist.

I have been in a party for short time, after school, the CDU. It was terrible. I stayed long eough to relaise that from inside the parties you cannot do anything. even less now with the EU lying in constant ambush for earning more powers and eroding democracy and freedom in europe even more.

Or to put it a bit more provokative: if Bin Laden would have flown his damn hijacked planes not into the WTO, but into party headquarters or EU commission buildings, I would remain silent and think he should be given a medal for freeing us from these almost criminal, conspirating vultures that rip our home and cultures to pieces.

That'S why I do not found a party. Not only do I lack thre support, last but not least financially, and the knpowledge on adminstration anyhow, but in this climate it would have no chance anyhow.

no, you must fight the battle one-on-one: meet, engage, make thinking the individual person; or help to collect info that maybe one day will help to send juristically relevant blows to Islam in Germany in such quality and/or numbers that people wake up and start marching in the streets and confront the government with massive waves of civil disobedience - or chasing them away, while we are already at it. It must be like an epidemy that grows by skin contact from one to another person. And then you hope to gain a crtical mass in number of individuals. If you play by the established political rules, your chances to acchieve anything outside the established and officially wanted aims are worse than 1:99. Chances for my views are not big either - but they are slightly better, I hope. And "slightly better" is more than "almost nothing". lastly, do you rerally think the majority of people is reasonable, and interested? They look as far as to the end of their nose for the most: job security, money, pensions. what will be in thirty years already demands too much energy from most voters. voting does not mean that the qulaified gain power, or those with the best character. the ancient Athens were so depsarte about the constant corruption in their democracy, that they even tried lotteries for distrubuting offices. Which did not help against corruption, too, because most people were simply not potent anoth and comoetent enough to fulfill the duties this meant, so they sold their authorities, and what this kind of trade led to, you can imagine: a new caste of professional ursupators who payed money to come into power. sound familiar, doesn't it. no, i am no great admirer of democracy, imo it always necessarily leads to corruption taking over, forming oligarchic and/or plutocratic structures and turning it all into an elitist, tyrannic mess. the only way for democracies to function is to dratsicalöly limit the soze of communities and all their supportive services and structures. and this in a world that imo holds 5-6 times as many peiople as the planet can bear. Boy, we are really screwed, it seems.

Or to put it all short: I do not share your optimism for the individual's political rights in our queer societies anymore.