Terrorist attack in Paris on French magazine

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, exchange "Nazi" and "Hitler" with "Muhammedan" and "Muhammad", and your agreement ends, I fear.

Well, returning to Islam, you state, if I am correct, that unless a Muslim actively works against the radicalism in Islam, thus becoming, as you say, a non-Muslim in the eyes of Islam, then he or she is identical to the people who carry out extremist attacks in the west?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, exchange "Nazi" and "Hitler" with "Muhammedan" and "Muhammad", and your agreement ends, I fear.

So, are you saying all Muslims are terrorists?

[Skybird]

No, that is not what I said. Not this time, and not in the past. Close, but still: wrong.

I said and indicted and implied that the silent tolerance by some, the glossing over Islam's brutal side in its ideology and the whitewashing of it and denial of its existence by others, all pave the road for tolerating a brutal and barbaric ideology on the grounds of the false assumption that it is nothing evil to be feared at all.

I implied that some do so due to lacking education and knowledge, others by arrogant ignorance, and again others by impertinent wilful intent to lie and deceive about it.

There is anything but united agreement that Muslim terror acts have to be condemned. Many Muslims across the glove celebrate it - and of these by far not all are participating in terrorist deeds. But they will to see them happening in Islam's name.

And finally I pointed out that Islam will never see a need to critically reflect about itself as long as one lets it getting away with its ways and gives room to it. Why should it take the effort to finally start reflecting about itself, if it gets its demands fulfilled in a free ride the West is giving it.

THAT is what I said.

Have I already said how sick and tired I am off getting misquoted and falsely summarised and being given wrong impressions of myself by inapt summaries of what I should have said, all that by ultra-short oneliners that hardly can summarize the many differentiations and details I include not for no reason in my slightly longer replies? I think I have, at least all this starts to feel like a deja vu.

And since I believe this deja vu is true, and you are determined anyway to ignore the ideological fundament of Islam and treat it as if it play no role, I leave it here now. Two days of this debate has been enough, a full third day I do not plan to add.

I recommend to try the multiple links I provided. Its bot translations and thus a bit rough, but still can be understood with some good will. Bye.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, exchange "Nazi" and "Hitler" with "Muhammedan" and "Muhammad", and your agreement ends, I fear.

Meanwhile, a hero is born
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/10/eu...cery-employee/

[Betonov]

My mother called me a terorist.
does that make me a muslim.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

So, are you saying all Muslims are terrorists?

Go back and start following with the posts to which that comparison traces back.

For heavens sake, really. It all is there. You guys complain about me typing so much and repeating so often, but you do not care for why I do that: and that is due to illustration, details, end explaining something as clearly as I can. If I do not do this, I would be taken wrong. And when I do it, I get mostly ignored or distorted and again gets taken wrong.



What I say, to answer your question, Neal, is this: that Islam is a totalitarian and warrior ideology, and that terror as a form of striking the enemy at his very heart is a tool legitimised by Muhammad's ideology - because he practiced it himself that way. Compare to Ayaan Hirs Ali's comment on that Pakistani general's remarks that I repeatedly linked in this thread, and even gave a quoted paragraph from.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

So, are you saying all Muslims are terrorists?

What Skybird is saying, I do believe, is that Islam itself is a radical and violent religion, that since the Qu'ran advocates violence and death those who follow it are also advocates of violence and death, and those who don't advocate violence and death are not true Muslims.
It's a bit like how someone who supports the viewpoints and sentiments of Adolf Hitler is therefore a fascist and/or a Nazi.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Go back and start following with the posts to which that comparison traces back.

For heavens sake, really. It all is there. You guys complain about me typing so much and repeating so often, but you do not care for why I do that: and that is due to illustration, details, end explaining something as clearly as I can. If I do not do this, I would be taken wrong. And when I do it, I get mostly ignored or distorted and again gets taken wrong.

Well, to be honest I only have time to skim your longer posts. I don't usually read really large posts by anyone, don't have time.

What I say, to answer your question, Neal, is this: that Islam is a totalitarian and warrior ideology, and that terror as a form of striking the enemy at his very heart is a tool legitimised by Muhammad's ideology - because he practiced it himself that way.

Ok, that's pretty much what you have been saying for months. I will salute you for being thorough, you back up your opinions with research. I get it. I disagree, I think you are wrong, and I have previously voiced my reasons why, but you are entitled to your opinion. Just be mindful of others who post here.

Originally Posted by Oberon

What Skybird is saying, I do believe, is that Islam itself is a radical and violent religion, that since the Qu'ran advocates violence and death those who follow it are also advocates of violence and death, and those who don't advocate violence and death are not true Muslims.
It's a bit like how someone who supports the viewpoints and sentiments of Adolf Hitler is therefore a fascist and/or a Nazi.

Ok, dokey, I read you loud and clear.
As I've said to Sky, both the Jewish and Christian religions have there homicidal teachings--most Jews and Christian ignore them. Only small sects of Christians take the part about handling snakes seriously. I think it's pretty clear that millions of good Muslims ignore the crazy parts of the Koran as well. It's the fringe that take the bad parts and act on them. Anyway, that's MY opinion.

[Tchocky]

Hey guys, back from peeling potatoes in the brig. I apologise for the nasty language that Sailor Steve had to remove, nobody needs to read that. It was unnecessary and crude.

____________________________________________

Anyhoo.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30765824

Over a million people marching in Paris, over 700,000 marching all across France yesterday.

It's heartening to see this kind of expression instead of lazy xenophobia or racism, which is something we all know can easily follow events like this in modern Europe.

http://imgur.com/a/zd5rl/

The above gallery are some cartoons from Arab newspapers in reaction to the tragedy.

Maybe I'm simplistic, but to my mind people standing up for the rights of cartoonists not to be murdered is something to be welcomed.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Currently, Europe mourns, and sheds tears, and holds motivating speeches. Now that there is not any risk at all involved and no courage needed to hold up a sign in a crowd reading "I am Charlie", people follow the popular trends and follow the rite that is expected of them. Betroffenheitskultur, the German word would be. But I am not like that. I am not sad, and I do not cry - I am angry, and I want to see Europeans finally setting up a fight to Islam - finally. Those people now flocking through the streets, the same people that just a day before maybe still said - and already now say again - that one has to see the good in Islam as well and that it all is relative and a question of interpretation, I spit them my despise on their feet, and all they can get in applause from me for their civilian "courage" by which they "mark a sign", is a slap in their stupid, ignorant face. They should be lambs, not humans, hopping on a meadow and in time being led to the slaughterhouse to contribute to the meal of somebody else.

[Armistead]

It's good to see people marching, but marches won't matter if people don't start dealing with the issues....worldwide jihad...

Vive La France

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Ok, dokey, I read you loud and clear.

There is...just one thing...

You see, if Skybird is correct in that in following and agreeing upon a certain persons viewpoints makes you aligned to that person, in so much that if a person agrees with Hitler they are a Nazi, or if a person agrees with the Qu'ran they are a Muslim.

Well...I have a confession to make. But first, a recap:

Originally Posted by Oberon

“If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Muslim family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Muslim boy survives without any Islamic education, with no mosque and no Islamic school, it [Islam] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a mosque or an Islamic school or an Qu'ran, the Muslim spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Muslim, not a single one, who does not personify it.”

Originally Posted by Skybird

Once becoming its property - it's property for life. At least so Islam claims.

Disagreeing on this is forbidden by threat of death penalty. For life means: for life for sure.

At least so islam thinks/claims/ticks. Apostates may disagree at their own risk.

Originally Posted by Oberon

“The internal expurgation of the Islamic spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Islamic spirit is the product of the Muslim person. Unless we expel the Islamic people. Unless we expel the Islamic people soon, they will have islamized our people within a very short time.”

Originally Posted by Skybird

The intolerant will overwhelm the tolerant if the tolerant even tolerate the intolerant, yes, and with the tolerant their tolerance will be destroyed as well. Popper, anyone?

You may now see why I refuse to actively help the state to enforce its pro-Muslim migration policies, why I refuse to help it, and why I avoid to make devout Muslims loyal to the Quran feel welcomed and tolerated. They are neither welcomed, and tolerance that is enforced (by the state), is no tolerance, but pressure and blackmailing.

Originally Posted by Oberon

So...basically you believe that there should be a "systematic legal combating and elimination of the privileges of Muslims, that which distinguishes the Muslims from the other aliens who live among us (an Aliens Law)." but that "The ultimate objective [of such legislation] must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Muslims in general."

Originally Posted by Skybird

I see no reason why any migrant group should be given special rights and treatments that neither any home group nor other migrant group is allowed nor demands. I also see no reason why any relgious lineage shoukld be given the right to be elcuded from secular state order'S rules and laws.

As far as "Muslims" staying here, obviously I differ between "Muslims" being real Muslims, which means they have all that Quran and satuff in theirm luggae and are loyal to it, whith the impolkicaiton that they will not inegrate, becaseu the Quran leave sno doubt on where their loyalty hgas to be: not with antinality and state law,. but with shariah.That is not negotiable, and beleivers of such a dogma will not be missed if they would lose the country and bvr come back. And then there are Muslims who call themselves Muslim by habit only but already have abandoned major parts of relgious demands and rulkes for their way of living. These are no real Muslims anymore, from an Islamic/Quranic POV. These should be seen and assessed fro pemritting to stay by the standards used for other miogrant groups: needed qualification, perspective for integration, language skill, and so on. Or something like the Canadian system.

So obviously I will not do anything that encourages the "real" Muslims to stay, or to come to this place in the first. Why should that be desirable? They will mean nothing but trouble, an they will not integrate. We SEE that they do not integrate, and instead form subcultural colonies and self-chosen isolation in parallel societies. Thy even often frankly admit that they do not want that, and that they do not want to approach Germany and the Germans. And that means nothing but trouble. I want them as much as I want a huge Scientology community, or a blossoming Nazism, or a healthy Moon sect, or the KKK. We must not want everybody. And we have the natural right to say No.

And consider this: the more migration you impose on the Germans that they do not want, the more their ressentiments, their hostility, their anger will grow, and the more radicalisation and tolerance for extremists on German side you will get. Social dynamics should not be ignored. You will reap the conflict that you have sown.

Haven't I just explained AfD and Pegida and the growing number of violent incidents against mosques?

We need migration. And many migrant groups are welcomed, and integrate, and bring skills we need on the labour market. But some migrant grouops bring us nothing of that, but trouble. And these we should sort out. That is the reasonable thing to do. And it is morally perfectly legal.

Ooops, its late. I'm out.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well, exactly, I mean who would want Nazism? I mean people with the same views as Adolf Hitler are quite clearly deranged.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Deranged or not, before anything else they are first and foremost not Nazizists, terrorist Nazissis, fundamentalist Nazizobies or radical Nazizerros, but mainstream Nazis. Simply good ol' fashioned Nazis by the definition of the book. No further attribution of adjectives needed. Simply: Nazis.

Some people wondered what I was quoting, I think Neal may have realised it...Dowly possibly too...maybe even Skybird himself.
I was quoting Adolf Hitler, only replacing the word Jew with Muslim and Judaism with Islam.
You may see the original quotes here:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/arti...hitler-quotes/

and here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...c_Writing.html

Thus, if one is to use the logic, which has already been put forward, that someone who agrees with the Qu'ran is a Muslim, then someone who agrees with Adolf Hitlers sentiments, even if they are against a different religious group...what must they be?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Armistead

It's good to see people marching, but marches won't matter if people don't start dealing with the issues....worldwide jihad...

Vive La France

I think "worldwide jihad" is an incredibly overblown phrase to describe the ultraviolent actions of some overly sensitive morons.

A problem, yes. A problem of top-level severity for the entire world? Not even close in my opinion.

I mean look what this has accomplished. The intent was retribution against Charlie Hebdo publishing some cartoons. The magazine had a rough circulation of 30,000 copies.

This weekend Hebdo's print run will be on the order of one million copies.

The idiots who shot up the offices and massacred staff have succeeded in making this the single most famous magazine on the planet.

Top minds, eh?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Well, to be honest I only have time to skim your longer posts. I don't usually read really large posts by anyone, don't have time.

Ok, that's pretty much what you have been saying for months. I will salute you for being thorough, you back up your opinions with research. I get it. I disagree, I think you are wrong, and I have previously voiced my reasons why, but you are entitled to your opinion. Just be mindful of others who post here.

Ok, dokey, I read you loud and clear.
As I've said to Sky, both the Jewish and Christian religions have there homicidal teachings--most Jews and Christian ignore them. Only small sects of Christians take the part about handling snakes seriously. I think it's pretty clear that millions of good Muslims ignore the crazy parts of the Koran as well. It's the fringe that take the bad parts and act on them. Anyway, that's MY opinion.

Neal,

okay, forget priests and dogmas, forget historic examples and the course of history, forget sectarian diversity, ignore the debate whether the church really holds up the teachings of the so-called Christ, forget all and everything, ignore it all for a moment.

What lies at the very bottom, at the most profound basis, is this, Neal, and it really cannot be put in any more essential format, I think:

Take the teachings of the Christ, and show me where he called for the violant submission of others, where he asked his followers for assassinating critics of his, where he taught the blind obedience to a cult or to himself, where he taught that the church shoud be founded and its representatives should be obeyed, show me where he taught that martyrdom in the killing of infidels is a virtue, and where he mocked his followers if they were not willing to sacrifice themselves, show me were he ordered for wears of attack and genocide of opposing tribes and different cults.

I do not talk about archaic Judaism and pre-Christian times, I do not talk about church dogmata and churchian powerpolitics - I only refer to the person of Jesus nicknamed the Christ himself. That is the one and only Christ that served as a name-giver for the term: "Christianity" (we do not call it "Biblianism" or "Churchianism" for no reason, don'T we).

You will not find such references in Christ's teachings.

Now take the teachings of another great visionary, who maybe (some say even probably) served as a mentor and teacher, as an example for Jesus: this Indian prince named Siddharta, nicknamed "Buddha the enlightened". Scan the Buddhist canon and find passages where this Indian guru - he himself - called for any of the points I listed above.

You will not find them in the Buddhist canon either - instead you will find what I call until today the most complete intellectual model of the human mind I have ever seen described in psychological literature.

On the other hand, for every single point I listed above - and more could be listed, easily! - I can look up for you the according reference in the Quran: that is the one and only Quran that is so to speak the glad tidings in islamic interpretation, the words all coming from Muhammad himself, having been collected from his mouth when Allah spoke through him. I can show you all the above mentioned points being legitimised by Muhammad.

What does this tell you about comparing Jesus and Siddharta onj the one hand, and Muhammad on the other hand? QAnd what are your conclusions regarding the teachings those three elft behind, and the kind of effect they wanted to motivate people for?

Could it be illustrated any more obvious, any easier? I honestly do not know how.

Anything else - is just consequences from these elemental differences between the three. And like churchian dogma all too often showed and still shows to be a perverting of Christ's teachings for opportunistic political reasons of the clerus, "moderate" views in islam are a perverting of Muhammad's teachings. The perveting thing in the Christian religion works for the bad of it, for it leads to intolerance, suppression and violence and fear . The perverting thing in the Muhammedan religion works for the better of it, for it leads to leaving behind intolerance, suppression, violence, racism and hate.

The socalled moderate Muslim is not humanist and liberal due to the Quranic teaching - but despite the the Quranic teaching. That shows the force of goodness and the influence it nevertheless can have in humans. And that is th ebhgitter truth that Muslims worldwide must learn to face. It is a bitter pill, but there is no shortcut to it, and no escape. They must look that bitter truth in its face and understand what this means in conclusions about the cult they insist to be called members of.

A big, bitter, painful pill that is - I would not like needing to swallow it. But as the saying goes: bitter medicine is medicine that helps.

[Tchocky]

There's no such thing as a true Scotsman either. Thousands of years of canon and scripture prove this.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I think "worldwide jihad" is an incredibly overblown phrase to describe the ultraviolent actions of some overly sensitive morons.

A problem, yes. A problem of top-level severity for the entire world? Not even close in my opinion.

I mean look what this has accomplished. The intent was retribution against Charlie Hebdo publishing some cartoons. The magazine had a rough circulation of 30,000 copies.

This weekend Hebdo's print run will be on the order of one million copies.

The idiots who shot up the offices and massacred staff have succeeded in making this the single most famous magazine on the planet.

Top minds, eh?

Overblown.... Do you know how many are killed, tortured, raped throughout the world daily from radical Islam throughout the world daily? Radical cells continue to grow, but the issue is all the support behind it. Millions suffer from political Islam itself, because it's a religion of economic poverty.

Now, what you might mean, it's not a major problem for the modern world, but it is...but it's a terrible problem for the third world and the radicals recruit from such....

Overblown....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncidents,_2014

and that doesn't include the millions that suffer from political Islamic law...