What do you say about this?

[Drebbel]

Done here.

[tycho102]

Skybird, I agree with most of your views.

[Dan D]

The idea of "political correctness" comes from the 2 big immigration states USA and Canada. The meaning is simple: "You don't mock people for something they are born with". I don't think that is too abstract. Here you have the reason why women always say: "size does not matter" btw.

Last Friday on my way to the sensitivity training


IMO there is no need to argue over and over again that Islam is bad and makes deranged muslims. That point is taken. It is no problem at all to take all these findings on Islam and muslims as a working thesis and to draw some conclusions from it. If it turns out that the conclusions don't work out, you could still reconsider your findings.
Examples:
If you think that Islam and democracy are inconsistent, how does that shape future foreign policy? You think the ME can't be democratised? Is the Iraq war based on false presumptions? What to do with Iraq?
The EU and others are supporting Turkey's struggle for a modern democracy. Turkey is one of the biggest Islamic countries. Is that all wrong, a waste of time and money?

What is the proper approach towards muslims living in Europe/USA/Canada?
What would you do instead? What do you think needs to be changed?

I'd say, with the present muslim fear it is unlikely that western countries will permit further large-scale immigration of muslims, especially in smaller countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. There, I said it. Has this ever been discussed before?
What do you think about it?

For a bearded man...his buttocks aren't half bad. Arse-Zakawi?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Dan D

IMO there is no need to argue over and over again that Islam is bad and makes deranged muslims. That point is taken.

If only that were true. Opinions here suggest that it's not.

It is no problem at all to take all these findings on Islam and muslims as a working thesis and to draw some conclusions from it. If it turns out that the conclusions don't work out, you could still reconsider your findings.
Examples:
If you think that Islam and democracy are inconsistent, how does that shape future foreign policy?

Islam should be banned by non-Islamic countries.

You think the ME can't be democratised?

Nor liberalized.

Is the Iraq war based on false presumptions?

Some. If you mean the continuance of the war there for the purpose of establishing a democratic free Iraqi society, then yes.

What to do with Iraq?

Leave and let them sort it out. Give unconditional support for an independent Kurdistan in the north.

The EU and others are supporting Turkey's struggle for a modern democracy. Turkey is one of the biggest Islamic countries. Is that all wrong, a waste of time and money?

Mostly. Turkey is heading in the direction of Islamism - not away from it. To keep Turkish Islamism at bay requires the military junta there to intervene on the political level. You know how most of those stories end...........

What is the proper approach towards muslims living in Europe/USA/Canada?

Toss out any person, group or institution proclaiming alegiance to Islamic scriptures as the absolute word of G-d, which cannot be modified or rescinded.

What would you do instead? What do you think needs to be changed?

The banishment of an ideaology that wishes to eventually overpower the host society it lives in.

I'd say, with the present muslim fear it is unlikely that western countries will permit further large-scale immigration of muslims, especially in smaller countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. There, I said it. Has this ever been discussed before?
What do you think about it?

I think your questions were spot on. We have been discussing this. Not the first time here.

[TteFAboB]

I can answer that.

Don't listen to the Avon Lady she's ultra-conservative.

IMO there is no need to argue over and over again that Islam is bad and makes deranged muslims. That point is taken. It is no problem at all to take all these findings on Islam and muslims as a working thesis and to draw some conclusions from it. If it turns out that the conclusions don't work out, you could still reconsider your findings.

Good to know we won't deny the reality. It's always important, just in case, to separate Islam from Muslims, every Islamist is a Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists.

Examples:
If you think that Islam and democracy are inconsistent, how does that shape future foreign policy?

The same way you'd treat a Communist block. Understand that the Islamists who want to conquer every Muslim country and beyond have no interest in your Democracy, rather, you are their escape goat, their main target and justification of existence. Keep diplomatic stability where it's possible, keep dialogue where it's possible, but be aware of the Ayatolah.

You think the ME can't be democratised?

Depends. Modern Democracy is a recent construction, this type of Democracy we can, might, or should enjoy today is not like any "democratic" society of the past. It has, like many other things, evolved from a past. The Middle East having an entirely different past would have to make a much greater effort to "democratize" itself than we even do day by day to maintain ours. More than half of all Europeans don't give a damn about Democracy, it could be taken away from them and most wouldn't even notice it untill it started affecting their interests. Yes, it is possible to democratize the Middle East. If Japan was democratized in less than a century, you can democratize anything, anyone, it simply would take a tremendous effort to do so, and it would be easier or harder depending on the past at hand. Examples:

In Egypt, if you open up the elections too much the Muslim Brotherhood will gain seats. The Muslim Brotherhood is THE anti-democratic force in Egypt, and one of the top ones in the rest of the Middle East. There will be no Democracy in Egypt untill the Muslim Brotherhood is no longer a powerfull political force.

On the other hand, in Qatar you can already allow women to vote, there's no Muslim Brotherhood, the political scenario is mostly stable, and there's no reason why in 20, 50, 100, 150, 200 years Qatar couldn't become a solid, established, vibrant Democracy.

Is the Iraq war based on false presumptions? What to do with Iraq?

Two things can be done. If the presumption is real, then it will cost blood, tears, sweat and folly to democratize it. It will be necessary to maintain a foreign presence for a very long time, this presence will have to endure the terrorism and insurgency and fight it untill it is destroyed or reduced to decent levels that provide enough security for democratic institutions to drop anchor. You can't have politicians, journalists, judges and whoever else scared of being the target of the next car bomb, you especially can't have them falling to any black-mail.

Or, you can quit and let the Anarchy resolve the issue, letting the strongest force rule over the others. In this case anything could happen, democrats having the least chance of survival.

The EU and others are supporting Turkey's struggle for a modern democracy. Turkey is one of the biggest Islamic countries. Is that all wrong, a waste of time and money?

Good example, Turkey, but indeed the Avon Lady is right. With the fall of the Ottomans, Turkey de-Islamified itself, Mr. Kemal Daddy-O attempted to reform the nation, setting the potential necessary milestone for a Democracy in the, perhaps very distant, future. Today Turkey is balancing on a very thin rope, you have the rebirth of Islamists who have a thrist for vengeance and want to turn Turkey back into an Ottoman Islamo-party, only if democrats are strong, resist and offer, convince the Turkish people, that Khalifah is not worth it, Turkey will have problems to secure democratic institutions. These are long-term investments and projects. It is not wrong to attempt to assist a people to construct their own Democracy, this is a virtue, but then it must be understood that it may take longer than the EU would like for Turkey to become a modern Democracy and patience is required, give time some time, and be alert with the Islamist forces. Do like Felipe Calderón from Mexico, attack the Islamists and prove to the Turkish people the society they want to build is worse than what even a most infant Democracy could offer. And don't blame the people who support and follow the Islamists, if I were Turkish I would be scared to join the EU too. I'm Italian and I want out!

Now, take Yemen. In the case of Yemen, one of the most dangerous places for a Western Christian tourist to visit, I don't see any hope for Democracy in the next 500 years. Hopefully I'm blind, but anyway, if it is impenetrable to Democracy, then let's leave Yemen alone as long as they don't sponsor any terrorism and leaves us alone too.

What is the proper approach towards muslims living in Europe/USA/Canada?
What would you do instead? What do you think needs to be changed?

This is what I wanted to answer, let me play with the forum now:

DO NOTHING!

Nothing at all! Every single damned policy towards Muslims in Europe has only made the situation worse!

Do NOT build them public schools, there are already plenty of problems with the public education system, but Muslim children must see, talk, play, and make friends with native Europeans. No, they don't have to be best friends, no they don't have to engage in long-term love relationships, no they don't need to like native Europeans. They need to know them and respect them, and they shall get respect in return and be welcomed. What Muslim children don't need is complete alienation and segregation, we don't need gangs of Muslims walking around together because they can't communicate with anybody else or know anybody else, we want them walking together because that's what they chose to do, they know everybody else, they know every group and are most comfortable around that one, but nothing stops them from meeting a new native friend tomorrow.

France, the lovely country that gives university students assistance to pay their rent, allowing you to live in Paris even with a substandard job. Now, what was the policy in France towards the Muslims? Help them pay their rent too, but how did it turned out? They took every incoming Muslim and settled them at the isolated cités, creating a massive segregated ghetto. It would've been better to let Muslims homeless sleeping on the streets or seeking their own homeless shelter! Don't do this, don't throw all the Muslims into the same isolated basket just because it's easier to contain any revolt there or kill them all with one bomb. If you want to help them pay their rent, spread them apart, these immigrant-only communities are pure hell to get rid of, and it can create, when too isolated, a state within a state, they will feel free to make their own laws and rules and carry out their sentences.

Don't give them any legal priviledges. If they immigrated to Europe it's because they are seeking something Europe has to offer. Be it a new home, a better home, a job, an opportunity. Then it is in the best interest of Muslims that European Democracy isn't destroyed by approving a separate parallel Muslim Constitution. Treat everybody as equal before the law. Muslims want to be treated equally, they don't want this new society to become just like their old home, otherwise they'd have never immigrated at all.

But if you do want to do something positive about it, then allow and protect Muslims who want to discuss and question concepts in Islam, that is, rejecting Islam as a block and creating a new religion. Why isn't there a single Quran out there that rejects Jihad?! Not ONE! How come there isn't any Muslim out there who has his own church where all mankind is Ummah and Dar al-Harb is extraterrestrial?! This can only mean two things: either all Muslims are blood-thristy Jihadists, or most Muslims ignore Jihad, don't give a damn about it at all, never thought about it, never knew they were allowed to think about it, and when necessary imagines it to be a simple holy-bath of purification. I believe the reality is the latter, which means most immigrant Muslims are heretics and practice their own religion, they are one step away from breaking with the Middle Eastern Islam.

So if a Muslim wants to start a new church, without any blood or confront like it took the Christian churches of the past, then he must be encouraged to do so and be assured he will not become the target of the religious intolerance of his cousins and will be protected from terrorism like anybody else. The current Dalai Lama has said that when science proves Bhuddism wrong, then Bhuddism is wrong indeed and must be changed. Have you ever seen a Muslim say that since Islam no longer exists in an enviroment of tribal warfare the entire concept of the holy-warrior is outdated and unecessary to the modern peacefull man and should be kept as a souvenir, not as practical doctrine? You certainly don't see the Pope invoking the faithfull to engage on a holy-war of preaching, how would you react if Pope Benedict XVI called every Catholic to a ceremonial holy-war of pilgrimage? There is no place for "war" in a religion of peace, you can philosophy about the concept of a fair war and how to treat the enemy and their prisioners nicely, but not the other way around, philosophy about how vicious and ferocious and powerfull you can become when fighting a holy-war and how many unarmed citizens you can behead in a minute.

If most Muslims living abroad are not Jihadists, then they have already fomed their own chuch but don't realise it, and nobody is willing to inform them of such because then they would start picking different Immams, forming their own Immam schools instead of importing them, rejecting the occasional obscure ones who came from Iran, and eventually develop a doctrine that condemns alot of stuff necessary to support Sharia, creating a different juridical code, probably similar to the truly peacefull religious codes out there.

I'd say, with the present muslim fear it is unlikely that western countries will permit further large-scale immigration of muslims, especially in smaller countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. There, I said it. Has this ever been discussed before?
What do you think about it?

True. Everybody willing to join, not willing to destroy, is welcome, but if mass manpower is required, there are certainly possible alternatives out there.

Example: In the US Brazilian immigrants should be preferred instead of Mexican (except in Connecticut), because the Brazilian immigrant has to take a plane to immigrate, this means he's either from a low (or middle) middle-class or has the cunning to raise enough money for the trip, on the other hand, the most desperate illiterate Mexican can simply jump a fence and he's in.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Islam should be banned by non-Islamic countries.

Because, of course, it is an evil ideology and all of its adherents are evil. Not only are they evil, they are working in concert to overthrow Western civilization, and here is a perfect example:

"The family of the first British Muslim soldier to be killed in the "war on terror" said yesterday that he had been committed to bringing peace to Afghanistan.

L/Cpl Jabron Hashmi, 24, a devout Muslim, died during an attack by Taliban fighters on a British base at Sangin, in Helmand Province."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixuknews.html

This is obviously part of their sinister plot to take over the UK by first taking control of its military, and this soldier's participation in the War on Terror in Afghanistan was really a ruse since we all know these sly Muslims never denounce acts of extremism by other Muslims, and never do anything to aid in the fight against such extremism.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

But if you do want to do something positive about it, then allow and protect Muslims who want to discuss and question concepts in Islam, that is, rejecting Islam as a block and creating a new religion. Why isn't there a single Quran out there that rejects Jihad?! Not ONE! How come there isn't any Muslim out there who has his own church where all mankind is Ummah and Dar al-Harb is extraterrestrial?! This can only mean two things: either all Muslims are blood-thristy Jihadists, or most Muslims ignore Jihad, don't give a damn about it at all, never thought about it, never knew they were allowed to think about it, and when necessary imagines it to be a simple holy-bath of purification. I believe the reality is the latter, which means most immigrant Muslims are heretics and practice their own religion, they are one step away from breaking with the Middle Eastern Islam.

A third possibility is that you haven't a clue about what "Jihad" actually means.

Rule #5: Its always Jihad:

"Related to Rule 4 is the fact that any event involving Muslims is always jihad. Not the concept of a peaceful personal struggle to do the right thing that most Muslims, sly foxes that they are, claim to intend when using the word. Nor is it the noble campaigns for good causes that normal, Christian people think of when they talk about "crusades". Anything a Muslim does is always violent holy war directed against everyone around them.

Whether they're pinning prayers to their graduation gowns or just standing by the road licking an ice cream cone, it's jihad and you're under siege like the Viennese facing the Ottoman hordes in 1529. Don't let the social economic and political realities of near complete Muslim powerlessness in the modern, Western/Christian-dominated world distract you from the fact that you are an oppressed Dhimmi living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny.

So make sure you pepper your report with the word "jihad" and other buzzwords that remind readers of the mortal peril we all live in thanks to the existence of Islam. Don't forget to mention medieval Islamic concepts like jizya, slavery, and, everyone's favorite, houris. The fact that these concepts are about as relevant to most modern political problems as Danegeld is besides the point. And wherever context permits make hysterical allusions to Nazism since that hateful ideology developed in Germany, the heartland of Islamic civilization. (Indeed, the world still shudders at the memory of their chilling symbol, the dreaded Iron Crescent & Star.)

Finally, always err on the side of innuendo, paranoia and stereotype. Remember that if you can't think of a good reason for inserting prejudicial language now, someone else will eventually dream up a retroactive justification. And then you'll be a prophet."

http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam...g_t.html#jihad

[mapuc]

Hey! I just posted a little notice about what's allowed i Denmark and not when it comes to Quran contra Holy Bible

And furthermore it's forbidden to burn the american flag, but not the danish

Well here's my opinion

No religious book should be burned, no flag should be burned, as a respect

Markus

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Hey! I just posted a little notice about what's allowed i Denmark and not when it comes to Quran contra Holy Bible

Welcome to the Subsim radio room general comment forum.

Please be advised that if you mention so much as a hint of possibly thinking of considering talking about islam in your post, and someone makes a comment about it, some people will descend upon the thread to tell you, and everybody, why Islam is Bad.

Then end result is this :

[Skybird]

TTeFAbob,

You sound as if you have red a single book recently, and suddenly believe you know it all. I think it has been the wrong single book.

I can answer that.
Don't listen to the Avon Lady she's ultra-conservative.

Not necessarily. She is in better knowledge of what Islam is and what it wants than most Westerners who replace true knowledge of Islam with what they want it to be so that they can solve the problem it poses more easily. This may have something to do that she lives in a place that is more obviously under attack by Islam, whereas most of Europe is object to a more hidden strategy of defeating European culture and replace it with Islam’s demand for global ruling.

Good to know we won't deny the reality. It's always important, just in case, to sepa-rate Islam from Muslims, every Islamist is a Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists.

"Separate Islam from Muslims."

But maybe we can agree that every Muslim who is Islamic in the understanding of Islam's self-definition (which demand this classification to be based on the Quran, the Hadith (which includes the sharia), Muhammad, and the Medina-model, else no one has a cause to de-scribe something as Islamic or Muslim) is a Muslim indeed? Which implicates the conclusion that someone who ignores this criterion of what Islamic and Muslim is - is not Islamic and Muslim, then?

The same way you'd treat a Communist block. Understand that the Islamists who want to conquer every Muslim country and beyond have no interest in your Democracy, rather, you are their escape goat, their main target and justification of existence. Keep dip-lomatic stability where it's possible, keep dialogue where it's possible, but be aware of the Ayatolah.

“want to conquer every Muslim country”
You still don’t get it. Islam IS militant and Islamistic and militant by it’S very own nature, like the life of Muhammad was, too. Islam wants ALL. Without restriction. Without coexisting with something that is not itself. It tells that openly. In written scripture. In preaching. In history. It keeps diplomatic stability only where it is too weak to advance at the moment. It uses that time to adopt, to rebuilt sufficient strength, and then advance again. It does not know a concept of peace that is different from Islam ruling all. It only knows cease-fires that allow it to prepare for the next attempt.
Diplomatic stability…? You can only have that with corrupted “Muslims” who are not repre-sentative for true Islam. Eventually, if you decide you want to trust them.

Depends. Modern Democracy is a recent construction, this type of Democracy we can, might, or should enjoy today is not like any "democratic" society of the past. It has, like many other things, evolved from a past. The Middle East having an entirely different past would have to make a much greater effort to "democratize" itself than we even do day by day to maintain ours. More than half of all Europeans don't give a damn about Democracy, it could be taken away from them and most wouldn't even notice it untill it started affecting their interests. Yes, it is possible to democratize the Middle East. If Japan was democratized in less than a century, you can democratize anything, anyone, it simply would take a tre-mendous effort to do so, and it would be easier or harder depending on the past at hand.

You compare to Japan…? That shows how little you understand the heart and nature of Is-lam. IT IS SOMETHING SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN JAPANESE CULTURE AND MENTALITY AND SELFUNDERSTANDING THAT NO COMPARISON TO ISLAM COULD WORK. You can’t be any more wrong. Islam celebrates totalitarism, and monoculturalism. The Turks tried de-mocracy, but it was more like a junta, and now they are loosing Kemal’s little experiment to Islam again. History will remember it as nothing more than a little intermezzo. True Islam never was defeated there. It just hid from the bajonets, it hid in the coreland, away from the Westernized tourist cities.
This is not WWII. No comparison like yours works here, none.

In Egypt, if you open up the elections too much the Muslim Brotherhood will gain seats. The Muslim Brotherhood is THE anti-democratic force in Egypt, and one of the top ones in the rest of the Middle East. There will be no Democracy in Egypt untill the Muslim Brotherhood is no longer a powerfull political force.

Just the demand for free elections and more democracy has turned them into a more power-ful political faction that now can claim legal rights for itself. You do the classical mistake of American foreign policy: you create the free space that an enemy is needing to unfold. In-stall free elections and democracy in Egypt, and they will be swept away and replaced by true Islam in no time. That is the only democracy you will get there. Democracy and Islam are incompatible, always, under all circumstances. Only an Islam that is no true Islam any-more could maybe live with democratic rules. And I want to remind you that elections are not democracy itself, but just a tool of it. It is more an attitude, a way of acting on all levels of public life, a set of certain basic values and view on things like freedom and peace and authorization. And the absence of corruption.

On the other hand, in Qatar you can already allow women to vote, there's no Muslim Brotherhood, the political scenario is mostly stable, and there's no reason why in 20, 50, 100, 150, 200 years Qatar couldn't become a solid, established, vibrant Democracy.

You also have a very high corruption again, semi-feudal social structures nevertheless, and the absence of political alternatives that are not in congruency with the Islamic agenda. Try to establish a political left party there, or one that protects interests from minorities from other cultures and religions, or one that by any means challenges Islamic beliefs or even just ignores them - and you will see where their democracy ends – at the granite wall of Quran at the latest.

Two things can be done. If the presumption is real, then it will cost blood, tears, sweat and folly to democratize it. It will be necessary to maintain a foreign presence for a very long time, this presence will have to endure the terrorism and insurgency and fight it untill it is destroyed or reduced to decent levels that provide enough security for democratic institutions to drop anchor.

Unbelievable that one could still think in these terms after what we have seen the last THREE years.

The place is lost to democracy and Western ideals, totally, completely, FUBAR. The American elections are the only reason while the withdrawal is delayed. GI’s are risking their lives there for republican innerpolitical interests only, and there is not anything more to it. You better start to believe it. And there is very good reason to assume that the insur-gents/terrorists/Islamists have undermined all structures of the weakened state so substan-tially that even government members, police, intel and military have contacts to them and support them. Please, don’t bet your money on them becoming a democratic, modern state. I hate to see you ending in complete bancrupcy.

You can't have politicians, journalists, judges and whoever else scared of being the target of the next car bomb, you especially can't have them falling to any black-mail.
Or, you can quit and let the Anarchy resolve the issue, letting the strongest force rule over the others. In this case anything could happen, democrats having the least chance of sur-vival.

Exactly. The by far strongest faction, btw, is not America and is not it’s democracy and is not the helpless representatives of Iraq’s artificial political structures, but Iran and Shia or-thodox Islam. And time works for them at the speed of a sprinter. Options for the West: none, just to invest more, and loose all that is invested nevertheless. It has been ap-proached and done in a totally wrong way from the very beginning, by the wrong people, at the wrong time, by use of wrong means, and now it consequently is a lost case. Period.

Good example, Turkey, but indeed the Avon Lady is right. With the fall of the Otto-mans, Turkey de-Islamified itself,

NO!!!! It did not!!! That is the great self-deception here in the West, to think that Islam was in any way “defeated”. It was not, it just evaded the places were it was on open display for the state’s organs that pursued them. “The front was readjusted to avoid obvious incoming fire”, that was all!!! But the orthodox Islam has been alive and well all the time in the Anato-lian coreland, and the East. IT NEVER WAS GONE. It’s a great folly you fall victim too, be-lieve me. I have travelled these areas I talk of for half a year, I witnessed the people and their habits and opinions, and they were not any Western of modern at all. The vast majority of people lives in almost ridiculous poverty, and as they say: poverty makes people pray. Haven’t you realized in what remarkably short time Erdogan’s party (who was in prison for his Islamic motivations when Kemalism still were stronger in Turkey) has come from being a forbidden organisation to be voted the governmental party, and the military not stepping in like before? Islam just stepped back and took a doze while Kemal was busy. Now it awoke again, and raises again, quickly, because it never was gone. Believe me, you really have to change your view of this phenomenon, and fundamentally. In thirty years, I tell you for sure, there will not much be left reminding you that Kemal ever was there. The negotiations witzh then EU and the growing unrest on both sides ironically help them to reorient to their own cultural identity, which necessarily must remind them that they still are Islamic, after all.

Mr. Kemal Daddy-O attempted to reform the nation, setting the potential necessary milestone for a Democracy in the, perhaps very distant, future. Today Turkey is balancing on a very thin rope, you have the rebirth of Islamists

As I said, no rebirth at all. It took a doze in the hidden while Kemal blew some heavy winds only, and then it woke up again, still the same that it always has been.

who have a thrist for vengeance and want to turn Turkey back into an Ottoman Islamo-party, only if democrats are strong, resist and offer, convince the Turkish people, that Khalifah is not worth it, Turkey will have problems to secure democratic institutions. These are long-term investments and projects. It is not wrong to attempt to assist a people to construct their own Democracy, this is a virtue, but then it must be understood that it may take longer than the EU would like for Turkey to become a modern Democracy and pa-tience is required, give time some time, and be alert with the Islamist forces.

You mix up Islam and aggressive Turkish nationalism as it is coming in the shape of the “Grey Wolves”, for example. The first is more focussed on Islam’s superiority, the second more on “Great Turkey” in a nationalistic understanding. Since the idea of the grey wolves is increasingly popular especially with the young Turks in and outside turkey (it already is a very big problem at German schools, for example), both a movement like the wolves and Islam are two clear reasons why the democratic future of Turkey must be put in substantial doubt. I do not see them forming a stabile democracy, but revitalizing their traditional Is-lamic origin. And, just for every Westerner who think the Turks want lessons in democracy – this is the best and usually shortest way to set them up against you. They are extremely proud a people. The whole attitude of the EU towards Turkey is for the wrong goal (mem-bership), and by the same means (lecturing them). And this is why nothing good will come from all this, no matter if they join the EU (currently more and more of their people do not want it anymore), or stay out. If they withdraw from these so-called negotiations, I’m sure that many stupid Europeans will start to think how they can make them coming back, in-stead of being thankful that this time complete disaster has chosen just top pass by.
The recent irritations Ankara caused in Washington, over the last couple of years, should be a warning for everyone who thinks Turkey is compatible with the West. After all, it still is Islamic, and nothing will ever change that.
Have good neighbourhood, but don’t increase their already big access to Europe, agreed. But don’t hold your breath for Turkey becoming a democracy. The indices point clearly to-wards Islam recapturing again what always had been it’s own during it’s nap. I fear the guy following Erdogan. Don’t hold your breath that he will fight back the progress party.

Now, take Yemen. In the case of Yemen, one of the most dangerous places for a Western Christian tourist to visit, I don't see any hope for Democracy in the next 500 years. Hopefully I'm blind, but anyway, if it is impenetrable to Democracy, then let's leave Yemen alone as long as they don't sponsor any terrorism and leaves us alone too.

Unfortunately, the latter they don’t. Now what?

[Skybird]

This is what I wanted to answer, let me play with the forum now:
DO NOTHING!
Nothing at all! Every single damned policy towards Muslims in Europe has only made the situation worse!

Guaranteed suicide. While I agree that all Western interventions in the Muslim sphere, since the Medieval, did not achieve anything, we cannot afford to do nothing with regard to our own homes. Islam already is too strong in our own places and has developed a self-dynamic that will guarantee it’s total victory within the next 200 years (at the latest) if we do not do anything about that – and that can only mean: accept the challenge, pick up the fight, con-front Islam head on, and brake it with superior force, as far as our territories and homes that we need to defend are concerned. Superiority power and might ALWAYS has been the only language Islam has ever understood. It never stopped anywhere when not being con fronted by a superior force that pushed it back vio9lantly, never. You will not get a true free-dom by that, but a constant cease-fire that will last as long as you keep your status of being the undisputable superior opponent that it cannot overcome.
That’s the grim, scaring truth, and to some degree I can understand people’s hesitation to accept it. I do not like the sheer size of this conflict myself, too. But it will not go away just because I hope for something better. If you help your enemy to become stronger, this must not necessarily earn you his sympathy, and make him your friend. It is more likely that you just win a stronger enemy. That is especially true for an enemy whose declared goal and intend is total, undisputed, uncompromised global ruling and the deleting of any culture, religion and tradition that is not himself.

Do NOT build them public schools, there are already plenty of problems with the public education system, but Muslim children must see, talk, play, and make friends with native Europeans. No, they don't have to be best friends, no they don't have to engage in long-term love relationships, no they don't need to like native Europeans. They need to know them and respect them, and they shall get respect in return and be welcomed. What Muslim children don't need is complete alienation and segregation, we don't need gangs of Muslims walking around together because they can't communicate with anybody else or know anybody else, we want them walking together because that's what they chose to do, they know everybody else, they know every group and are most comfortable around that oe, but nothing stops them from meeting a new native friend tomorrow.

You’re cute. Be advised that all these invitations are given in Germany since decades. I needed to craw the conclusions that they did not work too well. Those Muslims that have integrated themselves, have so many basic violations against Islamic ideology and it’s most fundamental principles in their bookings that I cannot see them fulfilling Islam’s definition of what a Muslim is. They may think of themselves as Muslims, but they are not. In fact, their description of Muslim faith shows that they have big holes in their knowledge about what they claim to be. That is why it is so important to confront “moderate Muslims” and make them aware of the contradiction they are living in without realizing it. Tolerating them as well as you tolerate other types of Muslims (types as defined by Western thinking) does not help, by that you just help to increase the ignorance and uncritical attitude that helps the true and real Islam to spread in these moderate Muslim’s names while being anything else but Muslim. If these people do not understand how far they are different from true Islam, and do not challenge it and testify their factual retreat from basic principles of Islam, you do damage to them, and you do damage to us non-Muslims. All in the name of your good inten-tions and your tolerance and willingness for coexistence. An attitude of indifference is de-structive, and leads to our western cultural death.

France, the lovely country that gives university students assistance to pay their rent, allowing you to live in Paris even with a substandard job. Now, what was the policy in France towards the Muslims? Help them pay their rent too, but how did it turned out? They took every incoming Muslim and settled them at the isolated cités, creating a massive segregated ghetto. It would've been better to let Muslims homeless sleeping on the streets or seeking their own homeless shelter! Don't do this, don't throw all the Muslims into the same isolated basket just because it's easier to contain any revolt there or kill them all with one bomb. If you want to help them pay their rent, spread them apart, these immigrant-only communities are pure hell to get rid of, and it can create, when too isolated, a state within a state, they will feel free to make their own laws and rules and carry out their sentences.

that is a very complex theme for itself, and I do not open a parallel discussion on it. Just say that you see it in form of simplified clichés, ignoring the inner dynamic of Muslim immigra-tion in general, and the details of social communities in the West, and French strategic poli-cies designed to be in opposition to the anglosaxon alliance and it’s influence in Europe (which the French still think of as their backyard, somehow )

Don't give them any legal priviledges.

Easier said than done when they hide behind freedom of religion to push Islamic political agendas. Unfortunately, Islam does not know the concept of secularism. That way they can turn our own constitutional orders against us and destroy our legal system and communties by that.

f they immigrated to Europe it's because they are seeking something Europe has to offer.

Yes. It is rich, and wealth is what Islam demand to earn now, although having done nothing to build that wealth. It’s is a selfish perspective of a certain old desert bandit who robbed and stolen himself excessively, you know.
I wonder why Europeans usually take is as granted that every guy coming here from other continents should have a right to squeeze himself into our homes and places. Why do we have no right to demand something in return that he must offer for our acceptance of him? Why do we not object when it is said he has a right to live in our place? Do you open yo0ur appartmenet for every stranger who strolls by and demands to live in your third room from now on? Has he any historical merits for having build our homes?

Be it a new home, a better home, a job, an opportunity.

Be advised that on the level of global strategy many Islamic clerics have expressed in clear words that they understand immigration as the new weapon in Islam’s jihad to subjugate the West. I have repeatedly quoted in the last 18 months or so from conference papers where they talk of “demographic bombs replacing the swords”, “Muslim colonies”, the “driv-ing out of the infidels from Islam’s heritage in Europe”, and that Europe must be brought to fall by sending more Islamic population there. It is a strategy for conquest. This sounds so absurd that it is completely ignored in the West, and people laugh about it. They still laugh although it is highranking representatives and conferences saying that, and in clear words. Islam will be the last man laughing, thanks to the silliness of the Europeans who always think they know it better than the speaker of words himself.

Then it is in the best interest of Muslims that European Democracy isn't destroyed by approving a separate parallel Muslim Constitution. Treat everybody as equal before the law. Muslims want to be treated equally,

No, they want more and more be treated on the basis of Islamic cultural demands. Western democracies and their understanding of liberty and freedom and the value of the individual are so much in opposition to Islamic views that they are understood to be the arch-enemy of Islam. Democracy and Islam are excluding each other, that’s why Islam tries to overcome the West. If it wants to remain true Islam, it MUST do so.

they don't want this new society to become just like their old home, otherwise they'd have never immigrated at all.

that may be true for those “Muslims” that are not really Muslim in an Islamic understanding, like I explained above. Such people are not the problem that finds my hostility, but true Muslims. Unfortunately we learned in recent years that both types of Muslims, the true and the untrue ones, are more and more difficult to discriminate. That is because even the un-true Muslims do not take effective measurements and do not take an active stand against true Islam, that way they behave as if they are true Islamic. And now it starts to be difficult, doesn’t it!? If a Muslim is against certain aspects of Islam, but still confesses to Islam and defends it and does nothing to see "extremists" being overcome and does nothing to prevent them acting in his name – he still is helping the cause of true Islam by his passivity and ignorance, and acts the same way like a true Muslim. What is “Mitläufer” in English? However, when behaving in this way, he poses the same problem like a true Muslim for Western communities. And if he is critical of some aspects of Islam or not, does not change anything in the real effects that result in the end - he helps the cause of true Islam by his passivity. Judge them by deeds, not words. And when doing that, I must reject to see socalled “moderate” Msulims so much different from true Muslims.

But if you do want to do something positive about it, then allow and protect Muslims who want to discuss and question concepts in Islam, that is, rejecting Islam as a block and creating a new religion.

Now here you touch the important thing: you talk about “new religion”.

Why isn't there a single Quran out there that rejects Jihad?! Not ONE! How come there isn't any Muslim out there who has his own church where all mankind is Ummah and Dar al-Harb is extraterrestrial?! This can only mean two things: either all Muslims are blood-thristy Jihadists, or most Muslims ignore Jihad, don't give a damn about it at all, never thought about it, never knew they were allowed to think about it, and when necessary imag-ines it to be a simple holy-bath of purification. I believe the reality is the latter, which means most immigrant Muslims are heretics and practice their own religion, they are one step away from breaking with the Middle Eastern Islam.

It would spend too much time to go into the history of the creation of the Quran again, and to analyse the character and personality of Muhammad. I refer top my old essay “The his-tory of Islam” chapter 2 where I gave a brief introduction on the creation of quran and Hadith and the historical biograhy of Muhammad. Nevertheless you are in great need to read one or two books about these two issues alone. You think it is queer that there is no quran banning jihad. But in reality it is a consequence deriving from Muhammad’s way of thinking. It is not queer at all (and I ignore the constant debate the inner and the outer aspects of the idea of jihad here).

So if a Muslim wants to start a new church, without any blood or confront like it took the Christian churches of the past, then he must be encouraged to do so and be assured he will not become the target of the religious intolerance of his cousins and will be protected from terrorism like anybody else.

According to our more developed set of values. Remind you that the Western civilization has moved beyond a state where it was dominated by comparable levels of religious blindness and intolerance. We just moved on and left that state behind since long. Islam has not changed and developed since over a thousand years – it is stuck where we were in the early medieval. It is a clash of civilizations, and a clash of times. Of different millenias in this case. When the Europeans came to china, this giant was so much frozen in it’s history of not hav-ing changed since many centuries that it was complelety unable to react to the pressure fromm outside, and the Chinese emperors very much destroyed themselves by that. Islam is even more frozen, but where china was focussed on it’s centre (the empire, and the em-peror) and ignored the outside (foreign countries), Islam ignores it’s centre (does not exam-ine itself in self-reflecting and self-testing), but focuses on the outside: it conquers, subju-gates and consumes the prey. All this religious theatre is only for one reason, in the end: like Muhammad was a robber and bandit and assaulted other tribes and subjugated them, Islam’s history is about control, conquest, and securing power over foreign wealth and res-sources.

The current Dalai Lama has said that when science proves Bhuddism wrong, then Bhuddism is wrong indeed and must be changed. Have you ever seen a Muslim say that since Islam no longer exists in an enviroment of tribal warfare the entire concept of the holy-warrior is outdated and unecessary to the modern peacefull man and should be kept as a souvenir, not as practical doctrine?

That just is a logical consequence and not the thing to wonder about as you paint it.
[quote]You certainly don't see the Pope invoking the faithfull to engage on a holy-war of preaching, how would you react if Pope Benedict XVI called every Catholic to a ceremonial holy-war of pilgrimage? There is no place for "war" in a religion of peace, you can philosophy about the concept of a fair war and how to treat the enemy and their prisioners nicely, but not the other way around, philosophy about how vicious and ferocious and powerfull you can become when fighting a holy-war and how many unarmed citizens you can behead in a min-ute.

If most Muslims living abroad are not Jihadists, then they have already fomed their own chuch but don't realise it, and nobody is willing to inform them of such because then they would start picking different Immams, forming their own Immam schools instead of importing them, rejecting the occasional obscure ones who came from Iran, and eventually develop a doctrine that condemns alot of stuff necessary to support Sharia, creating a differ-ent juridical code, probably similar to the truly peacefull religious codes out there.

Na ja… While it seems to be something like what I expressed somewhere above, it just seems so. Your questions nevertheless indicate that you have not realized the true nature of Islamic ideology.

True. Everybody willing to join, not willing to destroy, is welcome, but if mass man-power is required, there are certainly possible alternatives out there.

certain basic economical thoughts indicate that we do not need plenty of workers paying into the social insurances to secure social systems and future security for the old. Despite the constant loss of jobs in the last 15 years, the economy grew nevertheless and in germany booked one record profit following the next. To produce the cash that is needed for commu-nal structure to remain functional, you do not need high job numbers in principal. The prob-lem is that too much of the profits get consumed by a more and more greedy elite that does not return these cash funds into the economical cycle. That too many betray the system is what threatens us, not so much sinking birth rates that need to be compensated by import-ing future tax payers from Muslim countries. The whole discussion is very premature, but without doubt wanted in this style and course by those you profit from this constant crime of robbing the chashflows of a nations economy.
I oppose the idea of everybody who wants to come can join us. I oppose the idea of unlim-ited immigration. I reserve the right to ask what they have to offer us in return that is of important value for us. I also reserve the right to keep our national character and cultural identities. And that excludes something like unlimited immigration.

Example: In the US Brazilian immigrants should be preferred instead of Mexican (ex-cept in Connecticut), because the Brazilian immigrant has to take a plane to immigrate, this means he's either from a low (or middle) middle-class or has the cunning to raise enough money for the trip, on the other hand, the most desperate illiterate Mexican can simply jump a fence and he's in.

No good example. In Africa it is common practice that a whole village, or even several vil-lages, put all their families’ money together to enable one of them to make his way ti Europe. The majorities of the African boat people landing at Spanish and Italian coats fit for this description.

At the moment, North Korea looks like a nice place. I, unfortunately, live in a metropolis...and I hate it. Everyone flocks here like flies to ****...it smells like it as well, and the air is crap. I hate it. Big cities? It's a cop out...once you get used to the conveniance of being able to buy anything with not much effort..you start to see the bad points. Like idiots who think that making noise at night is clever. Yes, I hate it. Idiots in general like big cities...don't know why...maybe a short attention span. I hate it. We have every nationality here and everyone is trying to turn their patch of dirt to something resembling back home. If you miss your home, why don;t you eff off back there...nobody is forcing you to stay. Yes I hate this effing bastard place.

Why don't I move? Good question...where I would like to move, everyone wants to live there...i.e. far enough outside the city to get out of the dump, but close enough to work and commute. And unfortunately a lot of these bastards have money (a lot of it) and priced everyone out of the market. So we have to suffer...until we can do something about it...and that's why we really work...to get out of this smeg hole.

I used to live in a small and beautiful spa town...I loved it. So instead of going forward...I must be going backwards.

The point of this rambling?....I would prefer living in North Korea to this ****hole. People denounce the simple things in life too easily. Do you know what it's like to never experience REAL darkness at night? I would love to have NO lights in the street... Cars also...it seems like paradise a place where you don't have to sit in a 7 mile tailback...and yes I would ride a bike, if it wasn't so dangerous...you know, 24 people have been killed on a bike here in the past 2 years....that's not to mention the badly injured. Crime...they'll kill you here of you look at someone funny...or drug adicts will kill you for your watch...some will kill you for fun.

So yes...in some ways they are lucky...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kurushio

I would prefer living in North Korea to this ****hole.. (...) ... in some ways they are lucky.

Has your desease already been given a name?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Has your desease already been given a name?

Yes...it's called "waking up and smelling the roses"....when you shag a beauty queen all your life and you get over the great ass and tits...all you have left is a shallow, bimbo. Wouldn't you be yearning to shag a nice, simple next-door type who can give you a conversation on, say, the weather without getting a migraine?

I dunno...I'd just like to get back to the simple ways...good honest living...fresh air. Yes, 46 inch Plasma, computers, cars etc etc are all good...but there's more...!

It's a kop out...