Some great points made here

[Kapitan_Phillips]

No doubt most of you will have seen this:





Some damn good points, in my opinion.

[STEED]

Now you have done it a red hot scorching slam bang of a thread, batten down the hatches people this is going to get rough.



PS: I agree 100% on his remarks on PC Madness.


PPS: More latter

Glenn Beck. Good on him!!! If only more folks would get mad as hell.

[TteFAboB]

On a similar line: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4227

I'd add to the list above the decadence of Christianity. When everybody believes to be living in a post-Christian world where religion is a thing of the past, Islam is absorbed by osmoses and sucked in by vacuum as a return to the old principles. Plus, as a Muslim you are useful to the ruling and power-hungry classes, tolerated by the population zombified by PC which combined grants you a bunch of priviledges.

The gravest mistake of the projections of a possible Muslim majority in Europe, like that of SUBMAN for example, is to consider that Islam only expands by breeding. This is a most elementary error. If that was the case Islam would've never surpassed Judaism and it would've never left the Middle East. That's not the case and the amount of Muslims that exist today was achieved by conversion. Islam would grow in Europe not only out of demographic expansion but out of the conversion of the Europeans who sought the fundaments that were abandoned by the Christian Churches. Ask Konovalov.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by STEED

PS: I agree 100% on his remarks on PC Madness.

You Brits have gone seriously potty.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

No doubt most of you will have seen this:





Some damn good points, in my opinion.

The same guy 3 minutes and 30 seconds into this clip:

What a jerk he is.

[Skybird]

For AL, with love

This is an excerpt from a book I have red this autumn, "Hurra wir kapitulieren!", I think I made a short note on it back then here on the board. This chapter now was translated into English and published by Der Spiegel. Enjoy.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...462149,00.html

In 1972, more than three decades ago, Danish lawyer and part-time politician Mogens Glistrup had an idea that brought him instant fame. To save taxes, he proposed that the Danish army be disbanded and an answering machine be set up in the defense ministry that would play the following message: "We capitulate!" Not only would it save money, Glistrup argued, but it would also save lives in an emergency. On the strength of this "program," Glistrup's Progress Party managed to become the second-most powerful political party in the Danish parliament in the 1973 elections.

Glistrup had the right idea, but he was a number of years premature. Now would be the right time to set up his answering machine.

The author is an independent author and political observer, known for his sharp tongue and bad habit to mercilessly point finger on political flaws and deceptions. His bitter-black humour only hides the desperate love for Western culture that he sees going down the drain. Surprisingly he often is said to be a left. I always thought that he is beyond such categories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_Broder

[STEED]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

You Brits have gone seriously potty.

Last years news that.

There is a great gathering storm here. Not since Adolf Hitler's rise to power have we seen it. Unfortunately many have forgotten the lessons learned by his rise.

Many are concerned about lives being lost for what they deem an unnessasary war.
What they really mean is they do not want western lives lost. I don't hear much by way of the lives lost in Darfur or Ruwanda before that.

Many will agree that I am not a great thinker. How ever here are my thoughts.

If we wait and talk to pre-nuclear nations we allow them the time to construct nuclear weapons. Those nations then become an existencial threat. All current nuclear powers have, if not explicitally, telegraphed plans to retaliate or pre-empt if they feel their existance is at risk.

From my point of view it is better to stop these pre-nuclear nations, the leaders of which are openly hostile to the 'west', from aquiring the weapons than to wait and have only one solution, the nuclear non-option.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

The same guy 3 minutes and 30 seconds into this clip:

What a jerk he is.

I'm not so sure who's the jerk here.

No room for concern, Konovalev? :hmm:

[Letum]

He does make some good points.
All religions should be open to criticism and the laws of state should always be higher then the laws of religion.

However, it is important to make a distinction between offending people and causing hatred.


Offending People:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of the baby Jesus being raped then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of Mohamed dressed as a woman then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

Offending people can make you a tactless git, but it needs to be allowed so that peoples views can be challenged. What ever you say will offend someone in some way anyway!
You can't ban people from being offended either. People should be allowed to be offended as long as they are peacefully offended.

If you just offend a group people then no one will hate the people you are offending because of it.

Causing hatred:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a picture of Jesus killing some Iraqi children alongside some American forces, then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Christians. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If I drew a picture of Mohamed as a terrorist (as in a Danish magazine), then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Muslims. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If you use slander to cause hatred against a group of people then that hatred can lead to acts of violence against them.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I'm not so sure who's the jerk here.

No room for concern, Konovalev? :hmm:

Whats wrong with that?
He seams to treat his religion as a guide to political decisions in the same way that most christian American politicians use their religion as a guide to decision making. If you asked some Christian politicians which came first, political loyalties or the bible, they would also have a hard time answering.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Letum

Whats wrong with that?
He seams to treat his religion as a guide to political decisions in the same way that most christian American politicians use their religion as a guide to decision making. If you asked some Christian politicians which came first, political loyalties or the bible, they would also have a hard time answering.

Agreed.

Now read the Quran and read the New Testament. Spot the differences.

No hurry. Take your time.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Agreed.

Now read the Quran and read the New Testament. Spot the differences.

No hurry. Take your time.

I don't have the time or motivation to read either, however, through reading brief abridgements and selected extracts, from various sources, I find that I both agree and disagree with different parts of both, however, I seam to disagree with more of the Qur'an.

I would rather have a totally secular government, however, as it is the democratic majority that chooses and not me, government should be open to all faiths, even those that I, personally, have criticisms of.
To say that some, but not all faiths should be banned from government it to censor democratic choice.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Letum

To say that some, but not all faiths should be banned from government it to censor democratic choice.

For discussion's sake, let's switch the word "faiths" with "beliefs".

Would you therefore agree to the rise of Nazi or Klu Klux Klan parties in the US, as to do otherwise would be to "censor democratic choice"?