Geert Wilders: A Warning to America

Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
By Sam Solomon and Elias Al Maqdisi
ANM Publishers, 2009
139 pp., $14.95

Discussed here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_hijra.html

Thank you, infidel, for re-making the obvious, more obvious.

Further, and to elaborate on your musings in a somewhat crude manner:

I don't give a rat's ass whether we're talking about Islam/Islamism, Moderate/Extremist, Reformer/Ultra-Conservative, blah, blah, blah...
_________________________________

The Multi-culti crowd simply refuses (probably due to ingrained self-loathing)to listen to the logic that you have so aptly described above, which cancels any further need for discussion.

I'm sick of arguing over non-existent apples and apples.
__________________________________

Again, thx for your post, infidel.

Dee

I agree with you both (Dee and Infidel). Geert Wilders is a great man for what he is doing but it is time to stop this Politically Correct terminology of Muslim Vs. Islam. If there is a "Moderate Muslim"...he isn't a Muslim! If he/she is a Muslim he is an avowed enemy of the Constitution of the US of which we, as citizens, are sworn to defend from all enemies.

you are off by 6000 miles. not all muslims are are the enemy of our constitution. there are moderate muslms out there plenty og them the soon er we bring them on boeard the sooner we are better off. look it Dr. Zuheri.
M

Absolutely agree, stupid disengenuous self-deluding article. However the comments are very encouraging.
We wouldn't have seen JW-like comments a few years ago.

WE ARE AT WAR!

+ to Infidel Pride

I've found it easier (seriously lacking the erudition of you two), when confronting the self-delusional and unwilling to simply use the anti-Islam argument vs. including anti-muslim. Maybe that's what GW is doing??

Otherwise I can't get them past the 'you're just a racist' missive. My idea is to sow seeds (as done here by RS and JW'ers) of interest and try to get 'them' to self-educate. Perhaps that's what GW also does since his are speeches and not written lectures.

In any case both the Toronto Sun and National Post coverage of Hero Freedom Fighter Geert Wilders were dissappointments.

WE ARE AT WAR!

And the fact that the likes of Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer etc have to live in hiding or hire bodyguards in their own countries says everything about our own malaise. We should never have let Muslims into the West. All they give us is crime, religious intolerance, a massive social security bill, a multitude of terrorist checks and inconveniences, and atrocities like 9/11 7/7, Madrid etc.

Spirit Of 1683, unfortunately, Islam is about Arabic Imperialism. Thus, Muslims are taught to conquer us 'infidels' because that's what Mohammed wants - the non-Arab Muslims have already been conquered by the Arabs through Islam!

If we had no Mohammedans in our midst, think of all the money currently spent on policing and security and running round trying to detect and monitor all the Jihad plots a-hatching, that would be saved!

Think of all the money that Muslim fraudsters in the western countries are currently stripping from the welfare system, that would still be there for those genuinely in need, if there were no Mohammedans continually gaming the system!

We'd save an awful lot of money if there weren't any Mohammedan colonies within the lands of the non-Muslims.

And if we cut off all government-level 'aid' (aka jizya) to malevolent Muslim entities such as the Poor Palestinians [tm] or the Pakistanis or the Egyptians or the Indonesians (I speak as an Australian), again, think of the money we'd save!

dear dumbles,

"again, think of the money we'd save!"

i agree with all your points including the above...but to my thinking, 'saving money' would be an added bonus.

we should be doing everything we can to get rid of this muslime scurge, even if it would be costing us money...
this would be money well spent, that will earn us the gratitude of our future generations

Stop with the half-assed BS!

Exceptions cannot be allowed. If your going to ban burkas, then ban them. Even in the privacy of their own home. No exceptions!

Ban mosques and Islamic schools, and remove the ones that are already here. No exceptions!

And not omly should muslam immigration be stopped but ALL muslam that are here in America should be deported! NO EXCEPTIONS!

That is all the foot-hold that this evil needs.

Wake up. Read my lips. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!

Dee, Stephen D, Cornelius, Guy Macher, thanks for seeing my point.


Traeh

I recognize that Wilders is trying to diffuse some of the criticism he may be getting by making this 'Islam vs Muslim' argument. It's similar to attempts others (including Robert) have made in the past to insert disclaimer clauses in their statements that seem to condemn wholesale all Muslims or Islam. As is well known, such fudging rarely wins them any brownie points w/ their critics, which then begs the question of 'Why do it'?

On the question of individual rights, there are a lot of individual rights that do get trumped during wartime. I personally consider myself a Libertarian, but I do make a major exception here, under the cliche 'Your rights end when mine begin'. I've occasionally been involved in conversations w/ people who tell me that individually, Muslims may be fine people, but when they become a larger group, or attain a certain critical mass, they become a problem. (This also dovetails w/ demsci, when he talks about working w/ individual Muslims.) If thousands of people demand the same thing, and each of them supports it as an individual, do you consider that an individual right or a group right?

As far as holding Muslims accountable go, the problem w/ that is that Muslims simply don't have the same moral framework that we do. When they indulge in their honor killings, FGMs, assaults on police, plots to blow up synagogues, et al, their mindset is already that it's a good thing to do. For us, it's abhorrent, since it violates the Golden Rule.

But since Islam's equivalent of the golden rule is applicable only to Muslims, and that too those who 'have not strayed', talking about holding them accountable is meaningless here. You are assuming that they are just like us as a population as far as moral framework goes, but they're not. Things that we consider evil are things that they have been conditioned to consider as good. So holding them accountable, which means having to make them face the consequences for their actions, means 2 different things to us & them. To us, it means bringing them to justice whenever they violate the law. To them, it means rewarding them for doing what's required of them in the sunnah. That then brings us back to the basic question of whether one is able to avoid getting into the question of whether Western law or Shariah law should be applied in such cases.

Another thing that is worth pointing out here - Wilders makes this distinction in the hope that people will view that since he's not anti-Muslim, he's not racist. But while I made my above points critical of him from an anti-Muslim/Islamic perspective, any of his PCMC critics from the other side in the Netherlands or Europe can make the same criticism of him that I made above w/ the goal of illustrating the disingenuousness of Wilder's claims, and there, he'll be less than capable to defend them.

Instead, why not abandon this altogether, and simply claim that he's not going to stand for and watch Western culture, laws, values and everything that defines his country get altered by a bunch of people who are not only out to alter them, but do that in the process of destroying most rights the Dutch people enjoy. That would be a far more credible & persuasive argument.

Hi Infidel Pride,
Thank you for the reply. I think for now we'll have to agree to disagree. I've granted that free societies must sometimes compromise some of their values in wartime, and that there is often a conflict between liberty and security. But you seem to have ignored my point (as is your right).

You speak of how Muslims have different values, how "they" do this, and "they" do that, as if all of them have different values. But it's precisely my point that they don't all differ from Western libertarian values. Yes, it seems quite possible that worldwide, 50%, perhaps significantly more, favor global imposition of Sharia. But even if it's 80% -- that still leaves significant numbers who are against Sharia. And there are truly huge numbers of innocent children involved.

In World War II, we often killed huge numbers of civilians, for example in Dresden, and in Hiroshima. Perhaps it was unavoidable as a means to win and be sure of winning. But it seems to me that Spencer and Wilders are betting that for now, such brutal, collectivist approaches are not required. They are betting we have not reached that stage yet, that we can still realize our goal of maintaining a liberal society and can do so without resorting to wartime means that inevitably compromise liberal values of respect for innocent individuals. Call it a concern to minimize collateral damage. It's a very Western thing. We should hesitate and think before throwing any of that concern overboard. And we will hesitate, because we are a free and liberal society. Leave it to the Lenins and Maos and Hitlers never to worry about collateral damage. I agree with Spencer and Wilders. We can still win this humanely and without applying a collective solution that takes no account of individual exceptions.

I don't think Wilders and Spencer are distinguishing Islam from Muslims merely as a tactical matter in order to avoid being completely rejected by mainstream thinking. No. They are genuinely committed to the respect for the individual born of Athens, Rome, and especially Jerusalem. They really believe in Western values. That's why they risk their lives every day and live almost in hiding.

But all this is merely academic until one specifies the policies one is calling for.

And so this opposition, ALSO, just like Infidel Pride and many JW-ers, despises the distinction between Islam and being Muslim. But the JW-ers do it with the understanding, I think, that Muslims are to be held much accountable for their beliefs and loyalties, while many Muslims and Muslim-defenders operate on the assumption that holding Muslims accountable for their beliefs and loyalties is totally TABOO, not even for open for discussion.

I can't speak for any other JWers. But to be held accountable for something only makes sense when the person being held accountable knows that what s/he has done is a violation of the norm. But if the person being held accountable expects the norm to be something other than what it is, holding that person 'accountable' is an impossible task.

While I can't imagine that Infidel Pride thinks like that, because it would mean that Infidel Pride would want to support laws that weigh heavy on Muslims without holding them accountable. Something that would confirm the constant accusation of racism towards JW-ers, it seems to me.

As I noted to Traeh above, Muslims can't be held accountable for not abiding by Western norms, since they knowingly reject those norms. It's somewhat different from your common criminal, who knows what the norms are, and chooses to, for whatever reason, violate them. Such a person knows that he's doing something wrong, and does what he can to cover his tracks, and otherwise protect himself. Muslims, otoh, have been conditioned to think that those things are right, and so asking them to take responsibility for their actions simply means giving them a license to do what they've been brought up to believe is the right thing to do.

That's why 'holding them accountable' is useless. As for the racism charge, given that the majority of people in the West are white and the majority of Muslims even in the West are non-white, that's a perception that unfortunately cannot be avoided. However, the same problem is there in Israel, where the racial differences b/w the Jews & Arabs ain't much, or in India, where there are no racial differences b/w Muslims & Hindus/Sikhs/Jains and so on. They too would be well advised to do the same thing. As would those in Ethiopia, Kenya & South Sudan, where the Muslims are the 'whites' and non-Muslims are the Blacks.

And frankly, Infidel Pride, I do not like to behave like a hypocrite al lot of the time. When I co-work with many Muslims and people who also co-work with them amiably and indiscriminately on a daily basis. And when I meet them on the streets and in shops all the time all over the place (Rotterdam, Holland).

This reminds me of something I had written a few years ago on how to counter the argument that a lot of people run into - 'I know Muslims who are nice'. I too have had Muslim colleagues, and one can't exactly choose not to work in a certain establishment just b'cos Muslims work there, or it will be impossible to find a job. But like I pointed out there:

It’s worth noting that the Muslim friends you describe as nice, are in the company of the following people – all of whom were described as nice sometime or the other by someone or the other:

1. Mohammed Atta – 9/11 hijacker
2. Ziyad Jarrah – 9/11 hijacker
3. Zacharias Moussaoui – 9/11 conspirator
4. Mohammed Bouyeri – murderer of Theo Van Gogh
5. Omeed Aziz Popal – attacker of several pedestrians in San Francisco in August 2006
6. Mahmoud Taheriazer – who killed several people with his SUV at UNC, Chappell Hill
7. John Walker Lindh – American Taliban
8. Stanley Grant Phanor – Sears Tower Conspiracy
9. Meher (Mike) Hawash – former Intel VP, who attempted to go to Afghanistan after 9/11 and join the Taliban
10. Stephen Vikas Chand – conspired to launch a terror attack on the Canadian parliament and behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper

As we implied above, it’s perfectly possible that the nice Muslim(s) you know may indeed be nice. But that’s not a guarantee that they will stay nice, or clean. Just as it would be unjust to stereotype from an unpleasant experience with, say, take your pick – a Jew, or a Mormon, it would be just as misleading to conclude from a few anecdotal episodes that most Muslims are fine people.

A better way to conclude things would be to examine the results of polls from Muslim communities in various countries, and see whether their outlook matches that with the rest of the population. In these polls, larger populations are surveyed, and the chances of them statistically matching the overall trends are higher. For instance, a recent poll in the UK revealed that 40% of Muslims there want Shariah law introduced. This is an example of something that one is unlikely to run into talking to one’s Muslim friends.
Also, do the nice Muslims that you consider friends really consider you their friends (beyond telling one that for one’s consumption)? Well, if they happen to be Muslims in name only, there’s a chance that they really do. However, if they are fervent believers in Islam, here are a few things in the Quran that are likely to guide them.

9:23 O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.

58:22 Thou wilt not find folk who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His messenger, even though they be their fathers or their sons or their brethren or their clan. As for such, He hath written faith upon their hearts and hath strengthened them with a Spirit from Him, and He will bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide. Allah is well pleased with them, and they are well pleased with Him. They are Allah's party. Lo! Is it not Allah's party who are the successful?

The only thing about nominal Muslims, though, is that due to the practice of taquiyya, it's impossible to tell raving Jihadis from MINOs (Muslims In Name Only). Which makes even the above possibility purely academic.

Am I under these circumstances to hold all Muslims accountable for holding on to Islam and at the same time to act cordially, amiably and to speak only in that way about them with their co-workers? That would be the best tactical way, I suppose, but then I would feel myself to be hypocritical too much.

That's precisely what I do - practice my own taquiyya myself while dealing w/ Muslims. As the cliche goes, what's sauce for the goose is ketchup for the gander. I avoid any conversation about either Islam or Muslims when I'm talking to a group that includes Muslims, but when I'm talking to people who are ambivalent about them, I do discuss the problems w/ Muslims (after of course making sure that I won't be snitched on) Oh, and personally, I do boycott Muslim businesses & stores and avoid contacts w/ Muslims, other than the ones absolutely necessary (like not being able to dictate who my employers hire)

There is always the hope Muslims may stray from Islam or even apostasize, which I've seen and heard happen too, by the way.

That would be like watching paint dry. First of all, despite the lofty claims by FFI, the number of Muslims who actually apostatize is probably a handful @ best, certainly not going into even the millions. Ali Sina himself conceded as much in an interview, when he stated that he had shifted his focus from trying to sell Muslims on his points to trying to educate Infidels. Previously, that was a salient difference b/w groups like FFI, Islam-Watch vs Jihad-Watch, GoV, Atlas Shrugs, Debbie Schlussel and once upon a time, LGF. Now, FFI is also in the latter group, since they've realized that they'll make a lot less headway by focussing on Muslims

You are assuming that when Muslims know more about Islam, they are likely to apostatize. Instead, however, as history shows, when Muslims have learned how they started as an asterisk in Medina to an empire stretching from Morocco to Brunei, it actually inspires them to follow in the footsteps of the caliphs and their successors. Far from recoiling in horror (maybe some do), it's more often the case that dormant Muslim countries have become more Islamic (e.g. Indonesia) rather than actively Islamic countries (e.g. Pakistan) becoming more tolerant.

You are also overlooking that under the guise of apostasy, a number of Muslims can, and have, practiced taquiyya, and only pretended to be non-Muslims, so that they can infiltrate the West, and do further damage. Which makes this even more difficult.

But the biggest difficulty w/ Muslims is the impossibility of determining who are moderates, vs who are extremists. Some, like Debbie Schlussel, have come up w/ litmus tests, such as support for Israel, which is a good one, but still limited in that a Muslim could be pro-Israel, but anti-other Infidels. Given this difficulty, the advocacy should simply be on a blanket basis. Put Muslims on the defensive, and make them determine which side of the fence they really want to be on.

traeh

I'm fine w/ agreeing to disagree. However, just some points I'd like to note here before I drop this:

The problem isn't that 50% or 80% of Muslims in the West support Shariah. The problem is that there is no way of really knowing who, besides how many, do. Opinion polls sometimes approximate the how many question, if one recognizes the fact that of the people who say that they oppose Shariah, a good number of them (again indeterminable) are lying. That's what makes this even more difficult.

WWII was at least easier in that we had no illusions about who the enemy was (once the appeasement policies of Chamberlain were done & dusted). It was Germans, Italians, Japanese, and their sympathizers in the West. For the latter, the government had no qualms about rounding them up and sending them to jail. But now, you have millions of Muslims in the West, and regardless of how many of them may actually support Shariah, fact remains that it's the total population that is used as a statistical basis on which to claim culture-altering rights in the West, whether it be halal meals, footwash basins, tombstones facing Mecca and so on. And to make things worse, you have a population @ large so PCMC that they just don't have the will to stop any of these changes.

In the long term, to preserve individual liberties, there are occasions and times when they have to be suspended. So that has to be done in this case now, if we are to avoid bloodletting. What I expect, though, is that we'll let this problem deteriorate until the bloodletting is inevitable. After that, measures even stronger than the ones being suggested today will be taken purely on a survival basis, and after that, you'll more likely than not see a return to individual liberties.

I'm all for individual liberties. But I am also for suspending them when they threaten to be used by our enemies to destroy our individual liberties, as Shariah is required to do.

Ok, but you and I are getting very academic now. Until this is fleshed out in policy proposals from you or me, it's all too abstract. We won't really know if we disagree until we compare policies.

I've granted that free societies must sometimes compromise some of their values in wartime, and that there is often a conflict between liberty and security. But you seem to have ignored my point (as is your right).

Noted! In addition to my last post. I did gloss over it, but didn't doubt that you'd be for temporarily suspending them, if they could be guaranteed restored.

I am as well. Just that I'm not for Muslims having them, due to the above reasons listed. I agree to disagree w/ you on that point.

Excellent post, Traeh.

Thank you gravenimage.

Hi SSL,
You make an excellent point (except about erudition!).

But I'd bet that the stance (distinguishing Islam and Muslims) is not just tactical on Spencer's and Wilders' part. I think they genuinely understand its importance as a reflection of core Western values. I don't think they take it as the only thing of importance.

Infidel pride

you wrote -
"..as history shows, when Muslims have learned how they started as an asterisk in Medina to an empire stretching from Morocco to Brunei, it actually inspires them to follow in the footsteps of the caliphs and their successors. Far from recoiling in horror (maybe some do), it's more often the case that dormant Muslim countries have become more Islamic (e.g. Indonesia) rather than actively Islamic countries (e.g. Pakistan) becoming more tolerant."

On the subject of the caliphate, the Empire of Islam...this is a bit OT, but...do you read Dry Bones, the Israeli cartoonist? He has a brilliant four-panel take on that. Highly recommended.

http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/two-step-plan.html

The things that RS had listed in the past on what we should do about Muslim immigrants is a part of what I support. For instance, I immigrated to the US in 1992, and one of the things I recall being asked was whether I'm a communist or had ever been one. Note that while it's a right of an American citizen to be a Communist, it was at the time (don't know about since) a valid ground to reject an applicant if he was one. Amongst the other questions were questions about whether one was a Nazi war criminal, amongst some other things. The document did have a somewhat ludicrous disclaimer that answering 'yes' to any of those questions didn't necessarily disqualify an applicant.

So on the immigration front, I'd include the question about what is one's religion, and definitely mark out anyone who says 'Islam'. That absolutely would be grounds for rejection, and if someone is found to lie about it later on, it would be valid grounds of deportation. That would at least end the influx of foreign Muslims, for beginners. All foreign F1, H1 Muslim visa holders would be gone, and green card/citizenship applications would be rejected! Oh, and no Muslims would be allowed to have dual citizenship of US and any other country.

On the question of American Muslims - either born here or converts, I'd have a policy of monitoring them all, for security reasons. I'd simply ban prison dawa, and make it a policy to isolate Muslim prisoners from non Muslims - there are no constitutional provisions against it. Anybody who converted to Islam, the circumstances of those conversions would be monitored, like the terrorist credentials of those who did the converting. While there couldn't be discrimination on those grounds, they'd certainly be very intensely profiled, and made ineligible for security clearances. That case can and would be made before SCOTUS if it came to that. In airports and other places, profiling of Muslims would not only be encouraged, but proclaimed, CAIR can yelp all it wants.

So having dealt w/ foreign & converts, that only leaves American born Muslims. A good portion of them are NOI, and there would be a crackdown on the likes of Farrakhan, Malik Zulu Shabbaz and the like, but not necessarily the NOI membership, since that group is not fanatical, just racist. The remaining Muslims are 2nd or more generations of foreign Muslims who are immigrants from mainly Muslim countries, and some non Muslim countries as well. Just keep monitoring them, particularly activities after foreign trips, and particularly activities after the haj.

Such a policy would be one of systematic harrassment, after which most Muslims who don't really have the stomach for Jihad would leave on their own anyway. That will leave only Muslims who do have hostile intentions towards the US, and they'll continue to be monitored. Oh, and did I mention - all outreach policies towards them will end - it will be illegal for schools, for example, to teach kids how to practice Islam, there will be no footbasins in public places, hijab/jilbab/burqha/niqab wearers would be constantly stopped in public places and interrogated by law enforcement as a part of terrorism investigation activities. Same w/ men w/ dirty long beards. In short, create a cultural climate where Muslims are left w/ an unequivocal message that they are not welcome in the West, and are barely tolerated. A lot of them have thin skins, and won't want to live here if that's the message.

Do all these, and the problem of Muslims will disappear on its own. Same thing recommended for other countries, such as in Western Europe, Israel, Thailand, India, Philippines, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Kenya and so on.

Now, I know that all the policies above have a snowball's chance in hell of being implimented given the current PCMC climate. But for the same reason, the same is true for any watered-down version of any policy that even assumes that Islam has a problem. Therefore, I'd not even pretend to cater to such PCMC sensibilities, and just state what the conclusions are, and what the policy based on that is. And its implementation would only happen in a political climate where PCMC is so soundly discredited and rejected by the overwhelming bulk of the populations that even Liberals will be unwilling to carry that water.

DDA

That Dry Bones cartoon was brilliant!!!

Many thanks Infidel Pride for your answer to me, which I admire a lot and about which I am in the process of considering it from every angle. And Traeh also helped enormously in that considering. And I hope to become a little bit better warrior or debater in favor of my beloved democratic system.

I agree with many points you make and I seriously waver now in my position, yes I am unsure, really.

But I know I am really INCENSED internally about Muslim-defenders, who tend to defend, more equivalence, Islam just because they want to defend the nice co-worker-Muslim (and many of them are the most charming ladies too). So I cherish the distinction, because it enables me to blast Islam while still excusing the Muslim a lot. Muslim-defenders also often try to ingratiate themselves with that nice Muslim by calling Geert Wilders a racist. I have experienced this and seen this on TV and in articles countless times.

And now you ask me to give up on: - making the distinction between the nice Muslim and the clearly anti-democratic or criminally-unclear Islam; Quran-Hadith-Sira. Tough for me!

And for fighting the epithet "Racist" to Geert Wilders (and Robert, Pamela, Ali Sina, us and myself) passionately I seem to NEED to hold Muslims accountable!

When talking to Muslims: By the way with the spearpoint of holding them accountable for supporting the death-penalty for apostasy. Which I find embarrasses them and gives me some support among otherwise staunch Muslim-defenders, who in this respect at least cannot be Islam-defenders.

And when talking to "Western bystanders", some quite ignorant and innocent fair-minded, ingrained with the principle of freedom of religion with no-questions-asked. To these "Western bystanders" it is totally abhorrent to just discriminate on religion alone. For them only PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY + ACCOUNTABILITY suffices to do ANYTHING discriminative towards ANY individual. And, until war is upon us, as Traeh points out, I intend to depend on PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY-arguments. It is my single guarantee that Geert Wilders is NO RACIST. Until war necessitates drastic survival-measures.

I reason that there are humans who are like the animals, or like children, or simple minds. And these cannot be held accountable. And it seems to me that with your argument that Muslims have a different value-system you in effect put them in these categories.

Then at the other end of the spectrum, there are the Angel-like humans, who do have and take responsibility, but are reproach-less, simply because they behave morally outstandingly in all their dealings all the time.

But in between I NEED to view Muslims as sane adult humans, much less than the angels, but much more than the animals.

I know also that while holding Muslims accountable for their beliefs, preferences, loyalties as I do, I still hesitate to hold them as much accountable as I do hold criminals accountable for their crimes. Free will is in existence, but it may be over-rated, IMO.

But perhaps, at the end of the day, what we really want to defend, and promote, with all our hearts is the Democratic legal governing system and the Golden rule and I find peace in that goal. Which I am sure I share with you, Traeh, Geert, Robert, all JW-ers etc.

1683

Normally, it's a very good litmus test. But I can think of local Muslims in any place who may not be Judeophobic, but definitely anti-Infidel. Am not sure about whether Muslims in Bosnia or Kosovo were anti-Israel during the Yugoslavian wars, and Turkey for a while was friendly w/ Israel (unlike today) even though it was as hostile to Armenians and Kurds. Also Kurds in Iraq have sometimes been pro-Israel, while being anti-Assyrian as well. And our own troll Horsey has been less anti-Israel than he is anti other Infidels, particularly Indians and Westerners. He kept writing about how Chinese Jews are classified together w/ Muslims. Ewwww!

demsci

Let alone Wilders, it's my firm belief that excepting Muslims and some American Blacks allied to NOI as well as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others, there are not many racists in the West.

demsci

I share that goal. I'm just convinced that such a democratic liberty based ethos cannot be sustained w/ Muslims around.

To EZ Rider:

"Stop with the half-assed BS!"

I think our poster Traeh gives the most detailed reasoning why we do not want to treat the rights of Muslim citizens any different from others in the US. Certainly right now. I think you'll find that the Muslims in the US who have been involved in terrorism are either first or early second-generation immigrants, or are recent converts to Islam.

Also, the number of Muslims in the US is relatively small, and we have no areas where Muslim gangs enforce Sharia rules.

Remember, Israel gives its Muslim citizens full rights, and Israel has a considerable Muslim population. You can't say that Israel is weak. But, of course, almost no Muslims are going to be allowed to immigrate to Israel.

raven_,

I agree with much of what you say, with some exceptions:

"stop the infringement of personal freedoms in the name of security"
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but how would you keep a suicide passenger from blowing up a plane? And, if you say "allow all the passengers with concealed gun permits to carry guns", remember that even a law-abiding citizen can always be turned. Imagine a gun fight in a plane.

"stop the reliance on oil from the Middle East"
Actually, most of US oil comes from Canada and Mexico. The real problem with Middle Eastern oil is not a monopoly on oil supplies, but the vast pools of cash that allows countries like Saudi Arabia to fund madrassas that are centers of ignorance and violence, and to fund terrorist Muslim groups.

"put tariffs on Chinese imports to compensate for the drastically undervalued Yuan (RMB)"
It's funny that most of your post is strongly opposed to government intrusion, except for this one, which would cause a major dislocation in our economy to achieve a very questionable result. In fact, China is beginning to feel the effects of prosperity, which actually makes the world far more stable. We would be putting ourselves in danger through a precipitous action which would severely damage both the Chinese economies and our own.

traeh,

Your posts are always like music. I deeply appreciated your philosophical and modulated approach.

Indeed, we do best by following our values, rather than jettisoning them, when confronted by the enemies of our culture.

You have bought into the Islamic doctrine of "dualism." During Mohammad's early years in Mecca he taught peace, and religious tolerance. After 13 years his ministry of peace resulted in only 150 converts. His Quresh tribesmen finally had enough of him. He was forced to leave and went to Medina where he changed tactics by adding violence, fear, intimidation, political hitmen, and built an international military, political organization with a religious front having mafia-type enforcement of his ruthless intolerant iron will, the early version of Sharia law. Since then, no Muslim can be "good" in the sense that you and I define the word and still be a good Muslim. Bin Laden was a good Muslim because he subscribed to Sharia, which demands total subjection to its teachings. The Muslims you refer to may be subscribing to the "Golden Rule" but unless they totally abandon Islam, they are obligated to perform jihad at some level. Dualism means that they operate on both sides of the street, and they are obligated to accept that the early Koran (Meccan) and later (Medina) Korans are both true. Mohammad abrogated his earlier teachings, but both are true. So, Dualism is the practice of telling, believing and enforcing half-truths. That is the way of Mohammad. So, from our standpoint as Americans desiring to protect our Judeo-Christian cultural heritage & Constitutional freedoms, Muslims must either abandon and publically renounce being a Muslim, or depart from our shores. There can be no compromise or wiggle room on this. Our continuation as a free nation depends on the removal of incompatible segments of our society, those whose 1,400 year history of intolerance, rape, plunder, and murder has defined them as the domestic enemy of all nations on the earth. All Muslims must go!

This is true, but people's concepts of right and wrong evolve w/ their upbringing. For instance, while free inquiry is something encouraged in the West, it's considered rebelious in Islam. Hence, Muslims grow up with that idea that it is wrong. In the West, the rights of women are emphasized, whereas in Muslim lands, women are chattel, and they grow up learning it, and ultimately accepting it. If they can learn and accept things like that, why is it a surprise that they embrace the idea that it's okay to do bad things as long as it's being done to Infidels? After all, the definition of good that they grow up w/ is 'that which furthers the cause of Islam' and the definition of bad is 'anything that hinders the cause of Islam'.

By everything I wrote above, I didn't mean to imply that I give them a pass on their bad behavior. Far from it!!! The point I was trying to make was that Muslims cannot be reformed, which has to be an assumption behind allowing them to stay on behind what they themselves consider to be enemy lines. And because they cannot be reformed, any long term policy has to have their removal from the West as its ultimate goal.

Another thing - Muslims do know what laws in the West are, but they don't accept that it trumps the laws of allah, no matter what the ground reality might be. That's what I meant when I said that they don't have the same moral framework that we do.

Our moral framework is that there are two sets of laws applicable to us - both laws of man and laws of god, and generally, we do what we can to violate neither. Since in cases of all mainstream religions, our civil laws don't contradict our religious laws and vice versa, that's never a problem. Moreover, in a modern secularized society, religious laws are a choice that individuals have on whether to follow or not, be it sabbath observances, fasting on Lent, et al. And no other religion that has laws that cause their members to indulge in activities running afoul of the law.

It does cause a problem when it's our civil laws and Islamic laws i.e. shariah, since Islamic law mandates things like Infidels be second class citizens, the testimony of women be half the value of that of men, and so on, none of which would pass master under civil law. As a result, one would have to acknowledge that one of these trump the other, and for Muslims, it's overwhelmingly shariah that trumps any other law - civil or not. So if shariah orders a Muslim not to side w/ an Infidel against other Muslims, and that Muslim is serving in the US Army and shoots his commanding officer on those grounds, he hasn't exactly rejected civil law that commands him not to do that. What he has done is not even acknowledge that the civil law in question has no locus standi, but just obey Islamic law, and be @ peace w/ himself totally convinced that that was all he needed to do.

But since Islam's equivalent of the golden rule is applicable only to Muslims, and that too those who 'have not strayed', talking about holding them accountable is meaningless here. You are assuming that they are just like us as a population as far as moral framework goes, but they're not. Things that we consider evil are things that they have been conditioned to consider as good. So holding them accountable, which means having to make them face the consequences for their actions, means 2 different things to us & them. To us, it means bringing them to justice whenever they violate the law. To them, it means rewarding them for doing what's required of them in the sunnah.

Right on, Infidel Pride. You hit it, that's why there is such a double standard when it comes to 'dialoguing' with Muslims. We come from two different universes where our words almost never share the same meanings. They say peace, when it means in their minds 'war'; we say truth when they mean in their minds 'taqiyya'. Confrontation is the only possible outcome with Islam, there is no peaceful solution ever, since 'deceit' is their operational bedrock. We might as well swallow it, that's how it's going to be. To "hold them accountable" means to uncover their deceits, and hold them accountable to those deceits.

Islam is adversarial from the get go, always had been and always will be. 1400 years of history proves that, buy into it. Until it is finally put down totally, there is no 'peaceful' resolution possible with Islam/Islamism/Jihad/Sharia/etc. The Muslim reality is grave, and restricting importing more of these into our free countries is a grave solution, as you suggested. Sad but true, short of diving intervention, it will eventually have to come to that.

Erratum: "diving intervention" was to be (by allah?) "divine intervention" - LOL

ted,

like you, i would also never consider banning religion.
where i think you need a bit more understanding is
'which is a religion and which is not'.
a very casual scrutiny of islam will demonstrate to you that this is not a 'religion' but a thuggish organization designed to self perpetuate by sheer violence. like any crime organization, once in it - you. can. not. leave.!!
it is an invasive political entity masquerading as religion.

now where you start to tread on thin ice, is by stating that because stoning was commanded in leviticus and inquisition was a christian institution in the middle ages, than we can notbe too harsh on muslimes...as there just may be moderate ones....

if you are new to this site, welcome aboard. you will learn i am sure, so many facts that you may just not have been aware of and thus, your opinion is what it is...

understand this ted:

would you **dare** to wear a t-shirt that states "muhammad was a pedophile, murderer and i belong to the burn a koran club...and casually stroll in ryad, or tehran?
ok let's look for a bit more moderate environment...
damascus? cairo? or the 'newly liberated' tunis?....
what about some muslime only areas in london? malmo, sweden? .. i think you catch my drift

now in ISRAEL you have hundreds of muslime bastards rioting with impunity in jerusalem and in jaffa(!!!) knowing that nothing will happen to them.... you get it?
so... the 'leviticus' argument is dead.

you have perverts that pretend to be artists and portray degrading and insulting images of jesus immersed in urine (and they call themselves artists these idiots, and the left media is oooing and aaahing what sublime expression of art...)
and speaking of insulting the religion PLEASE show me where oh where have we seen christians going en masse to riot kill and maim those and anyone else, that have dared to commit this act....
let me help you.
you won't find.

so in conclusion ted, islam has not changed in 1400+ years
(beheading and stoning is still performed with gusto by these muslime barbarians...) no other religion or belief system poses any threat whatsoever to mankind...

islam on the other hand....has carried out over 17,000 deadly attacks since 9-11.....

you still think there may be moderate muslimes?
the so called 'moderate' are actively engaged in taquyia and stealth jihad....

btw, do you ENJOY watching paint dry? just askin'

I'm with you.

I consider anyone who is a muslim my enemy and would never trust them unless they became an apostate. That's where I draw the line at nice muslims & not so nice.

i have always enjoyed your posts!
:)

Wilders doesn't have to talk about Islam and Muslims as a "religion" but as a "political system" with a religious front. All MUSLIMS are the SOLDIERS OF ISLAM!

If it were just a religious system, I would not care if Muslims barked at the moon because that would not affect me. But what it does politically to attack me in various ways does affect me, and I don't have to tolerate it, NOR does Kurt Wilders.

All political systems are fare game, or should be. Islam tries to convince governments like those in Amsterdam or Britain, to protect them as a religion when in reality Islam is a vicious wolf with gleaming white fangs. Political systems like Islam should be held up to a bright light to show the world how totally evil it really is. It needs to be described publicly as a totalitarian, mafia organization which gains the upper hand by instilling fear and intimidation, cowing its victims into submission, and then plundering their wealth, raping, torturing and enslaving the women and children, killing the homosexuals & liberals, and any who resist. Muslims are the soldiers of Islam. They are the enforcers of Sharia law. Mohammad was a mob boss who hired hit men to kill his detractors. He was a hypersensitive guy who was totally intolerant of the thoughts and feelings of others, except to the extent that they supported his views. He could not take criticism. He gathered an army of 100,000 men within 10 years after he arrived in Medina, and out those men he created a group of plundering, murdering para-military, geo-political mercenaries who, like Mohammad had no moral compass, only their own degenerate lust pattern of debauchery. Mohammad made enslavement and misery of his fellow human beings profitable, and pleasurable.

Islam needs to be confronted head on. Muslims are its soldiers, not religious monks.

All Muslims should be DEPORTED from host nations who value their sovereignty and freedom. The issue is not what Muslims think about that, but whether we going to recognize the WOLF underneath the sheepskin of religion, and do something tangible to correct the problem. When are we and Kurt Wilders going to face Islam and its Muslim soldiers as the political enemy of all free nations and freedom-loving peoples? No Muslim deserves any religious consideration whatsoever. This is not about religion. It is about them leaving the borders of all freedom-loving nations. It is time to DEPORT THEM ALL!

Prophet

I mentioned this above in a post of mine, cited below:

Instead, why not abandon this altogether, and simply claim that he's not going to stand for and watch Western culture, laws, values and everything that defines his country get altered by a bunch of people who are not only out to alter them, but do that in the process of destroying most rights the Dutch people enjoy. That would be a far more credible & persuasive argument.

In that post, I also pointed out that Wilders is getting no brownie points from the media for making this distinction. But the main reason I object is not b'cos of Wilders ingratiating himself w/ his detractors, but rather, providing them w/ an easy stick w/ which to beat him. The point I made illustrating the disingenuousness of the claim can easily be made by them w/ the goal of illustrating his position as fraudulent. Like Traeh, I too believe that he genuinely means it, but any of his detractors can tear his claims apart w/ the above reasoning.

My suggestion to him was - don't bring it up in the first place. Don't mention it at all. Instead, focus on the attacks on their civil liberties, first and foremost. Focus on criminal activities that Muslims do - like vandalization of synagogues, and point out that the policies of his opponents is causing crime to skyrocket. (In the US, successfully illustrating a politician to be 'pro-criminal' is a surefire way of burying them 6 feet under). Cite everything the Qur'an says, but say nothing about Muslims. Say that the Muslims leaders and spokesmen who are demanding Shariah in the West in general and his country in particular are claiming to represent all of them, and few Muslims are openly coming out and saying that they don't want to be counted in that group.

In his above speech, all he had to do was not include the portion I cited in my first post, and he'd have been fine!

Nice post, Wellington, I appreciate it.

You wrote:
"Islam is rotten but not all Muslims are rotten, is the most effective approach such a person like Wilders can take at this point in time. He knows, I believe, were he to come out against all Muslims he would actually lose influence and thus he's doing as much as is practical for the time being. And what he's doing is still a lot.

The time will come when all Muslims will be castigated as much as Islam but that time has not yet arrived and Wilders understands this."

Perhaps this then is what it is all about. Perhaps we are in a process. And Infidel Pride's and others's scenario will eventually fall into place, but perhaps we have to go to that phase through stages.

Remember where we as a society came from. After 9/11 in Holland it was Pim Fortuyn, the "predecessor" of Geert Wilders who in a major way addressed the public about Islam's many political anti-democratic, anti-golden-rule tenets. The reactions against him were even more extreme than those now against Geert Wilders and he was murdered in 2002, just before he was about to win enormously in an election. Perhaps he would even have made it to prime-minister!

But in the 20th century almost all citizens thought like the Political-Correct media, politicians and citizens now still do.

And I tried not to contradict Infidel Pride as much as I tried to show the current situation, how the PC opponents of Geert Wilders and all the still political-correct, ignorant media, politicians and citizens, especially the left party-followers but also soooo many Christians, still think like almost all of us in the 20th century did.

And how the situation is in my own situation, where I am almost alone crying in the wilderness, what with the vast majority of my family, friends and colleagues very much political-correct and often viciously anti-Wilders. Living in a city with perhaps 100.000 Muslims, with many children, young adults, out of 600.000 citizens.

And so I too think that yes, IN TIME every single self-confessing Muslim, who has not made or joined some effort to clearly side with:

the democratic governing system, and the democratic nations in the world, against any political power to theocratic tyrants and any use of Islamic laws overriding good democratic laws,

that any such Muslim may be considered an enemy, or belonging NOT in a democratic nation, BUT in a theocratic nation. And every Moslim then will be asked to honestly admit that and to leave to the sort of country (s)he CAN be loyal (or even neutral, not-hostile) to.

Or to join openly the democratic side against the theocratic side. And such people will be monitored and checked. And this question is primarily to satisfy the needs of fair-minded citizens who need to give Muslims a fair choice, like me.

But perhaps now our societies and parties have not yet evolved towards this clear logical position.

Always good to hear from you, demsci. I particularly look forward to learning from you what is going on in The Netherlands. I do find it astonishing that so many Dutch remain foolishly politically correct about Islam. If any Western people should by now know full well that Islam is not just another religion, you think it would be the Dutch.

Geert Wilders is an extremely impressive human being. I admire him tremendously and he is attracting a growing number of admirers here in America. But alas, as that old maxim goes, a prophet is not received in his own land. Let's hope that eventually Wilders will be an exception to this rule. Take good care, demsci.

I do not believe that liberals are teachable or can be rehabilitated, and I classify them as delusionary pacifists, lambs for the slaughter, destined to a fate like the extinct pacifistic Hindus of Afghanistan or the holocaust Jews in Germany...

So true, John Noble. The liberal Left can never understand what they are courting with their Islam 'brinkmanship', they are lost inside their own collectivist mythology. Something I wrote elsewhere:

"Arab Spring" is wishful thinking by the Western pundits who sincerely think there is possibility of bringing democratic freedoms and constitutional rule of law to lands that had been dominated by tyrannical, corrupt, brutal, dictatorial strong-men governments, in some cases since the days of Muhammad's Islamic expansion campaigns. These are all conquered peoples who have absorbed their conquest and been beaten into submission to mind-numbing Islamic dominance in every aspect of their lives. Their lives are so totally controlled by fear and submission that for each individual to think differently than the mass populace on any issue of freedom, personal freedoms, democratic freedoms immediately marks that person as a threat to the tribal mentality of the Islamic mass. Democratic, Western styled freedoms cannot exist in the Arab world, which is the tragedy of that god-forsaken world mired in their primitiveness, economic stagnation and insecurity. Osama bin Laden knows this to heart, and as a skillful theo-political leader, murderous that he was, he shrewdly understood where the peoples' hearts would be in times of stress, that they would turn to Islam, and more Islam, rather than towards the kind of freedoms enjoyed in the West. Of course he could predict support for his Sharia-Islamism in Egypt, Tunisia, and anywhere the Arab masses rise in protest, because in time the ball rolls into the Islamists' court, where it will be brutally played out. In the end, the common people capitulate to their fears, try to appease the powers, and submit in silent obedience to their theo-political overlords. That is Islam, and it should be of no surprise to anyone knowledgeable in government, academe, media, or the person on the street what is written in the Koran. Arab protesters are not really calling for democratic reforms, they are protesting first and foremost against economic hardship, exacerbated by corrupt dictatorial government, not their god forsaken Koran. What will they get in the end?

This is a kind of game of 'brinkmanship' played out by our democratic governments of the West, the kind played out if you still had hold of Empire, to bring into their countries so many Mohammedans as to bring their own governments to the brink of failure. What would they get in the end? One wonders if perhaps some, especially the socialist Left leaning politicians and pundits (both in America and Europe), and their sympathizers, would not find greater comfort in dissolving our many individual freedoms, such as Freedom of Speech, of assembly, of conscience, separation of 'religion and state', etc. and replace them with collectivity of the kind posited by Marx and Engels; but even more durably posited by Muhammad, where the individual becomes lost in a sea of tribal, economic, theo-political collectivism. No one can stand out in such a world, there is no room for individual thoughts, but only the compliant beliefs of the masses all held together by the common bond of collective ideology, oppressive government, and fear of disobedience. The Left imagines itself as having 'evolved' beyond the tribalism of Muhammad's Islam, and thinks it can somehow elevate the Muslim masses to become more modern in their economic-political collectivist outlook. If so, they are due for disappointment, since the tribalism so finely honed by Muhammad (for his personal glory, booty, and slaves for 'Allah', especially female slaves) is pure 7th century, and does not fit into the 21st. There is no 'modern' Islam possible without abrogating Muhammad, so there is no progressive version the Left could ever develop, it is ontologically impossible. Instead, their importing this primitive ideology and all its mental baggage (including fast breeding multiple wives) will turn on them and drown in a collective sea devoid of any personal freedoms, of their own making. What will they get in the end? Collectivism devoid of humanity, of course: Welcome to Allah Hell™. Muhammad had Marx beat by 1300 years, and he's still in control. Collectivism in the end is all the same.

Wilders understands this, as we all do here, implicitly.

beautiful post, batttle of tours!

I refer you to John Noble's post, as an immediate context, but I must take exception to a couple of things you wrote:

First...

"...can't you see where this is almost A NECESSITY ? As I see it- that's exactly the way it is ! Think about it : often the line between his getting a complete damnation from the public or the press etc. hangs by a thread of making that distinction."
____

Not to nitpick, and with respect, but there is no such thing as "almost a necessity". Either things are necessary or they are not. We need them or we do not.

Wilders, most assuredly, in my view, does not help his case by drawing a semantic "distinction". The question of whether all Muslims are bad or not because they belong to Islam, is a futile argument in the making, as of now. Right-minded people know better, and have discarded the "distinction" already.
_____

and...

"For those who think he should go ahead and tell his audience ( and the world ) that devout Muslims are bad because they are the sword of Islam , and without them Islam itself would not be a problem - HOW DO YOU SUGGEST HE DO THIS WITHOUT making a pariah out of himself ??"
________

He's already a pariah in his own country. He's on trial. He stands only to lose, anyway. He should not equivocate, in my view.

As to convincing Muslims and the media, good luck, Prophet.

Very well stated, Battle_of_Tours. My compliments. Your assessment points to the heart of the problem with Islam, with Marxism, with fascism and, yes, with modern liberalism and that is that all are enemies of liberty (modern liberalism's fascination with, and dedication to, speech codes is an example of how modern liberals, ironically, really despise liberty) . You're quite correct too in indicating that modern liberals are in for one giant surprise if man's oldest totalitarian ideology takes true hold in any Western nation. They'll be goners even before they know what hit them. A greater example of useful idiots would be hard to find.

Again, mighty fine comment of yours. You nailed it.

Thanks, Phoenix, Wellington. These are things we all know, but they must be said sometimes. Islamism, like the collectivity of Communism, Fascism, Nazism tribalism has no respect for our individual rights, our personal boundaries protected as our 'inalienable' human rights under constitutional law, so violate these systematically, to society's impoverishment. This is something the liberal Left has either forgotten or conveniently ignores in its quest for 'utopia'. They must be called on it. Ditto for Islam.