"Well, I think the public mood is shifting...."

Too bad so many had to die to get the mood shifting.

Posted by: PRCS at August 5, 2005 7:18 AM

"how can we deport people to places where they may suffer oppression.."

DO NOT waste time worrying about the consequences! These are ADULTS, they are responsible for their own actions. Any non-muslim would be prosecuted for hate-speech for saying some of the things these clerics spew. To exempt them from personal responsibility is RACIST. it is racist by virtue of the tacit acknowledgement that they are somehow less capable of self-control, less able to act in a civilized manner, more needy of special allowances, less responsible for their actions due to their being muslims. I know, islams not a race but a religion, find a better word if you want, but the clerics rant about racisism, there complaints are made regarding the wests actions against the ME, etc.

now personally, i don't see myself as racist, i don't think you should get a pass because you need special consideration due to your origins, beliefs, or just because you think i owe you. i don't care where you come from or where you're going, if you can't act like a man, carry your own weight, treat others as your equal, and refrain from spending your whole life waiting, with fingers crossed, for someone to offend you so that you can rant on and demand special favors, you have no place in my civilized world.

lets just say that an individual DID leave his home country due to oppression. if we let them in, grant asylum, offer him a life lived in security with opportunities for making a living, personal freedom, education, healthcare, CITIZENSHIP, and all the other benefits people migrate for, and that individual then abuses our benevolence(to the detriment of the host society's security and welfare), knowing full well what he has and what he left, there should be no reluctance to ship him home with a "you had your chance". he was an adult, he knew the deal, he made his choices freely, he can(and should) be held responsible for his actions as an equal member of a free society.

worrying about his possible oppression back home is like convicting a murderer of his crime and then being reluctant to send him to prison because he might be subjected to a lack of mobility once incarcerated, or he might be seperated from his family except on visiting day, or he might end up as someones b!tch. the whole point of incarceration is to make an individual pay his debt to the society he attacked/harmed/robbed/UNDERMINED.

CONSEQUENCES my friends, CONSEQUENCES. we all are subject to them, we all live our lives understanding them, most of us expect them and understand that they are the logical outcome of actions, outcomes both natural and manmade. without them, society deteriorates into something base and brutish. there are both personal and societal controls, good people live their lives consciously trying to prevent unpleasant consequences(to themselves or society as a whole), in good faith, for the common good. Bad men may be controlled by the THREAT of consequences, deeming the possibility of unwanted results as too high a risk to justify the actions pondered. if that fails, bad men can be dealt with by FOLLOWING THROUGH with the threat of consequences.

we're talking about basic societal structure here, not some convoluted and nuanced semantic exercise.

Posted by: t-ham at August 5, 2005 7:38 AM

So if someone is not as obviously flamboyant and open as to one's teachings as beliefs as the Finsbury Mosque imam, if one simply quietly indoctrinates the faithful in what, after all, are perfectly mainstream Muslim ideas, basic to the faith -- the division of the world between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the uncompromising hostility that must exist between Believer and Infidel, the requirement that is collective, and often individual, to participate in Jihad, the instruments of Jihad that go beyond combat (qital) to include the use of money, of propaganda and Da'wa (pen, tongue), and now, of demographic conquest -- all of this will be allowed to continue as before, and the English public will not notice, or not raise the issue of Islam itself, even as the numbers of adherents multiply through Da'wa and large families, for they can be secure in the comforting knowledge that a few dozen of the wilder clerics preaching or defending terrorism will be expelled -- oh, let's be generous, let's assume the British go all-out, and expel, not a few dozen, but a few hundred, of clerics, out of a Muslim population that is now 1.6 million, we are told.

It is not nothing. But if not the beginning of something else, it could be almost as bad as nothing. For what will guarantee, in five years or 10 or 20 (not a long time --- think back in your own life 5, or 10, or 20 years), that with the numbers of Muslims having gone way up, and the expense of constantly monitoring not only mosques, but of bringing charges, and then going through the whole legal rigmarole of the system, and finally -- after years and years -- managing to expel this particular imam, or mufti, or simple wild-eyed congregant, or over here someone who never goes to a mosque at all, but simply has read, and re-read, once more with feeling, Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, with the results that are not unnatural, and yet that Infidels treat as a remarkable and unusual event.

More is needed.

Posted by: Hugh at August 5, 2005 7:50 AM

So, the boiled down basis of your argument, Hugh, is that you want all Muslims gone. Is that accurate?

Posted by: KingTolerance at August 5, 2005 8:26 AM

Hugh:

Quite agree with you. I have always regarded Omar Bakri, Hamza etal, as on our side in this war.They have been the ones that have been educating the public about the nature of islam.

If these individuals are deported, then I suppose we can all go back to sleep. But the march of islam via demography will continue silently, and the hate message of the Koran will be resurrected just as soon as the demographics allow.

The real enemy are not Muslims but the ideology of Islam. This is the doctrine that has to be deconstructed or made humane. Yes! I would like to see deconstructionism, that favourite tool of the Left, applied to Islam.

Posted by: DP111 at August 5, 2005 8:27 AM

hugh;

while i referenced a cleric, my thoughts about a member-of-society's responsibilities, and the unapologetic acceptance of the reality of consequences, and the application of that reality to ALL members of a society, can and should be seen as conditions which everyone should be subject to.

people migrate to the US and UK for the multitude of blessings that these 2 countries(and much of the west) offer. these are truly special places, with offers of lives others can only dream of. why do we have to apologize for that, why should we have to pretend that we are the "moral(gag)equivalent" of places like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and a host of others. we are not. we are differant and, again, very special. why can't the membership requirements reflect that? you want to join our elite little club? well, there are stringent rules and regulations, to disregard or circumvent them means you lose your membership, or are barred from applying.
ever had your "poor relations" over as houseguests? they eat your food, trash your house, lay around on the couch all day without helping out, and genetrally degrade the smooth operation of the home and family. they are usually oblivious to or uncaring about the effects they have on the household you are so proud of, and since they live like slobs at home, they don't see what the problem is, what you're getting so upset about. they love staying with you because things are great here, the kids never have a freezer full of icecream at home, all your beer ends up gone without being replaced, they swarm through your cupboards like locusts. they start out praising you but end up complaining that "you don't have sh!t to eat around here". but they stay, and stay, and STAY, until you put their bags on the porch and inform them that the gravy train has just pulled into the station, and vacationtime is over. bet they tried to borrow money on the way out the door.

maybe we should have progress reports and interim evaluations before citizenship is granted. 5 year period with bi-annual evaluations.
are you working? where are your tax returns? how are your required studies on US/UK history/government/civics&democracy/ coming along, what civic/charity/business organizations do you belong to and how many hours do you volunteer(and where's the list of the organizations principals,achievements,alliances)
have you served in the military and it's reserve branches? ever been arrested?

obviously minds sharper than my own can improve on this thought and/or rip it to shreads, but the gist of it is that if being a citizen of the West is so great, make achieving it an ACHIEVEMENT. anything has more value to you if you had to work hard for it. if one thinks that being a citizen of the West sucks, lets help them find another living arrangement.

Posted by: t-ham at August 5, 2005 8:35 AM

DP111: "I would like to see deconstructionism, that favourite tool of the Left, applied to Islam."

King: Wa? Here, you are mixing a lot of terms and rhetoric and come up with two enemies and no solution.

First and foremost, I'd love to see your plan on how to "deconstruct" Islam, bearing in mind that there are over 1,000,000,000 people globally who are Musilm. Please be as clear and concise as possible so I do not miss any part of your plan.

Second, you seem to implicate the "left" as using decontructionism as a tool. Kindly elaborate on why you think that is, I cannot fathom what you are talking about. Moreover, you are calling for the deconstrucion of Islam and, at the same time, tossing a zinger at the Left for using it. Isn't this contradictory?

Posted by: KingTolerance at August 5, 2005 8:46 AM

More of this:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050805/ap_on_re_eu/britain_bombings" rel="nofollow">http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/135781/*http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050805/ap_on_re_eu/britain_bombings

Posted by: Terminator at August 5, 2005 9:06 AM

This makes me want to scream. The quiet ones are the more dangerous as they make slow, steady changes that are more effective in the long run.

Posted by: epg at August 5, 2005 9:21 AM

K. Schwanz:

"So, the boiled down basis of your argument, Hugh, is that you want all Muslims gone. Is that accurate?"

Posted by: KingTolerance

King Schwanz:

Took you quite a while to figure that out...

Since your threatening us with with the whole billion (what an effort) of unwashed, illiterate barbarians we should just lie down and let 'em have a go, that's what your saying?

No. We're saying export 'em while we can.

We're saying:

NOW we can still stop it.

If we wait another 10 years its too late.

How many do you want?

..buy now, but be quick! Tomorrow they may all be gone...

Posted by: Terminator at August 5, 2005 9:29 AM

King Schwanz,

What worries you?

Yesterday you were a Jewish Eskimo, today you are worried?

Why?

If you are white, Jewish and born in the US of A you should not have to worry!

But if your my kind of Jew than we can worry together about Mohammedans blowing shit up and trying to out-breed us...

Posted by: Terminator at August 5, 2005 9:43 AM

They haven't decided on how much separation pay to provide and the amount to pay for finding new digs in the home country. There has been some quibbling too over how much the anxiety fee should when inevitably the 2-3 imams telling their followers to go out and kill Britons will be deported. In a show of real solidarity and strong resolve, Parliment has agreed that there shall be no Parishioner's Pension for the faithful once their radical imam is shipped off.
"This shows the world we are serious about terrorism" one anonymous member of Parliment stated.

Posted by: goesh at August 5, 2005 9:48 AM

First and foremost, I'd love to see your plan on how to "deconstruct" Islam, bearing in mind that there are over 1,000,000,000 people globally who are Musilm. Please be as clear and concise as possible so I do not miss any part of your plan.

2) End foreign aid to nations which claim to be Muslim nations.

3) Freeze Islamic immigration to the U.S. - including student visas.

4) Deport any Muslim or cleric who advocates sharia, misogyny, theocracy, or jihad. That should do wonders.

5) Use the causus belli Iran and Syria have provided us to destroy their military infrastructure from the air. By international law, we are responsible for protecting the Iraqi people from foreign invasion - as the occupying power.

6) Pass real energy legislation to cut the legs out from under the major funders of terrorism, violent da'wa, and barbarism in the world, the Saudis.

7) Use an expanded defintion of deterrence. Don't let nation states escape culpability for funding, harboring, or transporting terrorists. In other words, bombs and lots of them.

That's a good start.

I don't care about debating Islamic theology any more. The only thing I care less about is "why they hate us." Deport, destroy, and defend.

Posted by: Beagle at August 5, 2005 10:02 AM

"First and foremost, I'd love to see your plan on how to "deconstruct" Islam, bearing in mind that there are over 1,000,000,000 people globally who are Musilm."

Would it be salient to point out that 'deconstructionism' is a tool of philosophical enquiry?

If you dont understand something, dont assume you can make it mean what you heard.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deconstructionism

Another parallel universe day, I see.

Tom

Posted by: thomas ato at August 5, 2005 10:39 AM

thomas ato

I have a hard time defining deconstruction as anything but destruction. That's because English is my first language. The inventers of deconstruction can't make any arguments against me because the stupid philosophy of meaninglessness (deconstruction) preculudes making semantic arguments as a matter of first principles.

Posted by: Beagle at August 5, 2005 10:47 AM

islam is incompatible with western life.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 5, 2005 10:55 AM

It is not nothing. But if not the beginning of something else, it could be almost as bad as nothing. For what will guarantee, in five years or 10 or 20 (not a long time --- think back in your own life 5, or 10, or 20 years), that with the numbers of Muslims having gone way up

Hugh, hopefully things aren't as dire as you make them seem. Consider the fact that 35% of British Muslims are considering leaving the country in the wake of the 7/7 attacks: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/483 . And this was after they had seen what the British elites' immediate reaction was in the wake of the attacks- i.e. trouser-soiling anxiety that a "backlash" against Muslims was about to occur. If the British government stops letting in new Muslims, deports "preachers of hate (i.e. orthodox Islam)", and starts taking its own sedition laws seriously, I think the Muslim population in Britain will either leave voluntarily, or else begin to assimilate in earnest, once the phantom of victory trhough demography fades from before their eyes.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at August 5, 2005 10:58 AM

As Mona Siddiqui said on Sharia TV last night, even middle class Muslims talk in terms of "us and them" (Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb) at their nice dinner parties. Will that ever change? Why should it? What magical quality does British culture possess that it can negate a 1400 year- old doctrine that is part of mainstream Islam? None. Deporting a few "preachers of hate" will achieve nothing, except perhaps to delay by a year or two the hammering in of the final nail in Britain's coffin.

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at August 5, 2005 11:51 AM

Google the following for the American plan:

REX84 (Readiness Exercise 84)
Garden Plot
Cable Splicer
U.S. Army Field Manual 3-19.40

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at August 5, 2005 12:18 PM

It is so sad that so many lives had to be lost in London for these changes to occur...

Moose

Posted by: Moose at August 5, 2005 1:10 PM

A consideration:

1. Since the 1600 the West began a full-body attack on God as presented by Christianity. This attack culminated on post-modern age: a)"every thing is relative", b)"there are no absolute values", c)"all cultures, religion, and civilization have the same worth". We became citizen of a civilization with no faith. We became narcissists and fully hedonists. The West is a civilization of no values but self-indulgency. We just want 'to be and let others be' as the hippies said in the 60's, "No war but love", etc.

2. Muslims have strong faith; their practices indoctrinate them deeply; i.e. all acts are mandates, strong family cohesion, the belong to an 'elite' group -Islam-, 5 times a day prayers, etc. They live by/under Allah's law. They are people with strong faith. Their view is that "death fighting for Allah' warrants heaven after death. They are willing to die and conquer as demand by their faith.

Q: "Is it possible to defeat an enemy that has strong morale when we do not have the moral strength to value what the West brought to the world?"
A: "Not really." That war is lost because the will-to-win is necessary to defeat the enemy.

Q: "Is Islam the real and only enemy?"
A: "Not really" The root of our problems is the ideology of post-modernism that zapped our will to defeat Islam. We need to believe again on SOMETHING, because only them life is worth living. Only then we have the will-to-fight"

Q: "Will the West win against Islam?"
A: "Yes, but it will take a lot of pain and blood to awaken the sleeping dragon and defeat Islam."

Predictions:
"We enter a cycle of stricter laws and world terrorism leading to civil riots in Europe, and might end up on nuclear events in the Middle East. Under the stress of war, the west will either abandon cultural relativism or fade in history at the golden age of humanity. We are living very amazing times."

Let us watch.

Posted by: westman911 at August 5, 2005 3:05 PM

Hugh's point was simple enough, KT, for even you to grasp.

Remove islam from politics and from the ultimate pinnacle of mainstream consciousness, as has been done for Christianity for several hundred years. It is, for example, no longer necessary to be Christian first and foremost and all else second, or to think first about what the relevance of so-and-so to scripture is, rather than about what benefit it might bring.

Secular and religious Westerners have been doing this for some time, KT. What, exactly, is your argument, and what, exactly, your difficulty in comprehension? The 'tools' would be the same as in any other such confrontation with religious doctrine: independent thought, fair inquiry and simple sanity. Although I admit, perhaps, that you are familiar with none of these.

Seriously, 'deconstruction' of islam in your mind somehow translates into the death of one billion people? Frankly, only a hardline islamicist would actually believe such a nonsensical statement. Or perhaps you feel that to maintain our semi-secular society in its current social repair we should frog-march 1.8 billion Christians into the gas chambers? In essence, this is the reverse of your deluded argument. But please do post your complete plan for getting rid of the pesky Christians, Jews and others who oppose islamic doctrine. You may quote from the Quran as necessary.

Pathetic git.

Imam Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at August 5, 2005 3:23 PM

Turdinator: "What worries you? Yesterday you were a Jewish Eskimo, today you are worried?"

King: I think you and Zico are on the same psychotic wavelength. What in the wide world of sports are you talking about??!

thomas ato: "Would it be salient to point out that 'deconstructionism' is a tool of philosophical enquiry?"

King: Not really, I was simply following up with DP111, the originator of the comment on deconstructionism as it pertains to the "Left". I really want him to put forth his personal plan.

Beagle: "I don't care about debating Islamic theology any more."

King: Good! Because the answer to solving radicalism is politically motived and not theological at all.

Beagle: "The only thing I care less about is "why they hate us." Deport, destroy, and defend."

King: Caring less about why they hate us is exactly why they hate us, genious. While you are barking deport, destroy and defend like the good little Nazi that you are, nothing gets solved, innocent people on both sides die, and politics prevail.

My challenge still stands: Lets us discuss a pragmatic, civil, do-able design for reducing radicalism. One hint here is that the 1 billion Muslims in the world are not changing their religion to make you stop having scary dreams. Beagle was off to a good start before he deported, destroyed and defended his way out of credibility.

Posted by: KingTolerance at August 5, 2005 3:26 PM

KingTolerance, did you ever manage to ascertain whether Ayatollah Sistani is moderate or extremist?

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at August 5, 2005 3:42 PM

geoff: "But please do post your complete plan for getting rid of the pesky Christians, Jews and others who oppose islamic doctrine."

King: I have no such plan since I tolerate all religions, races and creeds and welcome people to be peaceful practicers of their faith no matter what it is. I am intolerant of the likes of you, who spin, morph and generalize your way into blaming 1.2 billion people and an entire religion for the criminal activity of organized and armed militant thugs. Vive la difference, geoff. It is clear that you are 'able' to have a civil discussion but you choose not to.

geoff: "Remove islam from politics and from the ultimate pinnacle of mainstream consciousness, as has been done for Christianity for several hundred years"

King: I agree that mixing religion and state, no matter which religion, is a dangerous thing. I have mentioned numerous times that when this occurs, the doors for corruption in religion AND government are flung wide open, as has happened in several Middle Eastern states. This also occured in many European nations when Christianity was radicalised and the world plunged into the Dark Ages. Christianity hasn't a clean history to draw from, so you might as well bag it, Geoff.

Geoff: "Seriously, 'deconstruction' of islam in your mind somehow translates into the death of one billion people?"

King: Putting words into people's mouths again, eh Geoff? Said nothing of the sort nor did I allude to that.
You are not going to 'deconstruct'anything that over a billion people practice. How grandiose of you if this is what you really do think. Moreover, while you sit in church this Sunday, why don't you reflect on ways that you can affect positive change in this situation you feel so passionately about? Afterall, you are an upright Christian, able to deliver us from the heathens and barbarians, right? Thus far, you sound like the other knuckle draggers here, barking about eportation and deconstructionism. Nice try, Geoff.

Posted by: KingTolerance at August 5, 2005 3:42 PM

Dr.Phibes: "KingTolerance, did you ever manage to ascertain whether Ayatollah Sistani is moderate or extremist?"

King: He's a moderate who has become embroiled in politics, a volitile mixture that can and has bred extremist ideologies.

FRom Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Sistani

Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Sistani has played an increasingly political role in Iraq, and Western mainstream media universally call him the most politically influential figure in post-invasion Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr, who is 42 years Sistani's junior and the head of an independent militia known as the Mehdi army, has risen to prominence in the course of 2004 and is often referred to as a potential rival, but the two overcame considerable tensions to agree on a common slate of Shiite candidates in the elections scheduled for Jan. 30, 2005. Observers note that their social base is quite different, with Sistani's support strong among the Shiite property-owning classes, and Muqtada's stronger among the urban poor, who provide most of the members of the Mehdi army.

Sistani's increased political activism since 2003, always exercised through representatives, has often been interpreted as a response to Muqtada's increasing celebrity; it is also, no doubt, a response both to increasingly dire conditions in Iraqi society and to his own responsibilities as the sole grand ayatollah in Iraq.

Shortly after the American occupation began, Sistani issued fatwas calling on Shia clergy not to get involved in politics. However, as the summer of 2003 approached, Sistani became more involved, though always through representatives, never directly. He began to call for the formation of a constitutional convention, and later demanded a direct vote for the purpose of forming a transitional government, seeing this as a sure path to Shiite dominance over Iraq's government, since most observers say that Shiites make up about 60% of Iraq's population. Subsequently, Sistani has criticized American plans for an Iraqi government as not being democratic enough.

Sistani's edicts and rulings have provided many Iraqi Shia religious backing for participating in the January 2005 elections -- he urged, in a statement on October 1, 2004, that the people should realize that this was an "important matter" and he also hoped that the elections would be "free and fair . . . with the participation of all Iraqis". While some radical Islamists argue that democracy is "non-Islamic" because it holds that power derives not from Allah but from the people, Sistani's message is that Shiites have a religious obligation to vote. He has consistently urged the Iraqi Shia not to respond in kind to attacks from Sunni Salafists, which have become common in Sunni-dominated regions of Iraq like the area known as the "triangle of death," south of Baghdad.

Posted by: KingTolerance at August 5, 2005 4:04 PM

I hope that we do the same here in the USA. People who glorify terrorists or terrorism of any faith/greed/color should be shut down and thrown as far out of the country as possible. Grandfather that thing too and jerk up these assholes and give them the boot, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, or whoever. Are you preaching death and destruction? Get the hell out. Now.

Posted by: f.g. at August 5, 2005 4:57 PM

KT:

Read my post carefully. I referred specifically to the ideology of islam. It has nothing to do with numbers - 1 or 100 billion, or whatever inflated numbers muslims seem to come up with.

Do you BTW go to islamic sites and let them know about the virtues of tolerance or is it just here at JW/DW? I'm sure they will welcome an input from you.

I look forward to honest debate.

Posted by: DP111 at August 5, 2005 5:17 PM

Carolyn2 posted: islam is incompatible with western life.

More or less in agreement. Considering the hell that they make for themselves, and now having allowed them into the West, the hell they are making for us, I would have said, "Islam is incompatible with life".

Posted by: DP111 at August 5, 2005 5:23 PM

King of Fools
Now I know why you are so ignorant on most subject matters around here, you get your info from wikipedia. LOL!
Oh, if anyone hasn't mentioned it yet, you've been caught out in another lie. For months, you've been telling everyone you don't believe in any religion. Then the other day you claim to be from Nick Bergs(RIP) religion. Tsk Tsk, you really should stop blabbing on so much and construct your lies more carefully, because you are way out of your depth intellectually here.

"Caring less about why they hate us is exactly why they hate us" ROTHLMAO! What a gem KF, a moronic gem but a gem no less.

Posted by: William The Crusader at August 5, 2005 5:31 PM

Re:'deconstructionism'

I would have thought a 'deconstructionist' line of analysis would be one method to look at the koran. There is so much contradiction in it that some sort of a objective Western analysis is required.

This is just an idea. I'm sure posters will inform me if its worthwhile. Look forward to them.

Posted by: DP111 at August 5, 2005 5:45 PM

KT:

I agree with you 100% that a pragmatic and civil approach to reducing terrorism is required. [As an aside, I would prefer to use "eliminate" instead of "reduce" but recognize that elimination is not 100% possible. Although it may be theoretically possible to reduce ideological rooted terrorism 100% from any one ideology, there will always be the "nut case" terrorist, a mentally deranged psychopath, whose killing sprees are for personal gratification only.]

To achieve such a pragmatic and civil approach, the free exchange of ideas between the protagonist and antagonists of each issue must first be guaranteed. No matter how abhorrent one’s statement may be to you personally, you must be willing to give freely to that person the podium and microphone from which that person is to make there statement.

I don’t know you or where you live, but you claim to be Jewish, and if you are you would, or should, personally hate the Nazi ideology requiring Jewish extermination. The guarantee of free exchange of ideas would then require your acceptance that the American Nazi Party, or whatever they called themselves on the south side of Chicago at their headquarters building located at 69th and Western boldly emblazoned with a swastika, had the right, which was exercised, to march through the north side suburb of Skokie, with its predominantly Jewish population.

Your relatives, who you claim had concentration camp serial numbers tattooed upon them, if witnessing this spectacle, would probably be overcome with uncontrollable grief if not wretch at the site of fully uniformed Nazis marching through the streets of their neighborhood. Some of those witnessing this spectacle may have been overtaken with rage, but not uncontrollable rage, because they knew should they let their rage go out of control, they would be prosecuted, not because they are second class or inferior citizens. but they would then become common criminals, just as if those Illinois Nazis let their rage go out of control and break ranks from the march and start to harm physically the Jews taunting them from the sidewalk.

Secondly, the protagonist of any idea must also be able to act as an antagonist to that same idea. By default the converse is also true. To be able to do so one gains the perspective of the adversary. [“One thing my father taught me was to think the way my enemies think,” Michael Corleone] In effect one must be rise and become an advocate for that which is personally abhorrent, all personal feelings, preconceptions and prejudices set aside. Would you, if you personally believe homosexuality to be abhorrent, preying on young boys even more so, and to top it all off be total repulsed by cannibalism and storing the leftovers in the freezer, be able to represent Jeffrey Dahmer in a court of law to the best of your abilities guaranteeing him the right to a fair and impartial trial and examination and admissibility of the evidence (which you may not even be able to look at without puking into the nearest wastepaper basket) no differently than if you were defending Mother Teresa against some minor misdemeanor? Would you, knowing that the arresting officer forgot to ask during the reading of the Miranda rights, “do you understand these rights?” suppress such evidence allowing trial, conviction and possible imposition of the death penalty to proceed, or would you introduce such evidence at the preliminary hearing knowing that the Dahmer would then not face charges on technically improperly obtained evidence and be set free?

In the free societies, all of the above is possible, it occurs every day in the countries of North America, in some countries of East Asia, and in Western Europe. But. all the talking on how to stop terrorism in these societies will be fruitless unless the other side can be engaged. That other side is the Muslim countries, a term I adapt for purposes of identification only for if we accept such identification as true we have already conceded to the Muslim that their portion of the earth is secure for Allah and the rest is theirs to be taken. For such dialogue to progress all the earth must be deemed to belong to humanity, and not divided into the Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb.

This is not asking Muslims change their religion, but change the concept of how the other, the Islamic antagonist, is to be perceived. That is the primary hurdle to be overcome in addressing the cause of Islamic terrorism.

How do you propose that this dialogue even proceed in what are deemed moderate Islamic societies, such as Malaysia, with its national laws designed to protect the average Muslim from the ideas of the Other? The mindset that gives rise to Malaysian laws regulating to whom and in which languages Bibles and other non-Islamic texts can be distributed need to be replaced, but this requires, not a change of religion, but a change of concept of the Other. We, in the free societies, may not want our children exposed to Mein Kampf, but we can buy it from Amazon, or even read it for free online, just as easily as we can read the Bible, Torah, Bhagavad Gita and Koran. When the average Muslim is allowed to be exposed and experience competing ideas from their source, and not coddled and sheltered, then the dialogue can commence.

Even the openness of CAIR on this issue is in doubt, no, established, by its pronouncement that aid to the tsunami victims in Muslim countries, although raised by secular or religious charities, should only be delivered by Muslims lest, horror of horrors, Muslims are exposed to non-Islamic beliefs and traditions. Of what concern is this of CAIR’s, since such aid and the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarian, Moonie and secular missionaries and the aid they were delivering may not have even have originated within the U.S. By making it the concern of CAIR, CAIR reinforces the perception that Muslims are not interested in ecumenicalism, or as being one among equals, but in supremacy over the Other.

If wee can’t take the debate to a moderate Islamic country, or to an organization existing under the laws of a free society, how then do we even proceed to discuss this issue within the societies of the Islamic (again that divisive term) world? I am reminded of an elderly black man who many years ago used to roam the streets of downtown Chicago. I would see him practically every day; his head tilted upwards, eyes to the sky (how he kept form accidentally falling down the stairs to the subway, I never knew), reciting from memory passages from the Gospels. He never bothered anybody, and nobody ever bothered him. He was not there for monetary handouts, but only to spread the word of the Lord. He could have been anybody in Chicago, of any race, of any nationality, of any religion, preaching what he believed in. Will you volunteer to go to Egypt or Iran, or to Saudi Arabia itself to do the same?

You, as a Jew, are you prevented from walking into the Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican, the holiest of spots for Catholicism? Absolutely not, it is open to the public whoever and from wherever they come. A Jew steps foot into the Dome of the Rock, and what happens? The Islamic world goes nuts and Israelis are “punished, the Islamic euphemism for committing murder against the Other.

Believing in tolerance is indeed noble, it is far better than believing in hate. But tolerance must be coupled with pragmatism, and decoupled from moral relativism. For if we remain coupled to such relativism, tolerance will fail, since tolerance is implies mutual respect. As a young white girl in the early 1960’s, there were neighborhoods of Chicago, all black, that I, not even any white person, would dare venture into in broad daylight. Rev. King (if you truly are a King you should live to his ideals) showed the black person, and the white person, what tolerance, equality and respect mean. Just last night, now a middle aged white woman, walked freely in those same black neighborhoods.

Tell us, King T., what society needs to be more open to the Other, the secular, governed by the rule of law that has evolved, as has our intellect and understanding, over millennia, or the Islamic, governed by the rule of Mohammed, as set in 7th century stone.

Posted by: Lisa at August 5, 2005 6:17 PM

King Schwanz:

"...the 1 billion Muslims in the world are not changing their religion to make you stop having scary dreams..."

We don't give a flying f*@# about your billion zombies, Schwanz!

We care about the ones that infiltrated our countries and how to get them out!

Good for them not to change. Let them hate more! Let them remain stupid, poor and ignorant and let them fart to Mekka 10 times a day. Just don't push it on us...!

Get the hell out and do your thing in the desert!

Good for them showing us how "angry they are"- "how much they hate us because we don't care" for the Jihad, for the phony issues, and for the intellectual bankruptcy of the cult and for the hatred that emanates from the mosques.

Hate as much as you want, but get the hell out.

Our culture is far superior to and will not be destroyed by a bunch of zealots!

Posted by: Terminator at August 5, 2005 6:25 PM

Lisa,

Below I'm pasting an excerpt from a past posting on the phenomenon ofv IE72 and KinkSkunk

...Kink T being a perfect phony, per definition, lives, dreams, breathes and spews lies. Of course, he is no Chomsky, so his drivel is hopelessly boring. He tries his best to clumsily impersonate his deranged idol, but his wits are inversely proportional to his massive megalomania. Which could mean he is a cretin.

But I could be wrong;
You see, there is a chance that Kink Skunk expects that Great Britain will soon become The Islamic Republic of Britain and he hopes for a career of Ueber-Dhimmi. By discharging his inanities all over this blog he is producing material he will use as recommendation when applying for the coveted position with the future Ueber-Mufti of the country. If that is the case then he is a traitor.

In any case, whether he is a cretin or traitor you are wasting your time on Kink.

Posted by: thomas. h at August 5, 2005 6:37 PM

Its been really pleasurable to see the Popinjay deconstructed for the pompous half-wit that he is - a case study of a moron being humiliated - well done guys!

Posted by: Zico at August 5, 2005 7:35 PM

Lisa,
what do you mean by civil? Civil approach to eliminating terrorism? How do you eliminate anything by civil approach? You may as well talk of “civil approach” to eliminating AIDS.

We are in the middle of a clash of civilizations. A clash that started the moment a murderer, thief, sexual pervert promised his followers that accepting allah as god and himself as allah’s prophet will free them from inborn moral restrains, so they, too, may murder, rob, lie and rape and be rewarded for it as long as they do it to the infidel. He promised them a most wicked luxury – a freedom from conscience. They could do good and moral while doing evil. A gift only Satan himself can offer.

During 1300 years of islam’s history that satanic appeal erupted in orgies of most fantastic brutality and murder against whole populations whenever islam was able to do its evil. It was not apparent when islam was weak and defeated, but not one even tiniest detail in islam’s blueprint of murder and hatred was ever changed. When Islam was weak that evil was dormant, only to awaken when the conditions were favorable. Just like a dormant virus of a deadly disease strikes a weakened organism

Today with islam’s penetration of the west and its rapid demographic growth these favorable conditions have once again presented itself and islam is making a full use of them. Those who say we have been attacked by terrorism and therefore we must fight terrorism and not islam itself are deluding themselves while their stupidity and their dishonesty kills us. We may keep on solemnly declaring that we are not at war with islam, but that won’t change the truth that islam is, as it always has been, at war with us. In fact Islam is at war with just everyone. The borders of islam are truly bloody.

The strategy of islam’s war against the west is twofold.
To terrorize and intimidate and, at the same time, to deny that there is a war. The “radical” Moslems, or the “tiny fringe” do the first part, while the vast majority of “moderate Moslems” aided by our own traitors and leftist loonies, manage the other part of the war.

While we can hunt down and kill the former, we can not do much against the latter. In fact in the, not so long, run the “moderate” will become so numerous here that they will achieve their objective of political, social and cultural dominance by using the uniquely western instrument of democracy against us. In other words they will bind and paralyze us with the very thing the western man created to assure his freedom from despotism and tyranny. Democracy and tolerance will fall in the wrong hands and become our doom.

What to do about it?

Well, so called “dialogue” and “civility” is a dangerous delusion. You don’t start a dialogue with a force which defines you as its enemy. A force whose vision is to capture your world, the world of your dead and the world of your yet unborn and remake it in its own twisted horrid image.

Really, what is there to talk about? The only thing you will hear is lies, accusations and occasional whining. And if you discuss for long enough, (a generation or two), you will eventually hear that the dialogue is over and you can either accept the sharia or shut up. Or worse.

So what do we do?
First we need is to regain an objective and free from the fear of the PC’s inquisition view of the true nature of the drama we are involved in. And then we need to find the will to live as free men - the men of the west, the men of Judeo-Christian values and virtues. If we find enough love for our world, and enough resolve, courage and honour to keep it alive for the sake of our dead and our unborn, we will stop all Moslem immigration, deport the criminals and illegal Moslems, revoke citizenship of hostile to our ways and tradition Moslems, and generally encourage departure of Moslems from our lands by changing our generous, friendly and accommodating attitude to, blunt, unsentimental, and demanding integration.

That would be a beginning. And if that would not bear the results we expect we should absolutely consider mass repatriations of moslems. It had been done before.

Posted by: thomas. h at August 5, 2005 9:16 PM

The Brits new anti-terror laws are tough and they are aimed directly at Muslims. Mosques can be closed and it will be easiser to strip people of their citizenship and deport them.Terror suspects can also be held for three months without charge.If there are court challenges the Brits plan to amend their laws to deported preachers of hate even to countries where the preacher might not be treated so well. Here's a link to the AP story on the new laws.

British Anti-Terror Laws

Posted by: Roxane at August 5, 2005 9:40 PM

Well, so called “dialogue” and “civility” is a dangerous delusion. You don’t start a dialogue with a force which defines you as its enemy. A force whose vision is to capture your world, the world of your dead and the world of your yet unborn and remake it in its own twisted horrid image. Posted by Thomas h.

Thomas, if you read Lisa's remarks again, very carefully, I think you'll see that the two of you are on the same page.

Posted by: Susanp at August 6, 2005 12:05 AM

Thomas,

I have no argument with what you say, indeed, I agree with many of your statements. My point to KT is, to have a warm fuzzy, lets all get in the hot tub and smoke a joint, feel good session requires a basic set of ground rules to which the Islamic leadership apparently could never agree to, that is letting the "for purposes of identification only" Muslim interact on a level that may cause a questioning of the basic tenets of Mohammedism.

My experience and interaction with Islam is through that of a co-worker. He is for the most part a reliable employees of our company, personable and friendly, and, clearly, not a very good Muslim. He admits his own Islamism is limited to weddings and funerals. During a lunch together at a local Thai restaurant during Ramadan, which he kept calling Ramadam-a-ding-dong, we enjoyed a personal favorite of mine, pork with chiles and basil. As we were sipping on our Singh beers, he made a comment to the effect his mother would kill him if she knew he was doing this. Obvioulsy, to him, Islam meant nothing more to him than a bunch of traditions that interfered with normal life, but followed when with family.

BTW, he is married, and his wife is not afraid to flaunt her figure, although personally I believe her tast in clothes to be more suited in age and shape to Paris Hilton. This is something I noticed in other Mulsim for identifcation purposes only women who are first generation in the states. They try to dress like teenagers at the mall well into their 40's. Sometimes sudden freedom after years of suppression can have delusional effects on the mind.

These are the totality of the Muslims I know personally, Out of the one billion dispersed across the globe, how many are there, just like these "yea, so I'm a Muslim, so what's the big deal?" Just like the Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhist I know. It's something one is born with, and it's just more of a hassle to to change it than its worth. To each of them, their religious identification may be totally meaningless, and it may be totally meaningless to their closest family members, but it just may raise more family gossip, acrimony at the dinner table and other related family hassles to come out and say "I'm really a Rastafarian" than to come out and say "I'm gay!" If the family is primarily non-religious, there is still some suspicion over a change of religion. The mindet, I presume, is one of breaking of tradition. If one is inclined to identify more with a religion, why not stick with the one inherited from the parents? It may be perceived as a personal rejection, or rejection of the family, whereas sexual orientation is not.

This is in the U.S., where there are not religious police or morality police forcing your to daily prayer, making sure your show up at the mosque, or beating women for being "immodest." How many of those Muslims in non-Arab countries, Indonesia, Malaysai, and Iran, are just like those I know here, but for the enforcement of religious ritual, and the penalty imposed by the government, and not by God, for breaking God's law?

Yet, I recognize the dowside potential that stricter observance to Mohammedism can bring in any individual. To the Mohammedan, stricter observance means Islam is a way of life. But that is a life of ritualistic observance devoid of any thought or consciousness of action, to the extent a brainwashing occurs, such that any critical thought leaves the brain and that what is spoon fed from a little book becomes ones's way of life.

In this and other blogs, I have read the comments form Mohammedans that Isalm is a total way of life and their criticism of Jews and Christians is religion means going to temple or church for one hour each week, if even that, and forgetting about religion outside of that. My response is (from my perspective of being raised as a Christian in the Roman Catholic church, thus no slight to any other non-Islamic faith is intended), that it is Christianity, not Islam, that is a total way of life in that Christianity instructs us how to live our life in a moral way in our dealings with and treatment of other people, no matter who they are, to make us as an individual a better person; and that Christianity is not intended to be a micromanaged set of rules regarding submission as in Islam, but a daily observance of goodness in each to make us more Christ-like (I am beginning to sound like the nuns of my youth) with a weekly observance of the rememberance of Christ.

I have often expressed last dichotomy in more simpler terms. If one delves into Christianity to become the best Christian possible, the result is Mother Theresa; but if one delves into Islam to become the best Muslim possible, the result is Osama bin Laden.

Posted by: Lisa at August 6, 2005 12:51 AM

Susanp,

...if you read Lisa's remarks again, very carefully, I think you'll see that the two of you are on the same page.

Absolutely! One doesn’t really need to read Lisa’s remarks “again, very carefully” to recognize she is on the same page with the overwhelming majority of the people in that blog, indeed, in the West.

I regret that my posting could make an impression that I somehow “attack” her. Not at all. I did point out in the very beginning of my entry that her choice of words “civil and pragmatic approach to eliminate terrorism” is unfortunate as it obfuscates both the nature of our struggle and the identity of our enemy. Correct words are supremely important and using euphemisms is not really pragmatism.

Our struggle is a struggle to preserve OUR freedom and OUR identity on OUR territory. Our enemy is Islam because it strives, as it always had, to eradicate these precious to us things. Not so much for its own sake as for the greater glory of allah.

Islam’s very raison d’etre is to make our planet a worthy offering to Allah. Its war against us represents the process of purification and perfection of that offering. Islam can not stop half way from that goal without losing its very meaning and its identity. Indeed, without betraying its “god”. It must conquer and expand, or it will disappear. Just like the cancer.

We need to recognize these facts first. I argue that the rest will follow naturally from that recognition. “Pragmatism” is only meaningful when there is a correct perception of the reality. And such perception is quite difficult to achieve when we use wrong words to describe that reality.
The fundamental pragmatic thing is to call the spade spade. Or Islam, not terrorism, the problem.

Posted by: thomas. h at August 6, 2005 9:39 AM

Lisa,

My experience and interaction with Islam is through that of a co-worker. He is for the most part a reliable employees of our company, personable and friendly, and, clearly, not a very good Muslim.

I must observe that your interaction is not with islam, but with a Moslem, who as it happens, is “not a very good Moslem”.
At least 750 thousands of Armenians butchered by Turks, or over a million of the Sudanese Christians and animists genocided by Moslems can claim an interaction with Islam, but not you.

Islam is a not a total collection of Moslems any more than Christianity is collection of Christians. We must be able to see the forest for the trees.
We would not have insoluble problems with Moslems if we did not have insoluble problem with islam. You know very well yourself that the moment your “not a very good moslem” friend decides to be a good Moslem your friendship will lose its footing. That happens practically always. So as far as the west is concerned the only good Moslem is a bad Moslem.

I have often expressed last dichotomy in more simpler terms. If one delves into Christianity to become the best Christian possible, the result is Mother Theresa; but if one delves into Islam to become the best Muslim possible, the result is Osama bin Laden.

Very well put!

Ps., I can’t resist commenting on your remark from your preceding posting:

No matter how abhorrent one’s statement may be to you personally, you must be willing to give freely to that person the podium and microphone from which that person is to make there statement.

It is not an absolute requirement. It all depends who the person is. If I know that the person intends to hit me with the microphone on the head it will be foolish of me to provide him with the means to do so. Moslems use our freedom of speech as the means to abrogate it.

The only way we can deal with islam is separation.
Israel has built the wall to keep the menace out and it works very well if not perfectly. We, too, must separate from islam.

Enough of providing podiums and microphones. People die of it. Only long distance telephone calls and emails must do from now on.

Posted by: thomas. h at August 6, 2005 11:56 AM

Regarding deconstructionism: I'm not convinced of its utility in general. However, I do think that people should be free to apply this or any kind of philosophical method to any religion without fear of getting their heads cut off. If that is not the case, then we have a serious problem on our hands. This is Blair's point. Tolerance only works if everyone agrees to tolerate each other. In Germany any political party that stands against the "free democratic basic order" is ipso facto unconstitutional. The value of tolerance, and the need to defend it, has been learned through bitter experience in Europe. We should not forget it.

Posted by: Viking5 at August 6, 2005 1:13 PM

viking5:

Thanks for the response.

Posted by: DP111 at August 6, 2005 4:49 PM

Silly kingie - kicks are for trids.

Almighty Geoff: "But please do post your complete plan for getting rid of the pesky Christians, Jews and others who oppose islamic doctrine."

King: "I have no such plan since I tolerate all religions, races and creeds and welcome people to be peaceful practicers of their faith no matter what it is."

Ah. Then you can save your "deconstructionism = kill 1.2 billion people" angle. Thanks.

All-Powerful Geoff: "Remove islam from politics and from the ultimate pinnacle of mainstream consciousness, as has been done for Christianity for several hundred years"

King: "I agree that mixing religion and state, no matter which religion, is a dangerous thing...as has happened in several Middle Eastern states. This also occured in many European nations when Christianity was radicalised...Christianity hasn't a clean history to draw from, so you might as well bag it, Geoff."

Well, well - aaaaalmost an admission that islamic states are not something we want. Very good. You're on your way to real learning. Now, was I proclaiming the virtues of radical Christianity, O' Tiny, Tiny Brain? No. Did I say that I wanted Western society arranged on Christian matters? No. And, additionally, why would it particularly matter if Christian/Western nations have had radicalist periods?

Ahh. Well, it wouldn't, except for tu tuoque. Well, that's a real argument, almost.

Great Geoff: "Seriously, 'deconstruction' of islam in your mind somehow translates into the death of one billion people?"

King: "Putting words into people's mouths again, eh Geoff?"

No, reflecting your allusions back at you. Ya like it? =)

"You are not going to 'deconstruct'anything that over a billion people practice. How grandiose of you if this is what you really do think. Moreover, while you sit in church this Sunday"

Wrong again. Me secularist. Already say so. KT thick like whale pancake.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at August 6, 2005 6:10 PM