"Once deceit is a virtue, integrity is an impossibility" - A Few Facts about Islam Everyone Needs to Understand

who is chatting on SOLO Chat

The Free Radical

Subscribe or Purchase

Current Issue Contents

Who's new

Poll

Election 2008: Who Will Win?

Obama by a landslide

12%

McCain by a landslide

22%

Obama comfortably

14%

McCain comfortably

22%

Either narrowly

30%

Total votes: 50

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

"Once deceit is a virtue, integrity is an impossibility" - A Few Facts about Islam Everyone Needs to Understand

Submitted by Sandi on Fri, 2008-05-09 23:09.

It takes a lot of time to become aware of and understand Islamic text. In this post I have listed some of my personal notes from reading and listening to Bill Warner. His links are at the bottom for further reference.

"All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.

Koran of Mecca 73:10: "Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with dignity."

From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:

Koran of Medina 8:12: "Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”

No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.

Duality of the believer and unbeliever

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam.

The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be “nice”, but in no case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.

If you are in a business deal with someone who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage of you. There is no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam does not assimilate, it dominates. There is never any “getting along” with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam’s terms: submission

Dualist ethics - no concept of integrity

Integrity – I uphold my principles at all times – constant.

I don’t steal when I am rich and I don’t steal when I am poor.

Integrity can not be defined within Islam

Deception and lies to gain advantage is written clearly in hadith and sura.

Core belief – if deceit is at your core, a lie detector would never pick you up.

If lying is a virtue – how can there be any stress in the act of doing so?"

Once deceit is a virtue, integrity is an impossibility

The duality of Islam – Moderate vs Extremism – Political –vs Religious

61% of the qu’ran is devoted to the kafir (non-believers) and everything is bad.

Killing kafirs is not extreme Islam. It is Islam - period!

Moderate Islam = Moderate Mafia or Moderate Nazi

Islam has 2 fundamental purposes – Deception & Duality

1: Deception and lies to gain advantage is written clearly hadith and sura.
2: duality – the qur’an is filled with contradictions

It divides things and always contradicts everything said.

Text is totally contradictory yet both sides are deemed to be true.

Relgious Islam versus political Islam

Extremism is the unity of religion and politics

Mohammed was a failure preaching the religion of Islam for 13 years, (only got about 100 followers)

He preached political jihad and got a huge following.

Islam is dynamic – it is a process and it is important to understand there is a beginning middle and end.

The beginning of the process, the kafir sees a tadpole – (but what is really is, is an EARLY frog) - (duality & deception).

When Islam first shows up – its like "hi, I am a really nice guy" – handshake. After they have been here a while – "we don’t like the way you do your banking".
Islam is a process – it always moves toward the end processes, which ultimately is an Islamic state and an Islamic world.

Non-believers

2 types of non-beleivers
dhimmi – doesn't believe in Islam but will accommodate it (ie: no pork – welcome Islamic banking).
Dhimmi’s serve Islam but are not muslims.
kafir - non–believer and does not accommodate islam

2 types of dhimmi's

a)The ones that are truly subjugated - (ie: already living in an Islamic state)
b) And the ones who subjugate themselves (ie: apologists) - hence

All policiticans are dhimmis.

Islam does not assimilate, it dominates

There is never any “getting along” with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam’s terms: submission.

The Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sura (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.

We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers. The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had the dictum—know the enemy. We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated.

Islam declares that we are the enemies of Allah. If we do not learn the political doctrine of Islam we will end up just like the first victims of Islam—the tolerant, polytheist Arabs of Saudi Arabia who became the Wahabbis (a very strict branch of Islam) of today, the most intolerant culture on the face of the earth.

This dualism cannot be removed. Dualism is at the core of the Islam. The Trilogy is perfect, permanent and universal. It cannot be changed. A Muslim may reform but Islam cannot.

Large parts of the Koran are legal code and form Islamic constitutional law. Since Muslims believe that these laws come from Allah and Mohammed they are of a higher order truth than any man-made laws. Therefore, Sharia law must replace all other forms of government.

Under Sharia law, all kafirs are second class citizens.

Osama is a MODERATE MUSLIM

The doctrine of Islam does talk about the different kinds of Muslims. The measure of a Muslim is the Koran and the Sunna. Anyone who follows these teachings is a moderate Muslim, by definition.

Islamic doctrine defines what is moderate and not moderate. Since we are dealing with Islam, we need to know that the doctrine is dualistic. Islam can have two doctrines about any issue. This follows from the Koran. The early Koran, which was written in Mecca is generally religious. The Koran written in Medina is very political and includes jihad. The two Korans are not only very different, but they also contradict each other in major ways.

So we have the possibility of two kinds of moderate Muslims, since we have two doctrines. Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim, who follows the Koran of Medina, the Koran of jihad. Kafirs call him an extremist or radical Muslim. Actually, Osama obeys the Koran of Medina and the Sunna of Mohammed, so he is a moderate, pious Medinan Muslim.

The jihadists on September 11, 2001 were all moderate Medinan Muslims. They were not extremists or radicals.

The other kind of moderate Muslim follows the Koran of Mecca and he is more generally what kafirs mean when they say “moderate Muslim”. But how moderate is a Meccan Muslim? A moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir, but he isn’t violent, just antagonistic."

Bill Warner –
Ethical war against political-islam (part 5)
Interview with Frontpage Magazine
Centre for the study of political islam

++++++

Stages of Islamisation
Courtesy of Islam Watch
STAGE ONE: INFILTRATION

* First migration wave to target non-Muslim society.
* Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the target non-Muslim society.
* Characterized by professed tolerance of others and their beliefs.
* Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion and Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism.
* Images of women and children used to portray Muslims.
* Establishment of mosques as power bases (today globally funded by Gulf countries oil revenue). (Mosques are safe havens for Jihadi recruitment and subversive projects).
* Muslim leaders promote large push for increased Muslim births in target non-Muslim society to increase native Muslim population.
* Misrepresentation of their intentions or aims as a cover up for clandestine operations.

STAGE TWO: CONSOLIDATION OF POWER

* Proselytizing efforts increase.
* Establishment and recruitment of fundamentalist Jihadi cells.
* Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population of target non-Muslim society to Islam.
* Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.
* Efforts to destroy all evidence of incriminating historical evidence and sources that reveal true character of Islamism.
* Intellectual Jihad to discredit non-Muslim culture.
* Assault on cultural assumptions and icons of the non-Muslim world, such as democracy, law and science.
* Increased dissemination of anti-western propaganda and anti-western psychological warfare.
* Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (Communists, socialists, anti westerns activists, anti-globalists, anarchists).
* Alliances with the enemies of the Western society particularly anti capitalism leftists. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
* Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint. Efforts to infiltrate education system to propagate pro-Islamic points of view.
* Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslim intellectuals and leaders.
* Efforts to introduce blasphemy laws into non-Muslim society in order to silence critics.
* Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and migration to target non-Muslim society.
* Use of first and second generation Muslim citizens of target non-Muslim society as Jihadist foot soldiers and public fronts.
* Use of charities to recruit supporters.
* Use of crime and fraud to obtain funds to finance activities.
* Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of non-Muslim society from within.
* Development of Muslim political base in target non-Muslim society. Efforts to penetrate political and legal structure of country so as to support Islamic growth from within.
* Use of bribes and blackmail of non-Muslim authorities to get them to disregard establishment of subversive activities.
* Islamic Financial networks strengthened to fund political growth, large acquisition of land and resources by any means. (Today they are funded by Muslim charities; Gulf countries Oil revenue and criminal activities).
* Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition.
* Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes and greater demands are placed upon Muslims to adopt strict Islamic conduct.
* Clandestine amassing of weapons and explosives stores in hidden locations in target non-Muslim society.
* Continuous and covert attacks and challenges against target non-Muslim society leaders and religious symbols.
* Overt disregard and rejection of target non-Muslim society's legal system and culture.
* Efforts to undermine and destroy power base of non-Muslim religions such as Jews, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in target non-Muslim society.
* Efforts to destroy the social structure of the country and bring the downfall of non-Muslim government.
* Use of Islamic gangs in campaign of fear and terror against Jews, Christians, Hindus and non-Muslims to reduce their populations and influence in the target non-Muslim society.

STAGE THREE: OPEN WAR WITH TARGET NON-ISLAMIST SOCIETY'S LEADERSHIP AND
CULTURE

* Large-scale destruction of population, assassinations, killings, bombings.
* Intentional efforts to spread chaos in the target country to undermine its government and culture.
* Acts of barbarity and fierceness as a deliberate policy intended to foster submission of opponents.
* Open and covert efforts to cause economic collapse of the society.
* All opposition, no matter what kind, is challenged and either eradicated or silenced.
* Widespread ethnic cleansing with Islamic militias.
* Rejection and defiance of target society secular laws or culture.
* Murder of all opposition political, religious and intellectual leaders of target society.
* Murder of all moderate Muslim intellectuals who envision other alternatives to radical Islam.
* Toppling of government and usurpation of political power.
* Imposition of Sharia law.
* Mass execution of non-Muslims, ethnic cleansing.

STAGE FOUR: ISLAMIC THEOCRACY

* The Qur’an and the Sharia becomes the "law of the land. "
* All non-Islamic human rights cancelled.
* Freedom of speech and the press eradicated.
* All Religions other than Islam are forbidden & destroyed.
* Enslavement and genocide of non-Muslim population.
* Destruction of all evidence of non-Muslim culture, groups and symbols in country.

Note: this article is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced or published by anyone

++++

Sandi's blog
Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
590 reads

( categories:

SOLO

)

Islam Has Been Harmed More By Muslims than By the West

Submitted by HWH on Mon, 2008-06-09 00:44.

A brave bunch of Hindu bloggers expose the evil mythoi of the Muslimism

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP195108

June 6, 2008 No. 1951

Arab Columnists: Islam Has Been Harmed More By Muslims than By the West

The recent re-publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad by the Danish press and release of Dutch MP Geert Wilders' film "Fitna" have precipitated a wave of Muslim protest, some of it violent, throughout the world. Following these developments, several Arab columnists wrote to condemn the violent reactions, arguing that the Muslims themselves had committed iniquity against both their coreligionists and everyone else, thereby harming the name of Islam.

The following are excerpts from some of the articles: Islam's Biggest Enemy is the Muslims Themselves In an article in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, titled "Muslims Against Islam," Kuwaiti liberal Dr. Ahmad Al-Baghdadi wrote: "In most countries around the world, Muslims broke into Danish Embassies, setting fire to them, and called for a ban on Danish imports... They have also launched a satellite TV channel and organized various committees and institutions, with the sole purpose of defending the Prophet [Muhammad] and the Islamic religion... Have the Muslims ever taken account of the tremendous iniquities they themselves have committed and are still committing against Islam [within and outside] the Islamic countries?

"Let us examine the following problems, which I will briefly outline below:

"How many prisoners are locked up in Muslim prisons for their opinions, ideas, and cultural identity? Is it in the spirit of Islam that Muslims are fleeing their homeland for 'heretical' countries in order to attain security and live in dignity?... Is it in the spirit of Islam to be silent in the face of the tyranny of rulers? Is it in the spirit of Islam that one family should rule over an entire people? Is it in the spirit of Islam that some Muslim countries abound in magnificent palaces while 60% of their population is illiterate? Is it in the spirit of Islam to turn a blind eye to a billionaire's several profligate satellite channels, whose programs make a mockery of religion and morality, only because [this billionaire] has [also] launched a religious channel?... The truth is that the biggest enemy of Islam is the Muslims themselves, because they have relinquished all decency in dealing with others, as well as the courage to oppose oppression..." [1]

Who Is Harming The Prophet? In an article on the liberal website Aafaq.org, Egyptian writer Ahmad Al-Aswani set out the crimes committed by the Muslim world that he believed have harmed the Prophet Muhammad and discredited the spirit of Islam: "I do not think that cartoons, books, or films can harm a religion or affect the faith of those who adhere to it out of conviction.

"The ones who harm the Prophet are those who butcher and bomb innocents all over the world, from New York to Madrid, London, Bali, Riyadh and Cairo, Kabul and Baghdad - while invoking Allah and the Prophet under the banner of Islamic jihad...

"Among those who harm the Prophet are the likes of Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, who incites to the murder of Jewish children in their mothers' wombs (e.g. in a 1996 lecture to the Egyptian journalists association) and to suicide operations, as well as those who cause the death of innocent victims by declaring jihad in Iraq in the name of religion and the Prophet.

"The ones who harm the Prophet are those who call on the world to pass a resolution against disparaging religion, while they themselves denigrate other religions in each prayer in the mosques, as well as in their schools and on their satellite channels - and especially [the religion] of Christians and Jews, whom they curse in every prayer. When Muslim countries submitted a draft of this resolution to the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Saudi Shura Council raised objections, since reviling other religions is one of Islam's central precepts.

"The ones who harm the Prophet are the likes of those who issued the fatwa sanctioning the breastfeeding of adults, and asserting that [the drinking of] the Prophet's urine is a source of blessing - or those who allow such fairy tales to be studied in religious schools and colleges... The ones who harm the Prophet are those who teach children in schools, particularly so-called Islamic [schools], to hate Christians on the grounds that it is forbidden to love them...

"The ones who harm the Prophet are those who believe that external attributes such as a beard, a spot on the forehead [attesting to deep genuflections during prayer], a veil, or a cloak are prescribed by Islam, and also those who accuse others of heresy and kill [them] on account [of these external attributes].

"The ones who harm the Prophet are those who believe that woman is [lewd], and that she detracts from [the purity] of prayer just like a dog or a donkey... [2] and those who believe that a woman lacks intelligence and religion, forgetting that [they are talking about] a mother, sister, beloved, daughter, or wife, who is equal to man in every respect.

"The ones who harm the Prophet are people like [Egyptian geologist and Ph.D] Zaghlul Al-Najjar, who claims to have knowledge yet at the same time regards natural disasters such as storms, volcanic eruptions, and floods as divine punishments [for] sinners, and who disparages the New and Old Testaments, believing them to be fabrications - and all this in the name of Islam and the Prophet...

"The ones who harm the Prophet are the rulers of Arab states who have made their countries the last bastions of tyranny and dictatorship in the world, and who demand submission to religious texts to justify their crimes.

"The ones who harm the Prophet do not live in the West - they are among us, the Muslims. [It is the Muslims] who have fashioned an Islamic model that is [inherently] terrorist, hypocritical, life-negating, and sustained by the murder of others in the name of jihad and by attacks on freedom of opinion under the pretext of [defending Islamic] national principles - which are actually nothing but retardation and fossilized prejudice... This is what we - and no one else - have produced." [3]

Murderous Acts Have Destroyed the Image of Islam Similar claims were made by Bahraini columnist Abdallah Al-Ayoubi in an article in the Bahraini daily Akhbar Al-Khaleej:

"...The harm to the Muslim religion has not been caused only by the publication, in Danish papers, of cartoons disparaging the Prophet Muhammad or by the film... produced by the Dutch MP. There are many [other], graver, dangers that Muslim religion is exposed to. They come from those who use religion as a cover for their criminal conduct, which they attribute to the teachings of the Islamic faith...

"Humane and noble [religious] precepts have been destroyed by extremist 'Islamic' movements such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and others, that perpetrate hideous crimes against innocent [people] in their own countries as well as in other, non-Muslim, countries... When base, despicable acts are carried out by [Muslim] societies and nations, they cause tremendous harm to [Islamic] religious teachings.

"This is what happened, for example, as a result of the September 11th crimes against the U.S., and as a result of the attacks in London and Madrid that followed in their wake.

"The Muslim nations must first and foremost purge themselves of [elements] that use Islam and its teachings as a disguise [i.e.] in order to present their crimes against humanity as jihad in the name of Allah... It is inconceivable that the teachings [of Islam] should justify the murder of dozens, [even] thousands, of innocent people. It is such iniquities that have corrupted the image of Islam in the eyes of non-Muslims...

"[Muslim] nations must adopt the language of reason... in order to deal with the attacks on [Islam], and to wage war against 'Islamic' extremism, which has distorted Muslim religious teachings...

"Those who harm the Muslim religion must be confronted, using sound logic rather than emotion; up until now, responses to attacks [on Islam] have been based not rationality but on pathos. The exaggerated reactions to the Danish press's publication of the offensive cartoons were manifested in setting fire to Danish diplomatic representations - although the Danish government bears no responsibility for these cartoons.

"Such [responses] will not only fail to prevent harm to [Islam], but will actually magnify it..." [

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

Home projector

gregster

Submitted by personallydisin... on Sun, 2008-06-08 01:34.

I'm beginning to doubt you understand any of my "points".

Mr McM

Submitted by gregster on Mon, 2008-06-02 08:46.

This war against filth is the most important ever. America being left to almost single-handedly take on these Islamic savages.

As most of the West has abandoned 'reason' for 'cultural relativism,' the ability to act, even in self-defence, has never been more difficult.

As our universities churn out politically-correct idealogues resembling yourself the task will only get tougher.

"I have no idea how Islam could ever be the 'nail in the coffin' for the West," If your anti-American appeasement was carried through we would be fucked; because the virus needs to be quashed, like all deadly germs. They started it-we will have to finish it. Despite Bush and the Republicans being similarly afflicted I hope we do.

Your other points don't deserve attention.

Stirring the Cauldron

Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Sat, 2008-05-31 22:53.

This puts you on the same level as the filth. What's the saying, “Those who aren't with us are against us?”

Who coined that term, Hitler?

Actually, it was Christ: Jesus Christ, in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 of the New Testament of Christianity, said, "He who is not with me is against me...".In Mark 9:40, in a different context, he said: "...whoever is not against us is for us".

I've got a thirteenth century crusade type of feeling coming down.

The mystics never have had a lot of use for reason.

gregster

Submitted by personallydisin... on Sat, 2008-05-31 21:46.

Be objective-this war against filth is the most important ever to protect what little freedoms you have.

Was it your intention to convey: 'This is the most important war ever to protect freedom.'?

You tell me why, if Bush listened to you, this wouldn't be the nail in the coffin for the West?

You have the burden of proof on this one. I have no idea how Islam could ever be the 'nail in the coffin' for the West without the West first abandoning the principles that made it great.

One more; ”why Objectivists are so ready to use the government to suppress a group it fears and dislikes.” This is where you trip up too. Most of your post is disgraceful. Their religious intentions, for the "infidel," in action are the focus.

This does not explain the war in Iraq nor the aggressive attitude towards Iran. Applying this standard of action to controls on population movement does not work either, as being Muslim is not a crime.

Objectivism because one must make a best attempt at objectivity using reasoning. If your anti-American appeasement was carried through we would be fucked.

Explain this, using objectivity and reason.

This puts you on the same level as the filth. What's the saying, “Those who aren't with us are against us?”

Who coined that term, Hitler?

S McM

Submitted by gregster on Tue, 2008-05-20 01:35.

”I'm certainly not going to back an authoritarian government in its attempts to suppress a particular ideology. ”

Authoritarian to some extent but it's all you've got and you're lucky Obama hasn't been in control. Be objective-this war against filth is the most important ever to protect what little freedoms you have. You tell me why, if Bush listened to you, this wouldn't be the nail in the coffin for the West? The filth, your ilk, are a major threat to freedom. Action has to be taken, appeasement is your enemy.

One more; ”why Objectivists are so ready to use the government to suppress a group it fears and dislikes.” This is where you trip up too. Most of your post is disgraceful. Their religious intentions, for the "infidel," in action are the focus.

Objectivism because one must make a best attempt at objectivity using reasoning. If your anti-American appeasement was carried through we would be fucked. This puts you on the same level as the filth. What's the saying, “Those who aren't with us are against us?”

Your quotes from Rand reiterate what I say.

Richard

Submitted by personallydisin... on Mon, 2008-05-19 02:40.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 183.

Men are afraid that war might come because they know, consciously or subconsciously, that they have never rejected the doctrine which causes wars, which has caused the wars of the past and can do it again--the doctrine that it is right or practical or necessary for men to achieve their goals by means of physical force (by initiating the use of force against other men) and that some sort of "good" can justify it. It is the doctrine that force is a proper or unavoidable part of human existence and human societies.

Rand, Roots of War, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, p30

By endorsing the idea that a particular culture needs to be maintained or controlled through force is diametrically opposed to the concept of individual rights and the proper role of the government to defend those rights. Rights not cultures are to be protected by the government.

gregster

Submitted by personallydisin... on Mon, 2008-05-19 02:07.

You're "not going to back an authoritarian government in it's attempts to suppress a particular ideology," as you summon Objectivism as your answer. Well intentioned you think?

I know Objectivism supports my position.

Philosophically you have placed yourself on the same level as the filth we must eradicate or severely delimit. Hold your horses!-no I don't mean every moslem-just groups who are in this war and governments who facilitate them.

I don't understand your conclusion. I have no idea how I am philosophically on the same level as filth. As for attacking only the groups and governments that are actually in this war with us, I agree. One of the things I was attempting to communicate was the fact that we shouldn't be at war with all muslims.

"The responsibility of the government is to protect individual rights." is your sole sensible sentence! I suggest you re-start your reading. Objectivism in your hands would be as a blind man at the wheel.

You are either misinterpreting my meaning, or you have some basic flaws in your understanding of Objectivism. Precisely what have I said that is contrary to Objectivism?

Lindsey

Submitted by personallydisin... on Mon, 2008-05-19 01:17.

Do you endorse governmental evaluation and support of a particular culture?

And you would be absolutely correct, Richard.

Submitted by atlascott on Thu, 2008-05-15 19:56.

It has to stop, and the sooner the better.

Scott DeSalvo

Whether you think you can, or think you cannot, you're probably right!!

So

Submitted by gregster on Tue, 2008-05-13 04:28.

Scott McMickle. (Are all Scotts genetically liberal? That's two in this thread! Oh except Scott DeSalvo)

You're "not going to back an authoritarian government in it's attempts to suppress a particular ideology," as you summon Objectivism as your answer. Well intentioned you think?

You refuse to see that, ideally, this "authoritarian" government, in our present context, would be acting against the initiation of force by followers of one specific poison religion.

The current one is doing just that, though half-hearted is it's retaliation and sequestration. Why? Because of specimens such as yourself who can't see the forest for the trees.

This poison ideology has been allowed to spread virus-like because the rampant statism in Western countries has attracted it's carriers. Welfare statism encourages the breeding of this virus. You won't see people clamouring in the reverse direction. Even the Greens hate goats milk & camel rides.

There are a few I've noticed around here who, to put it kindly, haven't quite shaken off the political correctness that shackled them in their impressionable years.

As if confusing imperatives with imperialism, if one dares utter, "should be made to" or "should be restricted," these context-droppers jump out to display their treason against secure freedom.

"The responsibility of the government is to protect individual rights." is your sole sensible sentence! I suggest you re-start your reading. Objectivism in your hands would be as a blind man at the wheel.

I wish ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2008-05-12 07:11.

If it wasn't for the soldier, you wouldn't even have your freedom

I wish there were a way for these fuckwit Saddamite pacifists to get their just desserts while sparing decent folk. But too many of the "decent folk" are like the "innocent" Muslims: guilty by silent acquiescence. In the end, soon enough, they'll all get what's coming. I fear Peikoff's idea of putting Atlas in caves was not at all far-fetched.

Of course it fucking well

Submitted by Richard Wiig on Mon, 2008-05-12 06:15.

Of course it fucking well is. The culture of freedom has only ever been secured by force. If it wasn't for the soldier, you wouldn't even have your freedom.

It is not responsible for preserving a culture by force

My solution:

Submitted by personallydisin... on Mon, 2008-05-12 02:42.

Objectivism.

I'm certainly not going to back an authoritarian government in its attempts to suppress a particular ideology. What a terrible precedent to establish! Many people find Objectivism disgusting and dangerous, I don't want to give them any aid in suppressing us. I really don't understand why Objectivists are so ready to use the government to suppress a group it fears and dislikes. The responsibility of the government is to protect individual rights. It is not responsible for preserving a culture by force.

There is no coercive solution to this "problem". Unless they are individually using force to violate the rights of other individuals, the government should not interfere. The sooner we establish governments that adhere to their actual responsibilities, the sooner we make it impossible for this "conspiracy" to use our governments against us.

Taking the mickle again

Submitted by gregster on Mon, 2008-05-12 01:10.

"The idea that Islam cannot be defeated ideologically shows a tremendous lack of confidence and an attitude of defeatism."

How confident are you Scott of defeating even christianity? Your relativist streak is clouding your logic. The Western technological progress hasn't steered you Americans away from ghost-worship. And islam's perverted beliefs are hundreds of years behind. This is the reason I advocated limiting where these goat-****ers can collect.

That's the solution and where is yours? Where is your's ever?

(****, herd)

On bigotry

Submitted by personallydisin... on Sun, 2008-05-11 18:52.

Islam is not the Borg. It is not a perfect collective working in perfect unison. To equate a collection of individuals sharing a religious text as a collective is dangerous.

The basic problem with this diagnosis of Islam as a predatory collective is that it determines the wrong solution. If Islam really is as dangerous as this borg like collective described in Sandi's post, then the only practical solution is war. War does not encourage individuals to question their religious traditions (which is the solution to Islam), it forces them to confront and destroy the enemy's ability to be dangerous. People in survival mode are not very susceptible to ideological change.

This idea of an invincible collective also denies the superiority of non-Islamic ideologies. The idea that Islam cannot be defeated ideologically shows a tremendous lack of confidence and an attitude of defeatism.

Islamist activities

Submitted by Richard Wiig on Sun, 2008-05-11 12:42.

and if found to be engaging in Islamist activities would lose citizenship

And what would constitute Islamist activities in your eyes?

I have never said that it is

Submitted by Richard Wiig on Sun, 2008-05-11 12:33.

I have never said that it is benign, Linz. I've said that it's more predisposed to progress and more tolerant than Islam is. That doesn't mean I consider it free of dangers or that it shouldn't have its ass kicked.

Oh god no hehe

Submitted by Scott Wilson on Sun, 2008-05-11 11:26.

I was one step away from restricting Christians who don't believe in the separation of church and state.

Christianity is not benign at all. It was neutered by the Enlightenment, but only just, and the hoards of Christians wanting to turn the clock back can't reach 5% in NZ elections and aren't dominant in the USA (though significant).

Oh no Scotty!

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2008-05-11 11:09.

You can't lump me in with Richard! He thinks Christianity is benign inherently rather than merely because it's been neutered (but might leer up again)!

But it looks as though we'd ALL agree on immigration restrictions for Muslims after all! Stopping any more of it, that is, not placing immigration nazis—all lesbians and their lickspittles in NZ who'd be useless at the task in any event—outside mosques.

Well

Submitted by Scott Wilson on Sun, 2008-05-11 11:02.

Sandi: Yes Malaysia is fascist, but that doesn't mean we should follow in its footsteps. I've been there twice, the population is only half Muslim (the constitution deems Malays to be Muslim and 60% of the population is Malay), but knows the golden egg of prosperity is driven by the large Chinese minority. I've known Malaysian students in NZ, who were Chinese and Christian.

Richard/Linz: Well I'm prepared to debate immigration, it is easiest to oppose on practical grounds (going to have immigration officials waiting outside mosques are we? or, more likely, the mosques will go underground). I'd certainly restrict anyone who is politically Islamic (and have someone declare that they are not aligned and will not participate in any Islamic political organisations or activity) and if found to be engaging in Islamist activities would lose citizenship.

Scotty

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2008-05-11 10:32.

As you know from the debate we had in my apartment last time you were back in NZ, I favour keeping Islamonazi filth out. (I think that should be Libz policy, but they're a bunch of girls.) That's not the same as booting out Muslims who are already here (unless they're fomenting violence, in which case I'd summarily execute them rather than pay for their deportation), or denying them employment, though I'd absolutely monitor them like crazy in the circumstances. It's preventing any more from coming in while the state of war instigated by them exists. The UK has already paid a price for its moronic, altruistic appeasement; the price will go much higher yet. This is a vicious enemy beholden to fathomlessly stupid beliefs. As I tried in vain to explain to sundry Saddamites in the past, it doesn't give a shit about due process. Being all PC about it merely emboldens it. I suspect you'll agree if you get bombed on the tube.

The terrible reality is that Islam's courageous apostates warn us against precisely the sort of dumb-assed appeasement promoted by soft-cocks, yet on we go being limp. Unbelievable, really—as though Hitler/Chamberlain/Churchill never happened.

it has been pro-western in

Submitted by Richard Wiig on Sun, 2008-05-11 09:37.

it has been pro-western in outlook for decades.

It also a country where Islamists shoot secular judges, and where many Catholic priests have been attacked, and even killed. It's a country where Mein Kampf is a big big seller, and where one of the most anti-American films ever was a big hit, and where over 200,000 people recently marched in protest because they fear the direction their country is headed in.

Sandi

Submitted by Richard Wiig on Sun, 2008-05-11 09:29.

About a year and a half ago a couple of American tourists were arrested there for kissing in public.

Yes, Scott, but if you look

Submitted by Richard Wiig on Sun, 2008-05-11 09:26.

Yes, Scott, but if you look at Gregs title, he specifically singles out imports. I think that's what he meant. I'd say that it's essential to stop muslim immigration.

Check out proposed restrictiions on women travelling ex Malaysia

Submitted by Sandi on Sun, 2008-05-11 09:15.

The country which is guarding the queen. The same country which has 2000 students in NZ.

Malaysia, where Islam is the state religion.

Malaysia where the government has proposed banning travel for unaccompanied women unless endorsed by families and employers.

(CNN) -- "The Malaysian government is proposing that women who travel abroad by themselves carry letters from their parents or employers explicitly laying out the reason for the trip"

Immigration restrictions

Submitted by Scott Wilson on Sun, 2008-05-11 09:13.

Immigration restrictions were not proposed, but restrictions on travel!

Again, this will be as absurd as the US visa waiver forms asking "are you a terrorist" "are you a Nazi", um YES.

People will lie and how will you prove them wrong?

It's not such a silly idea

Submitted by Richard Wiig on Sun, 2008-05-11 09:03.

It's not such a silly idea to restrict imports, Scott.

For a greater insight into

Submitted by Richard Wiig on Sun, 2008-05-11 08:47.

For a greater insight into this...

Mohammed was a failure preaching the religion of Islam for 13 years, (only got about 100 followers) He preached political jihad and got a huge following.

...it's worth reading this: "Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman" by Andre Servier.

"I say as a matter of

Submitted by Scott Wilson on Sun, 2008-05-11 08:43.

"I say as a matter of international security Moslems should be restricted in travelling"

What an absurd and fascist idea. Having a religious belief becomes a thought crime. How far do we do this? Does the Muslim attendant on the train I get from London to Manchester have to stop working even if he is born in the UK?

So being a Muslim, by whatever definition (and remember millions effectively inherited their religion in a state where it dominates) prevents you from leaving your country, whereas we never restricted communists from travelling at the height of the cold war unless they were under direct suspicion of espionage. Nothing like this sort of thing to cluster Muslims together to fight back of course, then what do you do? Do you want to prove to Muslims that a free open society doesn't work?

Of course none of this ignores the practicalities. The question "Are you a Muslim?" is answered "no", or do we do Neo-Nazi labels to put on them all, or does anyone who looks a "bit Middle Eastern, South Asian, Malayan, Indonesian, Turkish, Slavic, Sudanese, Nigerian, Somali ummm" get branded Muslim "unless proven otherwise".

Yes, there is a problem with Islamism - not helped by state appeasement of those who promote it. Many mistakes have been made in the UK that have fomented this, but the greatest weapon the West has against Islam is secular free society. It offers Muslims the chance to leave their religion by choice, not coercion, despite overwhelming difficulties. Nothing would destroy that more than to brand them all as a threat, and stop them travelling.

Yes I believe Islam is evil, but people who are Muslims are not so by mere fact that they are Muslims. If they are to be deemed so, then we are into thought crimes through and through and one can argue members of all religions are evil, indeed everyone who isn't an objectivist is evil. By the way I'm off to Turkey in the next few weeks, a secularist state filled with Muslims, it looks West constantly and seeks to be a member of the EU - it has been pro-western in outlook for decades. This proposal would send it looking to Iran for inspiration in a blink of an eyelid.

Stop imports

Submitted by gregster on Sun, 2008-05-11 05:48.

Scott, I say as a matter of international security Moslems should be restricted in travelling. If they renounce their religion that is still not enough to protect appeaser countries where they may settle.

What happens- as is happening in Australia- when subsequent generations face cultural alienation? The sleepers awaken and become the enemy.

As the most blatant face of unreason, Islam must be subjugated.

It is a losing battle. Political correctness has us by the balls.

Thanks, Sandi

Submitted by atlascott on Sat, 2008-05-10 17:22.

I still believe that the majority view on this site is that of tolerance of 'peaceful' Muslims.

One is either Muslim and play acting at peace or a non-Muslim integrating into a non-Muslim culture. The former are as dangerous as jihadists and the latter are welcome.

Ask those who have escaped Islam what is going on and they will tell you.

Scott DeSalvo

Whether you think you can, or think you cannot, you're probably right!!