PDA

View Full Version : 100% Proof Islamic Threat is Overblown


Thunder
2nd July 2007, 02:24 PM
There are millions of Muslems in the USA. Nothing has blown up since 2001. If they really wanted to, and if there were a sizeable number of extremists, something would have blown up by now.

There are millions of Muslems in Great Britain. Last week some fools tried to blow up 3 cars filled with camping gas canisters and gasoline. 4 Muslems blew up trains and a bus in 2005.

There are hundreds of thousands of Muslems in Spain. 4 trains blew up. Nothing blew up since then.

If there are soooo many Muslem extremists...and soo many Muslems who want to blow themselves up..where the hell are all the explosions?

I guess one could argue they are all going to Iraq and Afghanistan..or they are all secretly in hiding, waiting for the moment to strike with thousands of bombs all at the same time.

It just doesnt add up. If Islamic extremism was so widespread, there are more then enough Muslems in the West to make things blow up left and right. But it just hasn't happening.

This is the best evidence that I can see, that the Islamic militant threat is total hype and no substance.

Even 9-11, only involved maybe 25 Muslems. 25 Muslems out of 1.4 billion.

If anything, if you look at the number of Muslem terrorist attacks in comparison to the number of Muslems worldwide, they seem to be a pretty peaceful people.

Pardalis
2nd July 2007, 02:28 PM
Already been discussed to death here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83042), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83712), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83402), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83242)and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83587).

Darth Rotor
2nd July 2007, 02:28 PM
There are millions of Muslems in the USA. Nothing has blown up since 2001. If they really wanted to, and if there were a sizeable number of extremists, something would have blown up by now.

There are millions of Muslems in Great Britain. Last week some fools tried to blow up 3 cars filled with camping gas canisters and gasoline. 4 Muslems blew up trains and a bus in 2005.

There are hundreds of thousands of Muslems in Spain. 4 trains blew up. Nothing blew up since then.

If there are soooo many Muslem extremists...and soo many Muslems who want to blow themselves up..where the hell are all the explosions?

I guess one could argue they are all going to Iraq and Afghanistan..or they are all secretly in hiding, waiting for the moment to strike with thousands of bombs all at the same time.

It just doesnt add up. If Islamic extremism was so widespread, there are more then enough Muslems in the West to make things blow up left and right. But it just hasn't happening.

This is the best evidence that I can see, that the Islamic militant threat is total hype and no substance.

Even 9-11, only involved maybe 25 Muslems. 25 Muslems out of 1.4 billion.

If anything, if you look at the number of Muslem terrorist attacks in comparison to the number of Muslems worldwide, they seem to be a pretty peaceful people.
Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were two guys out of a population of 250 million Americans. They conspired to blow up the Murrah Building, and they succeeded.

I am trying to understand what point you are trying to make. Technology as it stands now, and knowledge, provides kinetic means out of proportion to numbers.

It isn't the peaceful sheep that anyone needs worry about, it's the wolves in sheeps' clothing.

DR

rtalman
2nd July 2007, 02:30 PM
You make compelling points, but overblown does not equate to non-existent, and vigilance is still needed, IMO.

Pardalis
2nd July 2007, 02:37 PM
Even 9-11, only involved maybe 25 Muslems. 25 Muslems out of 1.4 billion.

If anything, if you look at the number of Muslem terrorist attacks in comparison to the number of Muslems worldwide, they seem to be a pretty peaceful people.

Nobody is disputing that most Muslims are peaceful, we're talking about the minority of which are islamic fundamentalists. Nobody said anything about Muslims in general, you seem to be the one to equate the two.

tkingdoll
2nd July 2007, 02:39 PM
I wouldn't mind without the nuke threat.

Oliver
2nd July 2007, 02:41 PM
Nobody is disputing that most Muslims are peaceful, we're talking about the minority of which are islamic fundamentalists. Nobody said anything about Muslims in general, you seem to be the one to equate the two.


Oh, so your minority-reply within "100% Proof Islamic Threat is Overblown" proves that Parky is right. Nothing to be scared about any more than before 9/11. Thank you for finally agreeing with me. Good night. :)

Pardalis
2nd July 2007, 02:42 PM
Oh, so your minority-reply within "100% Proof Islamic Threat is Overblown" proves that Parky is right. Nothing to be scared about any more than before 9/11.

I am not scared, I am aware of the threat this minority poses.

rtalman
2nd July 2007, 02:44 PM
Nothing to be scared about any more than before 9/11.Mayhap a little fear and requisite preparation would have prevented 9/11, rather than the ostrich method applied in the years leading up to 2001.

Darth Rotor
2nd July 2007, 02:45 PM
I wouldn't mind without the nuke threat.
Why do you hate Pakistan?

DR

Darat
2nd July 2007, 02:46 PM
...snip...

I am trying to understand what point you are trying to make. Technology as it stands now, and knowledge, provides kinetic means out of proportion to numbers.

...snip...

I heard a good discussion today on the radio and it was an academic who was an expert in some security guff making the point that yes it is of course only a very tiny minority that will ever take terrible action but as he summed it up (a slight paraphrase but the key words were his)

"These days it only takes one lone nutter to create a terrible attack but thankfully most nutters can't tie their shoelaces together even with instructions from the internet".

Oliver
2nd July 2007, 02:52 PM
I am not scared, I am aware of the threat this minority poses.


...to Canada and their nasty Canadian military interventions around the globe. :D
You're starting to understand, Thank you.

Oh Wait: Don't they have freedoms in Canada, too???

Pardalis
2nd July 2007, 02:56 PM
foiled terror attacks since 2001:

Probably the biggest one, a plot to simultaneously blow up 10 planes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081000152.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html)

10 plots in the US: http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US...ots/index.html (http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html)

G8 terror attack foiled: http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/ar...076285,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2076285,00.html)

In Singapore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_plot)

intelligence about dirty bomb and nuclear threats: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terro...947295,00.html (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1947295,00.html)

plot foiled in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_German_train_bombing

failed car bombings in Glasgow and London:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/02/london.alert/index.html

Busted terror cells in Canada:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...d5d6cc&k=46849 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849)
http://www.canada.com/national/natio...a-3c8f6009581c (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aa8696a1-5a53-40ca-868a-3c8f6009581c)


plots that did work since 2001:

In England:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_...ondon_bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings)

In Singapore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_plot)

In Spain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Marc...Madrid_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004_Madrid_attacks)

In Indonesia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombing

In Jordan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Amman_bombings

In Tunisia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghriba_Synagogue_Attack

In the Philipines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizal_Day_Bombings

In Morocco:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3035803.stm

In Gibraltar:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...ing/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/05/uk.terror.shipping/index.html)

In Kenya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyan_hotel_bombing

In Saudi Arabia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Compound_Bombings

In Istambul:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Istanbul_bombings

In Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sh...Sheikh_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sharm_el-Sheikh_attacks)

In Algeria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Algiers_bombings

oil tanker bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburg_tanker_bombing

Oliver
2nd July 2007, 02:58 PM
foiled terror attacks since 2001:

Probably the biggest one, a plot to simultaneously blow up 10 planes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081000152.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html)

10 plots in the US: http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US...ots/index.html (http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html)

G8 terror attack foiled: http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/ar...076285,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2076285,00.html)

In Singapore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_plot)

intelligence about dirty bomb and nuclear threats: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terro...947295,00.html (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1947295,00.html)

plot foiled in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_German_train_bombing

failed car bombings in Glasgow and London:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/02/london.alert/index.html

Busted terror cells in Canada:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...d5d6cc&k=46849 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849)
http://www.canada.com/national/natio...a-3c8f6009581c (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aa8696a1-5a53-40ca-868a-3c8f6009581c)


plots that did work since 2001:

In England:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_...ondon_bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings)

In Singapore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_plot)

In Spain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Marc...Madrid_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004_Madrid_attacks)

In Indonesia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombing

In Jordan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Amman_bombings

In Tunisia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghriba_Synagogue_Attack

In the Philipines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizal_Day_Bombings

In Morocco:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3035803.stm

In Gibraltar:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...ing/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/05/uk.terror.shipping/index.html)

In Kenya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyan_hotel_bombing

In Saudi Arabia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Compound_Bombings

In Istambul:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Istanbul_bombings

In Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sh...Sheikh_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sharm_el-Sheikh_attacks)

In Algeria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Algiers_bombings

oil tanker bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburg_tanker_bombing


So what? You will find as much sources for the same time period before 9/11. Don't you understand that? :boggled:

Pardalis
2nd July 2007, 02:59 PM
And round and round we go.

Cylinder
2nd July 2007, 02:59 PM
I am not scared, I am aware of the threat this minority poses.

I cannot for the life of me understand (other than in the context of useful idiocy) why certain people cannot distinguish between fear and resolve. I know a wide spectrum of people - literally hundreds that I've discussed Islamist terrorism and its threat to the US. I've only met one person who manifests fear and that person has fear issues to begin with. If people were really afraid of terrorism en masse it would be easy to point to - declining mega-mall sales, plummeting real-estate values in high-profile office buildings, Super Bowl ticket sales, etc...

It just ain't happening.

Oliver
2nd July 2007, 03:04 PM
Here you go, Pardalis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Pardalis
2nd July 2007, 03:10 PM
Here you go, Pardalis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

Noticed how many in the later years are islamic fundamentalists, and how many of them are targeting Western countries and interests?

Oliver
2nd July 2007, 03:17 PM
Noticed how many in the later years are islamic fundamentalists, and how many of them are targeting Western countries and interests?


Why do you sound scared or at least worried if you aren't? :confused:

Anyway: Here's the report of the
National Communism Counterterrorism Center

Jesus, you must be glad to live on the North-American Continent, REALLY!
http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2006nctcannexfinal.pdf

Pardalis
2nd July 2007, 03:23 PM
Why do you sound scared or at least worried if you aren't? :confused:

Because you're clueless.

Jesus, you must be glad to live on the North-American Continent, REALLY!
http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2006nctcannexfinal.pdf

Thanks for proving that there is a worldwide terrorism threat.

The last terrorism plots in England and Scotland are showing that we westerners are also a target.

Oliver
2nd July 2007, 03:36 PM
Source: http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2006nctcannexfinal.pdf

Lethality - Comparison of Fatalities and Incidents by Regions:

Dead - 20,573
Number of attacks - 14,352 !

Fatalities in the Western Hemisphere: 556
Fatalities in the rest of the World: 20,017

Stunning, isn't it?

Oh, and look on page 20-21:

2005: Terror attacks by Islamic Extremist (Sunni) - 23%
2006: Terror attacks by Islamic Extremist (Sunni) - 19%
(Well, that decrease would make a good Propaganda Piece for the "War on Terror", wouldn't it?).

Oliver
2nd July 2007, 04:18 PM
This is also very interesting:

Terror-Casualties in Iraq 2002: -
Terror-C's in the Middle East 2004: 725
Terror-Casualties in Iraq 2005: 8,262
Terror-Casualties in Iraq 2006: 13,340

Wohooo, we're getting at something with the War on Terror ... let's roll, Baby! /cynicism :boggled:

Source: http://wits.nctc.gov/

Lonewulf
2nd July 2007, 04:38 PM
I agree with the OP, and if you read certain poster's posts (BPSCG, or whatever his initials are, comes to mind), there is this perception that Muslims and Arabs in general (especially combined) are a threat -- enough of a threat to be targeted in airports (though that's more based on statistics...). BPSCG made a point earlier that every single Muslim there is enabled or allowed Islamic extremists to do whatever, or somesuch, and because they weren't outspoken or somesuch, they must've wanted it or something. I forget what it was, I just found it trite and boring. Was a while back, I think, too.

Meh, anyways, he'll probably give an explanation of his viewpoint in this thread later on, I'm not fretting about that.

Regardless, .1% of a million people are 1,000 people. If .1% of one million people decided to kill you, and had resources and the ability of anonymity, you'd better be careful...

Pardalis
2nd July 2007, 04:54 PM
Source: http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2006nctcannexfinal.pdf

Dead - 20,573
Number of attacks - 14,352

From the same source:

Incident tallies do not, by themselves, provide a complete picture of the magnitude or seriousness of the terrorism challenge confronting a country or region. [...] Moreover, different factors weigh more heavily than others Fatalities in the Western Hemisphere: 556
Fatalities in the rest of the World: 20,017

Stunning, isn't it?Not news to me.

2005: Terror attacks by Islamic Extremist (Sunni) - 23%
2006: Terror attacks by Islamic Extremist (Sunni) - 19%
(Well, that decrease would make a good Propaganda Piece for the "War on Terror", wouldn't it?).from the same source:
[...]NCTC does not believe that a simple comparison of the total number of incidents from year to year provides a meaningful measure.In many reports, attackers are alledged to be tied to to local or well-known terrorist groups but there is little subsequent reporting that verifies these connections.This could explain the large amount of "unknown" terrorist perpetrators. For the sake of being accurate and thorough, when they didn't have enough evidence linking a certain group to an attack, they filed it under "unknown". But it's not that big of a stretch of the imagination to figure out who they are in most cases...


-According to open-source reports, Sunni terrorist groups, more than any other subnational groups, claimed they have conducted the largest number of incidents with the highest casualty totals.

-Sunni terrorist groups in various countries carried out the same number of high fatality attacks in 2006 [...]but with deadlier results.This is also very interesting:

Terror-Casualties in Iraq 2002: -
Terror-C's in the Middle East 2004: 725
Terror-Casualties in Iraq 2005: 8,262
Terror-Casualties in Iraq 2006: 13,340

Wohooo, we're getting at something with the War on Terror ... let's roll, Baby! /cynicism :boggled:

It's no news to anyone that Iraq has become the center of terrorist activity.

IXP
2nd July 2007, 07:00 PM
Regardless, .1% of a million people are 1,000 people. If .1% of one million people decided to kill you, and had resources and the ability of anonymity, you'd better be careful...
Except that the 1000 people are not trying to kill me, they are trying to kill 300,000,000 of us. That makes me a little less scared.

How many people were trying to kill is in WWII? What kind of weapons did they have (clue, the best in the world, until we came up with the nuke).

I really don't care if the Muslim population of the world is set on world domination. Really. They so far behind in armaments etc. that there is no chance of this happening, and their sole source of funding has peaked and is now running down. I still fear being attacked by a crazed drug addict when I am downtown more than I fear being a victim of a terrorist attack.

IXP

Solus
2nd July 2007, 07:11 PM
Except that the 1000 people are not trying to kill me, they are trying to kill 300,000,000 of us. That makes me a little less scared.

How many people were trying to kill is in WWII? What kind of weapons did they have (clue, the best in the world, until we came up with the nuke).

I really don't care if the Muslim population of the world is set on world domination. Really. They so far behind in armaments etc. that there is no chance of this happening, and their sole source of funding has peaked and is now running down. I still fear being attacked by a crazed drug addict when I am downtown more than I fear being a victim of a terrorist attack.

IXP

The whole Muslim population of the world doesn't want to kill anyone. It's just a small minority of extremists. Not world dominating but still a danger to be watched for.

IXP
2nd July 2007, 07:17 PM
The whole Muslim population of the world doesn't want to kill anyone. It's just a small minority of extremists. Not world dominating but still a danger to be watched for.
Yes, my post was a reducto ad absurdum. Read it as even if the entire Muslim population...

Yes, we should be vigilant, just as we should against all other criminals.

IXP

Darth Rotor
2nd July 2007, 08:17 PM
The whole Muslim population of the world doesn't want to kill anyone. It's just a small minority of extremists. Not world dominating but still a danger to be watched for.

Your use of the word "Just" betrays a lack of understanding.

Let us postulate 0.1% of all Muslims, or .01% of a billion people.

That's 100,000.

Consider 100,000 Tim McVeys.

At even a 50% success rate, this is not a trivial matter.

The peaceful sheep provide a place for the sharks to swim until they wish to strike. Reference? Mao, revolutionary warfare. They are not stupid, they are the enemy.

One cannot count on the bulk of one's enemy being 'unable to tie their shoes' as the comment was presented.

"These days it only takes one lone nutter to create a terrible attack but thankfully most nutters can't tie their shoelaces together even with instructions from the internet".

Complacency is not helpful. Irrational fear is not helpful. Playing chicken little is not helpful.

Cold, calculating countermeasures are helpful, as is vigilance and sound police/security work.

DR

Corsair 115
2nd July 2007, 09:21 PM
...to Canada and their nasty Canadian military interventions around the globe. :D
You're starting to understand, Thank you.

Oh Wait: Don't they have freedoms in Canada, too???I don't know, Oliver, you tell me. You do seem to have a penchant for making judgements about the level of democracy when it comes to the United States.

gumboot
2nd July 2007, 10:42 PM
The OP contains a number of glaring mistake, to my mind.

Firstly it makes the mistake of assuming that the lack of successful terrorist attacks in the west is evidence that there are no Radical Islamic terrorists wanting to carry out such attacks.

This is simply not the case. There have been many attempted attacks. Likewise, there are no doubt many who would carry out such attacks, but lack the means to do so. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, there are a very large number of people who do not wish to carry out such attacks, but support and agree with those that do.

In addition, this assumption fails to take into account the considerable effort by authorities to prevent such attacks.

Secondly, the OP mistakenly assumes that those declaring that Radical Islam is a serious threat are claiming that there are large numbers of Islamic Radicals, and that they comprise a significant percentage of the total Muslim population. Again, there is no reason to assume this. The nature of terrorism is such that a very small number of people can have a very significant effect. A single islamic terrorist could, with a campaign of bombs, bring a fair sized city to a grinding halt.

For an example of how devastating a small group of terrorists can be, I direct you to the Beltway sniper attacks of 2002.

Lastly, the OP assumes that those expressing concern about the threat of radical Islam believe that Radical Islam is an immediate and dire threat to Western Society.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but as someone that does consider Radical Islam a potentially serious threat, I do not consider it to be an immediate threat. The nature of Radical Islam is such that by the time it really is a serious threat (in 10 years, or 20, or 50, or 100) it will be too late to do anything about it.

Radical Islam is a cancer growing inside western society. The threat of Radical Islam is not bombs on trains and buses. It is not hijacked airliners. When the real threat of Radical Islam emerges some time in the next fifty years, they won't need to use bombs and hijackings to get their way. That is the threat of Radical Islam.

-Gumboot

Tony
2nd July 2007, 11:25 PM
I cannot speak for anyone else, but as someone that does consider Radical Islam a potentially serious threat, I do not consider it to be an immediate threat. The nature of Radical Islam is such that by the time it really is a serious threat (in 10 years, or 20, or 50, or 100) it will be too late to do anything about it.


Ok, then how does the threat posed by radical islam compare to past threats? Is it more serious than Nazi Germany or the USSR?

Radical Islam is a cancer growing inside western society. The threat of Radical Islam is not bombs on trains and buses. It is not hijacked airliners.

Then what is it?

When the real threat of Radical Islam emerges some time in the next fifty years, they won't need to use bombs and hijackings to get their way. That is the threat of Radical Islam.

Then what will they need to get their way? What is the "real threat" of radical islam that will emerge within the next 50 years?

gumboot
2nd July 2007, 11:39 PM
Ok, then how does the threat posed by radical islam compare to past threats? Is it more serious than Nazi Germany or the USSR?


That's a pretty difficult question. I think all three threats presented the potential of ultimately destroying Western Civilisation (by replacing it with something else). I also think the threat of Radical Islam is also in some ways much easier to address than Nazism or the USSR. On the other hand, like with the threat of Nazism or the USSR, I think the outcome if the potential threat is totally ignored is about the same.




Then what will they need to get their way? What is the "real threat" of radical islam that will emerge?

The real threat is that they will achieve their aims via social revolution in the west. They won't need anything to get their way, because our western political systems and western liberalism offer everything they need.

-Gumboot

Lonewulf
3rd July 2007, 12:30 AM
Your use of the word "Just" betrays a lack of understanding.

Let us postulate 0.1% of all Muslims, or .01% of a billion people.

That's 100,000.

Consider 100,000 Tim McVeys.

No, I'm pretty sure that's 1,000,000 people.

1,000,000,000 * 0.001 = 1,000,000, according to my calculator.

1% of 1 billion people are 10 million...

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 01:07 AM
*snip* The real threat is that they will achieve their aims via social revolution in the west. They won't need anything to get their way, because our western political systems and western liberalism offer everything they need.

-Gumboot


Said the guy from the country that blindly accepts every self-appointed anti-constitutional cult religion as such. Hilarious. :D

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 01:20 AM
I don't know, Oliver, you tell me. You do seem to have a penchant for making judgements about the level of democracy when it comes to the United States.


I tweaked Pardalis nose for his muslim-paranoia in such a peaceful country like Canada.

Estimated Number of Muslims in Canada = 783,700
Number of Muslims in Germany = 3,200,000
Estimated Number of Muslims in New Zealand = 25,000

quixotecoyote
3rd July 2007, 01:32 AM
No, I'm pretty sure that's 1,000,000 people.

1,000,000,000 * 0.001 = 1,000,000, according to my calculator.

1% of 1 billion people are 10 million...

But I doesn't matter because you can't just go pulling numbers out of thin air like that.

Darth said to figure .1% of all Muslims. Sure enough that's a scary number. But why not say .0000000001%?

I've known people to lose businesses because they've said that even if they only get x customers a day they'll make a profit, but pulled the estimated sales figures out of the air.

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 01:44 AM
Said the guy from the country that blindly accepts every self-appointed anti-constitutional cult religion as such. Hilarious. :D



Oliver, this may be hard for you to understand, but unlike the Government of Germany, the Government of New Zealand allows its citizens to express any view they like. The Government of New Zealand allows its citizens to practice any religious customs they wish, as long as those practices do not conflict with our laws.

In New Zealand we do not ban something just because we do not agree with what they are saying. That is because New Zealand, unlike Germany, is a free society.

-Gumboot

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 01:48 AM
I tweaked Pardalis nose for his muslim-paranoia in such a peaceful country like Canada.

Estimated Number of Muslims in Canada = 783,700
Number of Muslims in Germany = 3,200,000
Estimated Number of Muslims in New Zealand = 25,000



There's 36,072 Muslims in New Zealand, according to last year's census.

-Gumboot

Lonewulf
3rd July 2007, 01:56 AM
Oliver, this may be hard for you to understand, but unlike the Government of Germany, the Government of New Zealand allows its citizens to express any view they like. The Government of New Zealand allows its citizens to practice any religious customs they wish, as long as those practices do not conflict with our laws.

In New Zealand we do not ban something just because we do not agree with what they are saying. That is because New Zealand, unlike Germany, is a free society.

-Gumboot

Oh come on.

Germany is not that bad.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 01:59 AM
*snip* That is because New Zealand, unlike Germany, is a free society.

-Gumboot


Nope, unlike New Zealand, Germany wants to STAY a free society. ;)

lionking
3rd July 2007, 02:31 AM
I am not a regular contributor to this forum, but why did Parky start this thread and disappear? No attacks in the US since 2001? So what. Only 4 trains? Should it have been 20? No mention of Bali? Radical Islam no threat? Tell that to my daughter in London. He posted rubbish and ran away.

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 02:59 AM
Oh come on.

Germany is not that bad.

Nope, unlike New Zealand, Germany wants to STAY a free society. ;)



Any country that has laws prohibiting certain beliefs or opinions is not a free society. Germany has such laws. Germany also spies on organisations for no reason other than a suspicion that said organisations are expressing a desire to undermine the freedom of others.

In a free society, such behaviour by the government is absolutely unacceptable.

New Zealand does not have such laws, and the New Zealand government does not spy on organisations simply for expressing views the New Zealand government disagrees with. This is because New Zealand is a free society. New Zealand will continue to be a free society.

-Gumboot

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 03:42 AM
Any country that has laws prohibiting certain beliefs or opinions is not a free society. Germany has such laws. Germany also spies on organisations for no reason other than a suspicion that said organisations are expressing a desire to undermine the freedom of others.

In a free society, such behaviour by the government is absolutely unacceptable.

New Zealand does not have such laws, and the New Zealand government does not spy on organisations simply for expressing views the New Zealand government disagrees with. This is because New Zealand is a free society. New Zealand will continue to be a free society.

-Gumboot


So what are you concerned about? :

The real threat is that they will achieve their aims via social revolution in the west. They won't need anything to get their way, because our western political systems and western liberalism offer everything they need.


You live in a free country that obviously isn't concerned about the free expression like Jihadists, I guess. See, that's the price to live free, either the 36,072 Muslims or Scientologists will overthrow your Government. :D

Oh, and by your "spying" Statement, you pretty much confirmed what you think about the FBI and as such, the "free society" of America. :)

The Painter
3rd July 2007, 03:49 AM
about the free expression like Jihadists

What if thier "expression" is killing you?

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 03:57 AM
Any country that has laws prohibiting certain beliefs or opinions is not a free society. Germany has such laws.
Name just one such alleged law, and specify/quote exactly what it prohibits.

Come on. You've now claimed Germany prohibits certain beliefs or opinions -- per se. You are either immensely ignorant or dishonest.
Germany also spies on organisations for no reason other than a suspicion that said organisations are expressing a desire to undermine the freedom of others.
Ooooooo, looks like a defence of $cientology to me, but hey, let's give you a chance to back up the bullcrap first. BTW, how do you feel about the massive internal spying by the USA, UK, Australia, etc. etc. etc. in the defence against terrorism? Or do you prefer to leave out suchlike to be able to utter false platitudes?
New Zealand does not have such laws, and the New Zealand government does not spy on organisations simply for expressing views the New Zealand government disagrees with.
Oh really? Want to seriously claim NZ does not cooperate with Australia just for one in the longterm observation (spying) on those judged to be potential terrorists but who have not yet actually committed any crime? (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/quiet-doctors-home-raided/2007/07/03/1183351198579.html)

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 04:07 AM
What if thier "expression" is killing you?


I'm sorry but in a free society like New Zealand, the expression of Religion is much more important than insignificant, nitpicked details like killings. And remember: "Killing is not Murder". :D

petra10
3rd July 2007, 04:11 AM
You can talk numbers and percentages all day if you like.All it takes is one evil mad idoit (Hitler) a whole deluded country (German) to believe what they are told to believe,and you've got a world war.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 04:12 AM
You can talk numbers and percentages all day if you like.All it takes is one evil mad idoit (Hitler) a whole deluded country (German) to believe what they are told to believe,and you've got a world war.


Thank you for sharing your sympathy against the Bush era with me. :)

Spins
3rd July 2007, 04:13 AM
Oh really? Want to seriously claim NZ does not cooperate with Australia just for one in the longterm observation (spying) on those judged to be potential terrorists but who have not yet actually committed any crime? (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/quiet-doctors-home-raided/2007/07/03/1183351198579.html)Why did you add that link?

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 04:24 AM
Why did you add that link?
Because it's very easy to deduce from the speed of recent events that UK and Australian police have had certain people under observation; anyone who wants to believe that the NZ police do not cooperate in this is IMHO deluded.

Of course, I could also add links showing exactly and directly New Zealand doing what gumboot has claimed it doesn't do:

Linky (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0410/S00073.htm)

Or how about I ask pointed questions about New Zealand's cooperation in the Echelon operation? Just what do the NZ Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) do all day? Hmmm? I could add more direct links, but the point is made.

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 04:36 AM
And to forestall the strawman that will doubtlessly make its appearance regarding gumboot's claim on Germany, how about we talk about hate-crime legislation in New Zealand?
Linky (http://austlii.law.uts.edu.au/nz/journals/VUWLRev/2004/24.html)
....
In 2002 the New Zealand Government added hate crimes to the list of aggravating factors to be taken into account when sentencing criminals in this country. Section 9(1)(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002 requires higher sentences for crimes involving hostility towards a group of persons on the basis of their race, colour, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age or disability. ....

You see, either:

gumboot is eventually forced to admit that legislating against public acts is NOT the same as "prohibiting opinions", in which case his allegations against Germany are shown as false
.
or it is demonstrated that New Zealand does exactly the same thing as Germany anyway, in which case his claims about New Zealand are shown to be false
.
or of course, both

Lonewulf
3rd July 2007, 04:36 AM
You can talk numbers and percentages all day if you like.All it takes is one evil mad idoit (Hitler) a whole deluded country (German) to believe what they are told to believe,and you've got a world war.

That's... not quite as easy as it sounds.

It would be difficult to reenact the recipe of WWII. You'd need WWI, a battered country that was being taken advantage of by everyone, a lot of angst, and old ideas from a russian moron about a race descended from Atlantis...

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 04:39 AM
So what are you concerned about? :


In terms of New Zealand's continuation as a free society? Nothing.




You live in a free country that obviously isn't concerned about the free expression like Jihadists, I guess. See, that's the price to live free, either the 36,072 Muslims or Scientologists will overthrow your Government. :D


I am not aware of any mosques in New Zealand teaching extremism, and indeed the actions by the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) in response to the Mohammed cartoon controversy were exemplary, and a role model for moderate Muslims the world over.

I'm also not aware of a Scientology presence in New Zealand. I would be concerned if a large number of New Zealanders started practicing it, but not as concerned as I would have been had the New Zealand government refused to cooperate with the filming of The Last Samurai.

Hypothetically, pretending there are extremist Muslims in New Zealand, yes that would concern me a great deal. Likewise the small number of Neo-Nazi groups in New Zealand concern me. But the banning of these groups (assuming they have not made any efforts to actually commit crimes) would concern me more.





Oh, and by your "spying" Statement, you pretty much confirmed what you think about the FBI and as such, the "free society" of America. :)


Do the FBI spy on non-criminal groups in the USA as a matter of policy?

-Gumboot

WildCat
3rd July 2007, 04:42 AM
Name just one such alleged law, and specify/quote exactly what it prohibits.

Come on. You've now claimed Germany prohibits certain beliefs or opinions -- per se. You are either immensely ignorant or dishonest.
So you could march down a street in Germany with a sign praising Adolph Hitler? Or denying the Holocaust? Aren't their certain political parties that have been banned?

You'll find no such things going on in the United States, where we're not afraid of ideas, even extreme and hateful ones.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 04:44 AM
The whole Muslim population of the world doesn't want to kill anyone. It's just a small minority of extremists. Not world dominating but still a danger to be watched for.


Not in New Zealand, "Home of the free". :D

Lonewulf
3rd July 2007, 04:44 AM
Wait. Scientologists aren't criminal groups?

Even though they did things on international waters that are illegal in most countries except, maybe, Africa? (Child abuse, for one)

Even though they have a rule (in scientology) that stated that they could do anything they wanted to "enemies of scientology" (Including anyone that questions them)?

Even though they have directly and intentionally infiltrated any organization that questions them?

That scientology?

They're completely innocent people?

Okay, yeah, right.

But yes, Germany is an utterly horrible place. :rolleyes:

I'm done here.

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 04:48 AM
So you could march down a street in Germany with a sign praising Adolph Hitler? Or denying the Holocaust? Aren't their certain political parties that have been banned?
Tell me again, which part of the disntiction between an opinion and a public act do you fail to want to understand?
:)
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
You'll find no such things going on in the United States, where we're not afraid of ideas, even extreme and hateful ones.
If you try claiming actually marching down a street with any sign at all is only an idea, I'm going to question your sanity.

Cheers.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 04:48 AM
Do the FBI spy on non-criminal groups in the USA as a matter of policy?

-Gumboot


Yes, they do - here's a nice article mentioning some FBI-Spy-Programs:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1544

About two weeks ago, the FBI admitted in federal court to collecting thousands of documents on non-violent activist groups, including the ACLU, Greenpeace and various antiwar organizations.Throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the FBI snooped on the personal lives of radical leftists, peace activists, and Civil Rights personalities such as Martin Luther King, infiltrated activist groups opposed to mandatory busing, and even spied on John Lennon.
Reborn as the “Bureau of Investigation” in the late 1920s, it continued to spy upon such “socialists” as Albert Einstein

Jesus, I already learned all of that in the first X-Files episode. :rolleyes: :D :p

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 04:48 AM
I am not a regular contributor to this forum, but why did Parky start this thread and disappear?Some people like to do that. My favorite was Nie Trink Wasser, who IIRC, rarely posted anything after starting a thread. He's been gone for a few years now.

He also had the most repellent avatar I ever saw.

Spins
3rd July 2007, 04:53 AM
Because it's very easy to deduce from the speed of recent events that UK and Australian police have had certain people under observation; anyone who wants to believe that the NZ police do not cooperate in this is IMHO deluded.

Of course, I could also add links showing exactly and directly New Zealand doing what gumboot has claimed it doesn't do:

Linky (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0410/S00073.htm)

Or how about I ask pointed questions about New Zealand's cooperation in the Echelon operation? Just what do the NZ Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) do all day? Hmmm? I could add more direct links, but the point is made.
No it's not; it's about quickly gathering evidence and arresting anyone (for further questioning) who may have been involved.

For example, when the bomber struck London the police found his mobile phone in the car and they quickly traced all the calls made from and to his mobile. As a further example, several phone calls were made to a letting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letting) company and apparently the net was already closing in on a property in Glasgow prior to the attacks on the airport.

Is it merely a coincidence they arrested this guy in Australia after the attacks?

Anyways, how do you know he had been under surveillance, prove to me he was! If not you are just making it up, it's just this kind of huge leap a conspiracy theorist would make...

"How did they arrest him so quickly, he must have been under surveillance for a long time, must have been Echelon!!!!111!!!!"

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 04:54 AM
Name just one such alleged law, and specify/quote exactly what it prohibits.

[QUOTE](3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany
Section 130 (http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#130)




Come on. You've now claimed Germany prohibits certain beliefs or opinions -- per se. You are either immensely ignorant or dishonest.


No, they prohibit the expression of certain beliefs and opinions.




Ooooooo, looks like a defence of $cientology to me, but hey, let's give you a chance to back up the bullcrap first.


I have no desire to defend Scientology. One of the duties of freedom is to tolerate beliefs and positions that you do not like or agree with. If I had my way there would be no religion whatsoever. But I will defend the right of any person to practice the religion of their choice.




BTW, how do you feel about the massive internal spying by the USA, UK, Australia, etc. etc. etc. in the defence against terrorism? Or do you prefer to leave out suchlike to be able to utter false platitudes?


Massive internal spying?





Oh really? Want to seriously claim NZ does not cooperate with Australia just for one in the longterm observation (spying) on those judged to be potential terrorists but who have not yet actually committed any crime? (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/quiet-doctors-home-raided/2007/07/03/1183351198579.html)


You consider an open police search of someone suspected of being connected to criminal acts under authority of a warrant issued by a court to be "spying"? Interesting.

I am unaware of any New Zealand involvement in the current investigation. Do you understand the difference between monitoring organisations that preach a specific ideology, and monitoring organisations that participate in criminal acts?

-Gumboot

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 04:55 AM
.... I'm also not aware of a Scientology presence in New Zealand.
How strange, in view of the fact that $cientology are quite busy in NZ (http://www.scientology-auckland.org/), and even congratulating themselves on certain successes. (http://www.liveandgrow.org/nzho_taxexempt.html)
Do the FBI spy on non-criminal groups in the USA as a matter of policy?
This is TOO easy. Hellloooooooo, the USA ACLU wants to say something here. (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/20073prs20050718.html)

Of course, I look forward to Gumboot's tackling the debunking of his other claims too.

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 04:56 AM
Tell me again, which part of the disntiction between an opinion and a public act do you fail to want to understand?
:)
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.If I were a German citizen, in Germany, would I be permitted to send a letter to Der Spiegel in praise of Hitler? Would Der Spiegel be permitted to print it?

If I were a German citizen, in Germany, would I be permitted to send a letter to Der Spiegel denying the Holocaust? Would Der Spiegel be permitted to print it?

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 04:59 AM
If I were a German citizen, in Germany, would I be permitted to send a letter to Der Spiegel in praise of Hitler? Would Der Spiegel be permitted to print it?

If I were a German citizen, in Germany, would I be permitted to send a letter to Der Spiegel denying the Holocaust? Would Der Spiegel be permitted to print it?


Just replace, "Germany", "Der Spiegel" and "Holocaust" with:
"America", "Washington Post" and "Let's kill the President"
and you got the answer. ;)

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 05:00 AM
.... {stupidities snipped} ..
Tell me again, which part of the distinction between an opinion and a public act do you fail to want to understand?

Or do you need a dictionary yet again to learn the meaning of the big words there?

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 05:01 AM
Just replace, "Germany", "Der Spiegel" and "Holocaust" with:
"America", "Washington Post" and "Let's kill the President"
and you got the answer. ;)No you don't. That's a phony comparison, and you know it.

WildCat
3rd July 2007, 05:02 AM
Tell me again, which part of the disntiction between an opinion and a public act do you fail to want to understand?
:)
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
This makes no sense when the "public act" is merely stating an opinion.

If you try claiming actually marching down a street with any sign at all is only an idea, I'm going to question your sanity.

Cheers.
In the USA, it's merely an idea. In Germany, it's a violation of the Thought Police Act or something, I see. :rolleyes:

Bluegill
3rd July 2007, 05:03 AM
The peaceful sheep provide a place for the sharks to swim until they wish to strike. Reference? Mao, revolutionary warfare. They are not stupid, they are the enemy.


That Mao could really mix his metaphors!

Back when this thread seemed like it was a bit more on topic, I couldn't figure out what people were arguing about. Terrorists form only a small fraction of the population. Even a small fraction of a population can cause destruction and disruption. For the vast majority of people, this destruction and disruption form no real personal danger to themselves, so they are not afraid (for their own safety or well-being.) However, they do have legitimate concerns.

I live in Louisville. The chance of me, or anyone I know, being hurt in any clearly identifiable way, by a terrorist attack is very slim. I am not afraid. However, I do have a concern that someone could detonate a bomb in Rockefeller Center, or blow up a commuter train, or whatever.

I think that people, by and large, have a decent idea of the size of the threat: It runs a whole scale, from small and distant to horrendous and huge (but statistically unlikely at any particular point in time). The issue of whether citizens and governments are responding appropriately is another question.

One reason that the threat of Islamic terrorists seems overblown is because we've acted to contain the threats of such groups in Western countries. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 weren't overblown.

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 05:05 AM
Tell me again, which part of the distinction between an opinion and a public act do you fail to want to understand?

Or do you need a dictionary yet again to learn the meaning of the big words there?Please explain to me the value of an being allowed to have an opinion if the government can punish you for attempting to share it with others.

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 05:05 AM
Name just one such alleged law, and specify/quote exactly what it prohibits.
No, they prohibit the expression of certain beliefs and opinions.
So, gumboot, you are totally unable to back up your claim and actually cite just one such law with details.

I am ever so unsurprised. :D
Massive internal spying?
I guess you don't follow the surveillance, do you? Tsk, go read the ACLU link given already.
You consider an open police search of someone suspected of being connected to criminal acts under authority of a warrant issued by a court to be "spying"? Interesting.
No, I don't. Dishonest much?
I am unaware of any New Zealand involvement in the current investigation. Do you understand the difference between monitoring organisations that preach a specific ideology, and monitoring organisations that participate in criminal acts?
Do you understand the actual facts, that NZ helps monitor organizations and individuals who advocate certain ideologies, such as Islamist jihadism?

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 05:06 AM
No you don't. That's a phony comparison, and you know it.


No, it's not a phony comparison, both examples are based on laws and pretty much attract the same legal consequences. Oh, and both laws are limiting "Free Speech". Look it up.

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 05:07 AM
I'm sorry but in a free society like New Zealand, the expression of Religion is much more important than insignificant, nitpicked details like killings. And remember: "Killing is not Murder". :D



If Scientologists in Germany have expressed a desire to kill people, the German Government is totally justified monitoring them. However the document you have previously provided does not indicate this. Near as I can tell, the German Government appears to be monitoring them because they teach that only a person who has gone through their indoctrination can have "personal freedom", and for some reason the German Government has concluded this means they want to take away rights from German citizens.

Perhaps it is an error of translation?

Please stop your strawman arguments Oliver. If you want to address my concerns, address them.

-Gumboot

WildCat
3rd July 2007, 05:07 AM
I live in Louisville. The chance of me, or anyone I know, being hurt in any clearly identifiable way, by a terrorist attack is very slim.
Deaths and injuries are not the sole harm done by terrorist attacks. The economic damage done on 9/11 was quite substantial, and affected everyone - even those in Louisville. A dirty bomb could be even worse, and it only takes a handful of people to carry it out.

WildCat
3rd July 2007, 05:09 AM
So, gumboot, you are totally unable to back up your claim and actually cite just one such law with details.
He quotes the law in Post 61... you lose this one big time Gurdur.

Spins
3rd July 2007, 05:12 AM
So, gumboot, you are totally unable to back up your claim and actually cite just one such law with details.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Germany_and_France

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 05:13 AM
No, it's not a phony comparison, both examples are based on laws and pretty much attract the same legal consequences. Oh, and both laws are limiting "Free Speech". Look it up.That's ridiculous, and you know it. Freedom of speech has never included the right to incite murder, either in the US, or in Europe.

But freedom of speech does include to right to claim, publicly, that the Holocaust never happened, or to glorify Hitler. At least it does in the US. Does that right exist in Germany? Yes or no?

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 05:16 AM
This makes no sense when the "public act" is merely stating an opinion.
Tell me again, which part of:
"committing a public act" does NOT equate to only an opinion
do you not wish to grasp?

Which part of:

"publically stating an opinion" does NOT equate to "only an opion"

do you not wish to grasp?

Not terribly honest of you. Tell me again, BTW, all about how in the USA you can be barred from a plane only for wearing the wrong T-shirt (http://www.nbc11.com/news/9769544/detail.html).

Or how the Secret Service might investigate you for your T-shirt. (http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000379.php)

This is just TOO easy.

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 05:17 AM
That's ridiculous, and you know it. Freedom of speech has never included the right to incite murder, either in the US, or in Europe. But freedom of speech does include to right to claim, publicly, that the Holocaust never happened, or to glorify Hitler.
Ooooo, look, BPSCG is trying to claim an objective definition, and indulge in some sudden special pleading.

How's it going with the T-shirts in the USA, BTW? See my above post.

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 05:18 AM
Because it's very easy to deduce from the speed of recent events that UK and Australian police have had certain people under observation; anyone who wants to believe that the NZ police do not cooperate in this is IMHO deluded.



I think it's only easy to deduce this if you're paranoid, and have a preconceived notion of what is going on.

Do you understand the difference between monitoring criminal groups, and monitoring groups that practice a particular ideology.





Of course, I could also add links showing exactly and directly New Zealand doing what gumboot has claimed it doesn't do:

Linky (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0410/S00073.htm)


Do you even know what the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill is? It proposes changes to the Citizenship Act and the Passport Act. Neither of these is in any way related to spying on New Zealand citizens. Please try again.




Or how about I ask pointed questions about New Zealand's cooperation in the Echelon operation? Just what do the NZ Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) do all day? Hmmm? I could add more direct links, but the point is made.


The GCSB monitor international satellite communications at Waihopai and international radio communications at Tangimoana. The GCSB also provides communication security and anti-bugging expertise for the New Zealand government. The GCSB was also recently tasked with the protection of critical national infrastructure from information borne threats.

The role of the GCSB has been publicly known by the New Zealand people since the 1980s.

If you have any evidence that the GCSB spies on New Zealanders, please provide that evidence as it is something I would be exceedingly concerned about.

-Gumboot

WildCat
3rd July 2007, 05:21 AM
"publically stating an opinion" does NOT equate to "only an opion"

do you not wish to grasp?
Are you claimng that Germans are one Adolph Hitler poster away from engaging in another Holocaust, and therefore such a poster is incitement to violence?

Not terribly honest of you. Tell me again, BTW, all about how in the USA you can be barred from a plane only for wearing the wrong T-shirt (http://www.nbc11.com/news/9769544/detail.html).
The pilot can bar you from his plane for any reason he sees fit, this is not a government issue at all.

Or how the Secret Service might investigate you for your T-shirt. (http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000379.php)

This is just TOO easy.
Asking a question of someone with a pic of Bush in crosshairs is an "investigation"? Bizarre. The person wasn't arrested, was he? If it had been a pic on his shirt praising Hitler, and he was in Germany, he could get 5 years in jail. No investigation needed at all.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 05:22 AM
If Scientologists in Germany have expressed a desire to kill people, the German Government is totally justified monitoring them. However the document you have previously provided does not indicate this. Near as I can tell, the German Government appears to be monitoring them because they teach that only a person who has gone through their indoctrination can have "personal freedom", and for some reason the German Government has concluded this means they want to take away rights from German citizens.

Perhaps it is an error of translation?

Please stop your strawman arguments Oliver. If you want to address my concerns, address them.

-Gumboot


Weeeell, so it's okay to use the "Bundeskriminalamt" (German "FBI") if there are reasons to be concerned about possible murder from Scientology.

-BUT-

The "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution" isn't' allowed to protect the constitution after Scientology actually did exactly that: Undermine it in several cases.

That makes sense... :rolleyes:

Good luck. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Church_of_Scientology_of_Toronto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 05:24 AM
*BUMP*


Do the FBI spy on non-criminal groups in the USA as a matter of policy?

-Gumboot


Yes, they do - here's a nice article mentioning some FBI-Spy-Programs:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1544

About two weeks ago, the FBI admitted in federal court to collecting thousands of documents on non-violent activist groups, including the ACLU, Greenpeace and various antiwar organizations.Throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the FBI snooped on the personal lives of radical leftists, peace activists, and Civil Rights personalities such as Martin Luther King, infiltrated activist groups opposed to mandatory busing, and even spied on John Lennon.Reborn as the “Bureau of Investigation” in the late 1920s, it continued to spy upon such “socialists” as Albert Einstein


Jesus, I already learned all of that in the first X-Files episode. :rolleyes: :D :p

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 05:26 AM
Name just one such alleged law, and specify/quote exactly what it prohibits.
.....No, they prohibit the expression of certain beliefs and opinions.
For the slow of thinking, I will state here that that is simply not what Gumboot originally claimed.

Gumboot claimed originally certain opinions are prohibited.

He has now changed his tune and admitted that it is the public expression, not the opions themselves, that are prohibited.

*yawn* Totally unsurprised, it was just too easy. Tell us about hate-crime legislation in NZ, Gumboot, or NZ cooperation in surveillance of groups deemed to be potentially dangerous.
He quotes the law in Post 61... you lose this one big time Gurdur.
You wish. :D

He quoted NO such law backing up his original claim. D'oh. He quoted a law which does something quite different to what he claimed originally. I'm guessing that elementary logic was never your strong point?

BTW, do tell us all about T-shirts in the USA. Apparently some love forbidding the wearing of some T-shirts at times (see above). So much for expression of free speech.

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 05:26 AM
That's ridiculous, and you know it. Freedom of speech has never included the right to incite murder, either in the US, or in Europe.
Ooooo, look, BPSCG is trying to claim an objective definition, and indulge in some sudden special pleading.Gurdur, if you're going to reply to a post that wasn't directed to you, please at least answer the central question in that post, which was:
But freedom of speech does include to right to claim, publicly, that the Holocaust never happened, or to glorify Hitler. At least it does in the US. Does that right exist in Germany? Yes or no?Does the right to claim, publicly, that the Holocaust never happened, or to glorify Hitler, exist in Germany? Yes or no?

Gurdur
3rd July 2007, 05:31 AM
Gurdur, if you're going to
Given your repetetive dishonesty, and your childish games of altering quotes, let alone your constant hysteria, you know, somehow I just don't take you personally too seriously at all.

So how about you tell us all about the wearing of T-shirts in the USA? Hmmmmm? Or of course ACLU's worries about the FBI.

Really, this is all too easy. If you or gumboot make inflated claims, they get shot down; the grasp of elementary logic is something you really should try to attain.

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 05:33 AM
How strange, in view of the fact that $cientology are quite busy in NZ (http://www.scientology-auckland.org/), and even congratulating themselves on certain successes. (http://www.liveandgrow.org/nzho_taxexempt.html)



Thanks for that. I stand corrected. I'm not sure I'd agree that they are "very busy in New Zealand", nor that being designated a charity by the IRD is much of a success to get excited over.




This is TOO easy. Hellloooooooo, the USA ACLU wants to say something here. (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/20073prs20050718.html)


Thanks for that. It looks like ACLU is stirring up a storm, which is good to see. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe ACLU is contending that what the FBI is allegedly doing is illegal and unconstitutional?

-Gumboot

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 05:38 AM
So, gumboot, you are totally unable to back up your claim and actually cite just one such law with details.


I quoted the law in question, and provided a link to it. If it lacks detail, take up your issue with the German government, not me.




No, I don't. Dishonest much?


So why did you link to an article about the Australian police doing precisely that, in support of your spying claim?




Do you understand the actual facts, that NZ helps monitor organizations and individuals who advocate certain ideologies, such as Islamist jihadism?


You have evidence to support this claim? I dispute your claim. It is not a fact. It is a lie.

-Gumboot

Spins
3rd July 2007, 05:41 AM
Really, this is all too easy. If you or gumboot make inflated claims, they get shot down; the grasp of elementary logic is something you really should try to attain.Say's the guy who thinks the arrest of a suspect in Australia, in relation to the recent terrorist activity in the UK, is some sort of proof he had been under surveillance for some time.

:rolleyes:

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 05:42 AM
Given your repetetive dishonesty, and your childish games of altering quotes, let alone your constant hysteria, you know, somehow I just don't take you personally too seriously at all.Translation: "I'd rather engage in some more ad hominem attacks than actually answer a serious question."

Okay, thanks. I think your refusal to answer a simple yes-or-no question tells me what I need to know: The right to deny the Holocaust, or to glorify Hitler, does not exist in Germany.

Frankly, I wasn't expecting anything more from you than your usual streams of triumphalist self-congratulation. But I do like to see you come snarling out of your cage from time to time so newbies here can observe, and be instructed. That accomplished, my work here is done. Have a nice day!

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 05:44 AM
Weeeell, so it's okay to use the "Bundeskriminalamt" (German "FBI") if there are reasons to be concerned about possible murder from Scientology.


Absolutely.





The "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution" isn't' allowed to protect the constitution after Scientology actually did exactly that: Undermine it in several cases.

That makes sense... :rolleyes:


Well that's something of a murky area. The entire notion of a government agency to protect the constitution is a bit strange to be honest. Surely that's the duty of the judiciary?

As for undermining the constitution, well again, it depends how you define "undermining". I have read the official government report on this matter, which you provided me. I couldn't find any point in there that indicated Scientology had acted in a way which undermined the constitution.

Perhaps you can clarify this matter for me, instead of your constant strawman arguments, attacks on my character, and so forth.

In plain English (sorry, I don't know much German), please paraphrase the actions by the Church of Scientology in Germany that undermine the German Constitution.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Church_of_Scientology_of_Toronto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White


Waht bearing do either of these have on Germany?

-Gumboot

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 05:57 AM
For the slow of thinking, I will state here that that is simply not what Gumboot originally claimed.

Gumboot claimed originally certain opinions are prohibited.

He has now changed his tune and admitted that it is the public expression, not the opions themselves, that are prohibited.


Gurdur is of course correct. I did originally claim that certain ideas are prohibited, when in fact the law prohibits the expression of certain ideas - either publicly or at a "meeting" (which pretty much means anywhere).

I guess I took it for granted that most people realise the German government cannot read people's minds, and thus cannot punish people for certain ideas until those ideas are expressed.

In light of Gurdur's objections, allow me to rephrase my claims.

The German government prohibits the expression of certain ideas and beliefs. I contend that in a free society it is not illegal to express a personal belief, no matter how distasteful it may be to others.




*yawn* Totally unsurprised, it was just too easy. Tell us about hate-crime legislation in NZ, Gumboot, or NZ cooperation in surveillance of groups deemed to be potentially dangerous.


The New Zealand government is only legally permitted to carry out surveillance in New Zealand under authority of a warrant. Such warrants are issued by the court, and require that the group being monitored is suspected of criminal activity. It is not permissible for any branch of the New Zealand government to carry out surveillance on a group based on their ideological beliefs.

Furthermore there is no specific hate crime legislation in New Zealand. The role of hate-crime in New Zealand is only relevant in the sentencing of a person found guilty of a crime. Like many other common law nations, numerous factors are permitted to be considered in sentencing, including the general character of the offender and their apparent remorse. These factors are considered either mitigating (justify a lighter sentence) or aggravating (justify a harsher sentence).

You cannot be convicted of a hate crime in New Zealand.

Recently, the New Zealand government tried to introduce an Anti Hate Speech law, and it was thoroughly rejected.

-Gumboot

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 06:07 AM
Absolutely.

Well that's something of a murky area. The entire notion of a government agency to protect the constitution is a bit strange to be honest. Surely that's the duty of the judiciary?

As for undermining the constitution, well again, it depends how you define "undermining". I have read the official government report on this matter, which you provided me. I couldn't find any point in there that indicated Scientology had acted in a way which undermined the constitution.

Perhaps you can clarify this matter for me, instead of your constant strawman arguments, attacks on my character, and so forth.

In plain English (sorry, I don't know much German), please paraphrase the actions by the Church of Scientology in Germany that undermine the German Constitution.

Waht bearing do either of these have on Germany?

-Gumboot


It might sound strange to have the Bundesverfassungsamt (Complicated translation: "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution"), but it monitors possible threats against the constitution -AKA- Organizations who "disagree" with it, such as Jihadists, Nazis, the radical Left and Groups like that.

What's the New Zealand Federal Office called that monitors Groups like radical Jihadists?

You may start with the FAQ concerning Scientology vs. Germany:

Is scientology a religion in Germany ? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#1)
Under what status does scientology operate in Germany? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#2)
How is scientology doing in german courts? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#3)
What's the meaning of legal precedents in german courts? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#4)
How is scientology reacting about the labor court decision? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#5)
What about the "InSects" booklet ? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#6)
What's going on with "Chick" Corea? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#7)
Hasn't a criminal investigation on the co$ been closed? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#8)
Were any scientologists sent to jail? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#9)
How many scientology members are there in Germany? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#10)
Any links between Scientology and right-extremists? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#11)
Does scientology get money thru real-estate deals of its members? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#12)
Were children expelled out of Kindergartens? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#13)
Why is Germany more attacked by scientology than other countries? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#14)
Who is Ursula Caberta? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#15)
Who is Wiebke Hansen? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#16)
What are the human rights violations against scientology? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#17)
Does scientology own a german beer company? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#18)
Are there similarities between pictures in the SS magazine "Der Stürmer" and german newspapers? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#19)
Can "Xena Warrior Princess" be seen in Germany ? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#20)
Did the State Department mention Germany negatively? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#21)
Did a UN report mention Germany negatively? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#22)
Did the OSCE mention Germany negatively? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#23)
How does the german constitution protect religions? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#24)
What exactly does the labor court decision say? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#25)
What was decided in Bavaria? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#26)
What does the german population think about scientology? (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#27)
Overview of recent legal trouble by scientology / scientologists (http://www.religio.de/publik/deufaq.html#28)
This is the official Statement posted on the Website of the German Embassy
in Washington:

Background Papers
Scientology and Germany
Understanding the German View of Scientology (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html)

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 06:15 AM
Gurdur is of course correct. I did originally claim that certain ideas are prohibited, when in fact the law prohibits the expression of certain ideas - either publicly or at a "meeting" (which pretty much means anywhere).

I guess I took it for granted that most people realise the German government cannot read people's minds, and thus cannot punish people for certain ideas until those ideas are expressed.

In light of Gurdur's objections, allow me to rephrase my claims.

The German government prohibits the expression of certain ideas and beliefs. I contend that in a free society it is not illegal to express a personal belief, no matter how distasteful it may be to others.Gumboot, rest assured that most of us did understand your point, long before this post.

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 06:36 AM
It might sound strange to have the Bundesverfassungsamt (Complicated translation: "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution"), but it monitors possible threats against the constitution -AKA- Organizations who "disagree" with it, such as Jihadists, Nazis, the radical Left and Groups like that.


Their role seems somewhat superfluous to me.





What's the New Zealand Federal Office called that monitors Groups like radical Jihadists?


There isn't one. (We're not a Federation so there isn't a Federal Office of anything).

The New Zealand Police have the authority to obtain warrants to monitor individuals or organisations suspected of criminal activity.

The Security Intelligence Service has the responsibility of advising the New Zealand government of security risks to New Zealand (including immigrants who are suspected of being terrorists). The SIS is a civilian organisation and has no enforcement role, although it has limited authority to intercept communications and conduct searches under a warrant.

The New Zealand Police are not permitted to monitor groups that preach radical ideologies, but are not suspected of criminal activities (a New Zealand court would refuse a warrant application).



You may start with the FAQ concerning Scientology vs. Germany:


Thanks, although that doesn't seem to address my question. That FAQ seems primarily focused on whether Scientology should be considered a religion. Although I usually refer to it as a religion, that's not really something I car about. I don't think religion should be defined by government. A religion is defined by the religion's belief that they are a religion. However at the same time, neither should a government be required to recognise a particular group as a religion.





This is the official Statement posted on the Website of the German Embassy
in Washington:

Background Papers
Scientology and Germany
Understanding the German View of Scientology (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html)



Thanks, that's more what I was looking for.

-Gumboot

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 07:09 AM
The German government prohibits the expression of certain ideas and beliefs. I contend that in a free society it is not illegal to express a personal belief, no matter how distasteful it may be to others.


I'm sorry if I have to disagree with your understanding - as long there are no libel-, slander-, hate-hatemongering -Laws at all in New Zealand.

The law in question about "free speech" here in Germany is called "Volksverhetzung" - Translation: (stirring up the populace by hatemongering)

Similar laws exist around the world, for instance:

In the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK), incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred) is a criminal offense under §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986).
In Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland), the corresponding law is the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prohibition_of_Incitement_to_Hatre d_Act&action=edit).
A similar law exist in Sweden as "hets mot folkgrupp" ("agitation against a people"), second section 16th chapter 8§ of Criminal law. [3] (http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19620700.HTM#AVD2KAP16PAR8)
The Finnish Criminal Law also includes a similar law, the crime being called "kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan" in the Finnish version, "hets mot folkgrupp" in the Swedish version: 11th chapter ("On War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity"), 8§.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung


Now even if it's hard to understand, it might be even harder to understand that the big majority of people here are glad about- and agree with this law because it pretty much punishes >public<, radical thinking that opposes the constitutional understanding of equality of all humans.

Hate-Mongering against an ethic group/gender/race etc. therefore is considered as criminal act - which is why I try to compare it with libel or slander for you to get a better feeling for this law as non-german citizen.

Concerning the "Holocaust-Denial", in this context, is partly considered as hate-mongering against Jews. The closest explanation for you to understand this law is libel/slandering again:

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries. Many countries also have broader laws against libel or inciting racial hatred, as do a number of countries that do not specifically have laws against Holocaust denial, such as Canada and the United Kingdom.

Many Holocaust deniers claim their work should be protected by a universal right to free speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Speech), and see these laws as a confirmation of their own beliefs, arguing that truth does not need to be legally enforced. However, the argument that laws punishing holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR) and the UN Declaration on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Declaration_on_Huma n_Rights&action=edit) have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe) (the European Commission of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission_of_Human_Rights),[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#_note-69) the European Court of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights)[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#_note-70)) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Committee).[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#_note-71)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#Laws_against_Holocaust_denia l

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 07:39 AM
I'm sorry if I have to disagree with your understanding - as long there are no libel-, slander-, hate-hatemongering -Laws at all in New Zealand.

The law in question about "free speech" here in Germany is called "Volksverhetzung" - Translation: (stirring up the populace by hatemongering)




Now even if it's hard to understand, it might be even harder to understand that the big majority of people here are glad about- and agree with this law because it pretty much punishes >public<, radical thinking that opposes the constitutional understanding of equality of all humans.

Hate-Mongering against an ethic group/gender/race etc. therefore is considered as criminal act - which is why I try to compare it with libel or slander for you to get a better feeling for this law as non-german citizen.

Concerning the "Holocaust-Denial", in this context, is partly considered as hate-mongering against Jews. The closest explanation for you to understand this law is libel/slandering again:



Oliver neither Slander nor Libel are criminal offenses.

-Gumboot

ETA. And I do not agree with the anti-hate speech laws in the UK either, although I do understand the motivation for implementing them as they actually do have a very serious problem with Radical Islam.

Do you consider Neo-Nazis and Holocaust Deniers to be a serious problem in Germany?

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 07:42 AM
Their role seems somewhat superfluous to me.

There isn't one. (We're not a Federation so there isn't a Federal Office of anything).

The New Zealand Police have the authority to obtain warrants to monitor individuals or organisations suspected of criminal activity.

The Security Intelligence Service has the responsibility of advising the New Zealand government of security risks to New Zealand (including immigrants who are suspected of being terrorists). The SIS is a civilian organisation and has no enforcement role, although it has limited authority to intercept communications and conduct searches under a warrant.

The New Zealand Police are not permitted to monitor groups that preach radical ideologies, but are not suspected of criminal activities (a New Zealand court would refuse a warrant application).


Well, basically the "Verfassungsschutz" is one of the german intelligence agancies - specialized in domestic threats:

List of intelligence agencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_agencies) of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany):
Federal Intelligence Service (BND) – Bundesnachrichtendienst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesnachrichtendienst)
Office of Intelligence of the Federal Armed Forces (ANBw) – Amt für Nachrichtenwesen der Bundeswehr
Office for Radio Monitoring of the Federal Armed Forces (AFMBw) – Amt für Fernmeldewesen Bundeswehr
Military Security Service (MAD) – Militärischer Abschirmdienst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit%C3%A4rischer_Abschirmdienst)
Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) – Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesamt_f%C3%BCr_Verfassungsschutz)
State Office for the Protection of the Constitution (LfV) – Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz
Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) – Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies_of_Germany Thanks, although that doesn't seem to address my question. That FAQ seems primarily focused on whether Scientology should be considered a religion. Although I usually refer to it as a religion, that's not really something I car about. I don't think religion should be defined by government. A religion is defined by the religion's belief that they are a religion. However at the same time, neither should a government be required to recognise a particular group as a religion.

Thanks, that's more what I was looking for.

-Gumboot


Well, the Crux is that the Mafia itself could change their status to a "Religion". Does that mean they should be allowed to do so and have "a good, legal time?" - just because they're a religion now?

You sounded like this is the case in New Zealand: "They're all welcome - without any questions". :confused:

The Embassies Statement (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html) concerning this issue is:

In Germany, there is no process by which the government officially recognizes a religion. However tax authorities grant tax-exempt status to organizations that act in the public interest and are non-profit. Some 10,000 groups have requested and received tax free status, but to date, the Scientology organization has repeatedly failed to establish its qualifications. Among the groups that are tax free are the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. On March 22, 1995, the Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) ruled that the Scientology branch in Hamburg was not a religious congregation, but clearly a commercial enterprise. In its decision, the court quotes one of L. Ron Hubbard's instructions "make money, make more money -- make other people produce so as to make money" and concludes that Scientology purports to be a "church" merely as a cover to pursue its economic interests.

source: http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html


You may also review this link to get an idea what the concerns are about:


Scientology - Major Criminal Convictions:
[/URL]http://www.scientology-lies.com/crimesindex.html (http://www.scientology-lies.com/convictions.html)
[URL]http://www.scientology-lies.com/convictions.html

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 07:53 AM
Oliver neither Slander nor Libel are criminal offenses.

-Gumboot

ETA. And I do not agree with the anti-hate speech laws in the UK either, although I do understand the motivation for implementing them as they actually do have a very serious problem with Radical Islam.

Do you consider Neo-Nazis and Holocaust Deniers to be a serious problem in Germany?


I brought it up because Libel&Slandering are the closest explanations for this law - because their similarity for you to understand it in a better way. Now this might not be the best translation, but "criminal" translates to: "against the law", well, at least my translator says so. :boxedin:
Anyway: You know what I meant, don't you?

Concerning your question: I don't consider Holocaust Denier as a threat - they're just stupid Truthers in my own humble opinion.

Neo-Nazis also are a pretty minor problem. Of course there are big news about it whenever there is an incident, especially here in Germany, but on one hand this minority is getting observed just like the Jihadists and other radical groups - on the other hand most of these Nuts are Teenagers who grow up in most cases.

So one way or another, I'm not concerned, nor do I see them as major threat to the public or my freedoms.

Darth Rotor
3rd July 2007, 07:54 AM
The last two pages of this thread are rife with red herrings.

Anyone for some crackers, vokda, slivered onions and capers to go with the herring?

DR

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 08:13 AM
Well, the Crux is that the Mafia itself could change their status to a "Religion". Does that mean they should be allowed to do so and have "a good, legal time?" - just because they're a religion now?

You sounded like this is the case in New Zealand: "They're all welcome - without any questions". :confused:



Oliver, with all due respect, you don't seem to be taking in anything I'm posting.

-Gumboot

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 08:16 AM
I brought it up because Libel&Slandering are the closest explanations for this law - because their similarity for you to understand it in a better way. Now this might not be the best translation, but "criminal" translates to: "against the law", well, at least my translator says so. :boxedin:
Anyway: You know what I meant, don't you?



I understand what you mean Oliver, but I have a bit of a problem with your comparisons. You're right, in that the laws against Holocaust Denial etc. are indeed somewhat similar to libel and slander. But therein lies a big problem. Libel and slander are not criminal offenses, and nor should they be.




Concerning your question: I don't consider Holocaust Denier as a threat - they're just stupid Truthers in my own humble opinion.

Neo-Nazis also are a pretty minor problem. Of course there are big news about it whenever there is an incident, especially here in Germany, but on one hand this minority is getting observed just like the Jihadists and other radical groups - on the other hand most of these Nuts are Teenagers who grow up in most cases.

So one way or another, I'm not concerned, nor do I see them as major threat to the public or my freedoms.


Oliver, do you have a problem with your Government spying on organisations or prohibiting organisations that you do not consider to be a threat?

-Gumboot

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 08:38 AM
Oliver, with all due respect, you don't seem to be taking in anything I'm posting.

-Gumboot


Maybe I missed an important Message from you, in which case I apologize. My understanding about New Zealand concerning religion so far is, that there seems to be no controversy at all about religions, no matter what they're about. Is that correct?

And do you know what I meant concerning the far-fetched "Mafia-Example"?

The Scientology issue here in Germany was pretty much started by petitions, that's a pretty democratic way to address issues. So the Scientology's claim that this is some kind of "German government conspiracy", is simply wrong.

Also they failed to get the "Tax-Free status" like a religion because their own faults: "repeatedly failed to establish its qualifications". What does this have to do with "Freedom of Religion" if they don't get full religious status concerning Taxes?

Then they multiply stated that they ARE NOT a religion in countries in which they saw no chance to claim they are - just like they please.

Also they have an aggressive history - including unconstitutional, criminal behavior.

And: Their treatment against members is in question in several issues including Brainwashing, disconnecting from their families, financial exploitation and so on.

And they don't offer their "holy scripts" about the alien-souls.

Honestly: Personally I see absolutely no reason to even consider anything from them as spiritual or religious in my general understanding of Religion or their followers treatment.

Now I may not know all reasons to deny the religion-status, but I have a hard time to believe that in New Zealand there are no concerns at all - and never had been. In this case I would consider such a behavior as irresponsible and a great lack of national security.

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 08:40 AM
The last two pages of this thread are rife with red herrings.

Anyone for some crackers, vokda, slivered onions and capers to go with the herring?

DRMmm...vokda... :rolleyes:

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 08:48 AM
I understand what you mean Oliver, but I have a bit of a problem with your comparisons. You're right, in that the laws against Holocaust Denial etc. are indeed somewhat similar to libel and slander. But therein lies a big problem. Libel and slander are not criminal offenses, and nor should they be.

Oliver, do you have a problem with your Government spying on organisations or prohibiting organisations that you do not consider to be a threat?

-Gumboot


I guess Libel and Slander are prosecuted in New Zealand, too - so I guess it makes sense to you to understand the whole issue much better, don't you?

Well, I would be concerned if the government would spy on groups without reasons. (That's very rarely the case (I honestly don't remind such a case right now besides this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_scandal) major event) in contrast to the well known FBI cases).

But it's the other way around: I'm not concerned because I know that I'm safe and the "Verfassungsschutz" takes care of these domestic threats.

So even if I know about these Groups and their dangerous potential, I don't have to feel scared or concerned. I wouldn't even be more concerned after a 9/11 like attack in Germany because I know that such an incident would focus the Verfassungsschutz even more on it's radical origins.

ETA: Maybe other Germans feel differently about that?

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 09:18 AM
I tweaked Pardalis nose for his muslim-paranoia in such a peaceful country like Canada.

Strawman. :mad::mad::mad:

This has nothing to do with Muslims. We're talking about the radicals.

Tony
3rd July 2007, 09:23 AM
The real threat is that they will achieve their aims via social revolution in the west. They won't need anything to get their way, because our western political systems and western liberalism offer everything they need.


This is one of the most bizarre and extraordinary claims I've seen someone make in Politics. How will islamofascists achieve a social revolution in the "west"? In what countries will this revolution happen? How does liberalism offer muslim fundies, the very epitome of religious conservatism, everything they need? That's like saying liberalism gives Pat Robertson everything he needs to eastablish a theocracy.

That's a pretty difficult question.

Not really. Nazi Germany and the USSR were world powers, the USSR had nuclear weapons and enough ICBM to totally destroy the West and the US. The threat they posed was much greater than Islamofascists can ever dream.

I also think the threat of Radical Islam is also in some ways much easier to address than Nazism or the USSR.

Of course it is. Radical islam is weak, Nazi Germany and the USSR were not.

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 09:29 AM
I don't want to speak for Gumboot but I think he's talking over a lenghty period of time.

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 09:34 AM
Maybe I missed an important Message from you, in which case I apologize. My understanding about New Zealand concerning religion so far is, that there seems to be no controversy at all about religions, no matter what they're about. Is that correct?



Well no, not really. Because we're not much of a religious nation. We also don't have much of a problem with extremism. If someone paints a swastika on a Mosque or a Synagogue it's rare enough to warrant a place as lead article on the nightly news.




And do you know what I meant concerning the far-fetched "Mafia-Example"?



I think I understand what you mean, but the problem there is the Mafia are an organised criminal group. They are persecuted because they are criminals, not because of their ideology.




The Scientology issue here in Germany was pretty much started by petitions, that's a pretty democratic way to address issues. So the Scientology's claim that this is some kind of "German government conspiracy", is simply wrong.


The difference between a democracy and mob rule is that in a democracy the mob cannot override the rights of minorities.





Also they failed to get the "Tax-Free status" like a religion because their own faults: "repeatedly failed to establish its qualifications". What does this have to do with "Freedom of Religion" if they don't get full religious status concerning Taxes?


I have no problem whatsoever with them being denied "tax free status".




Then they multiply stated that they ARE NOT a religion in countries in which they saw no chance to claim they are - just like they please.


Again, I have no problem with the German government refusing to recognise them as a religion.





Also they have an aggressive history - including unconstitutional, criminal behavior.


This is what I have a problem with. I'm interested in evidence that the Church of Scientology in Germany is involved in criminal activity.




Now I may not know all reasons to deny the religion-status, but I have a hard time to believe that in New Zealand there are no concerns at all - and never had been. In this case I would consider such a behavior as irresponsible and a great lack of national security.


I honestly don't see how not being a religion constitutes a threat to national security.

-Gumboot

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 09:41 AM
I don't want to speak for Gumboot but I think he's talking over a lenghty period of time.



You're quite right Pardalis. Western Civilisation is on the decline. Something else is going to replace us as the law of the land. The question is what?

Democracy is in no way protection against the rise of extremism or authoritarian government. The Nazis gained power in a democratic system.

Ancient Rome "democratically" elected its Imperators.

Give it 50 - 100 years. Absent an Islamic Reformation or a social revolution in China, one of these entities will destroy our civilisation.

-Gumboot

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 09:49 AM
Strawman. :mad::mad::mad:

This has nothing to do with Muslims. We're talking about the radicals.


*snip*
There is a current of dangerous Islamic fundamentalism that is sweeping the Middle East, an ideology that is clearly stating its intentions. If we let it unchallenged, the balance of power in the world could very well turn in their favor, and terrorism could rapidly become a much more significant and imminent problem.


Well, where does it come from? Do you see a relation to the Iraq war?
If not - what is your paranoia about? That "3 Muslims in your Hometown overthrows your town hall"? :confused:

Tony
3rd July 2007, 09:50 AM
I don't want to speak for Gumboot but I think he's talking over a lenghty period of time.

Which makes his assertions much more dubious. He's trying to predict the distant future and we all know how successful that been throughout history...

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 09:51 AM
Well, where does it come from? Do you see a relation to the Iraq war?
If not - what is your paranoia about? That "3 Muslims in your Hometown overthrows your town hall"? :confused:

Don't you understand the difference between ordinary Muslims who just want to go about their daily lives and radical fundamentalists?

Are you this thick? :mad:

Tony
3rd July 2007, 09:53 AM
Western Civilisation is on the decline.


Evidence?

The Nazis gained power in a democratic system.

The nazis were in a position the islamofascists will likely never be.

Give it 50 - 100 years. Absent an Islamic Reformation or a social revolution in China, one of these entities will destroy our civilisation.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 09:54 AM
Which makes his assertions much more dubious. He's trying to predict the distant future and we all know how successful that been throughout history...


Hey, I never claimed I was right.

-Gumboot

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 09:55 AM
Do you understand the difference between ordinary Muslims who just want to go about their daily lives and radical fundamentalists?

Are you this thick? :mad:


Of course I understand that - well, since I was 8. So what?
If there is a reason to be concerned then it's the destabilization of the Region - as a result of the Iraq war - drawing "harmless Muslims" into the conflict, do YOU understand that? :confused:

If not, a nice flash-summary for you:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17722026

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 09:58 AM
Will you apologize for your latest strawman Oliver?

ETA: and btw, I never said the Iraq war was a good thing, actually I agree it was a grave mistake.

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 10:03 AM
The nazis were in a position the islamofascists will likely never be.Speaking of trying to make a long-term prediction... :rolleyes:

Right now, the fastest-growing segment of the population in many European countries is Muslims. "Muhammad" is now the second or third most popular name for newborn boys in the UK.

What happens when and if Europe becomes Muslim majority? Will it resemble Turkey, where there is a clear, bright line between church and state?

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 10:04 AM
Will you apologize for your latest strawman Oliver?

ETA: and btw, I never said the Iraq war was a good thing, actually I agree it was a grave mistake.


I use so many Strawmen, which one did you mean? :confused: :D :p


Well, if you agree - then why are you attacking me for questioning what went wrong concerning the start-up to go to war?

Anyway: You now seem to basically agree with Parky and his initial post, right?

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 10:05 AM
Evidence?


The western sphere of influence is shrinking rapidly. We have lost Africa and the Middle East already, and we are rapidly losing the Pacific.

In Europe, the birthrate amongst Muslims is triple the rate of non-Muslims, and the majority of immigrants to Europe (immigration accounts for 85% of Europe's total population growth) are Muslim.

Internally, we're also fracturing. The west is becoming increasingly divided. The cracks are beginning to appear.

All of this does not constitute evidence. These are merely the reasons for why I hold the opinion I do. I don't expect anyone to be convinced by my opinion.




The nazis were in a position the islamofascists will likely never be.


Obviously we don't agree. :)





Can I borrow your crystal ball?


I claim no psychic powers. This is only my own theoretical hypothesis of our likely future. It has no more validity than any other hypothesis.

-Gumboot

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 10:09 AM
Right now, the fastest-growing segment of the population in many European countries is Muslims. "Muhammad" is now the second or third most popular name for newborn boys in the UK.

What happens when and if Europe becomes Muslim majority? Will it resemble Turkey, where there is a clear, bright line between church and state?

Most Muslims who emigrate to western countries do so to escape the persecution of the regimes they came from. They come here for our freedoms. Of course like everywhere else there are extremists who ask for sharia law to be implemented, but still these are a minority.

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 10:12 AM
Well, if you agree - then why are you attacking me for questioning what went wrong concerning the start-up to go to war?

I never attacked you on that because I don't think we ever discussed this particular issue.

Anyway: You now seem to basically agree with Parky and his initial post, right?I don't agree with Parky's OP, I don't think the threat of islamic terrorism is overblown. It is real.

gumboot
3rd July 2007, 10:21 AM
Most Muslims who emigrate to western countries do so to escape the persecution of the regimes they came from. They come here for our freedoms. Of course like everywhere else there are extremists who ask for sharia law to be implemented, but still these are a minority.


I suspect the majority of Muslims come to the west to escape poverty.

-Gumboot

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 10:31 AM
Well no, not really. Because we're not much of a religious nation. We also don't have much of a problem with extremism. If someone paints a swastika on a Mosque or a Synagogue it's rare enough to warrant a place as lead article on the nightly news.

I think I understand what you mean, but the problem there is the Mafia are an organised criminal group. They are persecuted because they are criminals, not because of their ideology.

The difference between a democracy and mob rule is that in a democracy the mob cannot override the rights of minorities.

I have no problem whatsoever with them being denied "tax free status".

Again, I have no problem with the German government refusing to recognise them as a religion.

This is what I have a problem with. I'm interested in evidence that the Church of Scientology in Germany is involved in criminal activity.

I honestly don't see how not being a religion constitutes a threat to national security.

-Gumboot


Of course the "Mob" can't overrule basic rights - but the government has to look into concerns from their citizens. That's why a neutral commission was built to look into the issue and the final report suggested to keep Scientology under observation. That was the most democratic way to deal with this issue, wasn't it?

Now I admit that I didn't read the final commissions report yet, but if you're interested to do so, here it is:

Final Report of the Enquete Commission on "So-called Sects and Psychogroups":
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pubs/enquete.pdf

I can't address your question about current, domestic incidents concerning criminal behavior about constitutional issues because it's under the surveillance of the intelligence and therefore not published yet for the same reasons why the final FBI's anthrax-report (http://www.fbi.gov/anthrax/amerithraxlinks.htm) isn't published yet, ongoing investigations.

You may find the domestic constitutional issues in the report above, as I said - I didn't read it yet and why they came to the suggestion to keep Scientology under surveillance from the Verfassungsschutz. To me it's evidence enough that they did so in foreign countries to personally have no problem to keep an eye on them and to deny religious status in context to all the other convictions and incidents about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy

Tony
3rd July 2007, 10:31 AM
Right now, the fastest-growing segment of the population in many European countries is Muslims. "Muhammad" is now the second or third most popular name for newborn boys in the UK.

So that automatically means they'll become the next nazi government?

What happens when and if Europe becomes Muslim majority?

Good question, what will happen?

Will it resemble Turkey, where there is a clear, bright line between church and state?

It will resemble europe.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 10:35 AM
I never attacked you on that because I don't think we ever discussed this particular issue.

I don't agree with Parky's OP, I don't think the threat of islamic terrorism is overblown. It is real.


Of course it's real. Did someone ever said the contrary??? :confused:

"Overblown" means that the portrayed threat is exaggerated, that's all.

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 10:42 AM
I suspect the majority of Muslims come to the west to escape poverty.

Yes, that too, and to escape war also. So I'm pretty confident that the great majority of them don't want to cause trouble, let alone a revolution.

It's the radicals we have to worry about. They are indoctrinating the youth who feel out of place through their imams (the bad ones, most of them are very good people) and the anti-American propaganda, the same Oliver is naively swallowing wholeheartedly.

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 10:43 AM
Of course it's real. Did someone ever said the contrary??? :confused:


You did, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83042), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83712), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83402), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83242) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83587).

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 10:47 AM
You did, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83042), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83712), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83402), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83242) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83587).


No, I didn't: I said it isn't a bigger threat than it was before 9/11.
I never said it "isn't real" - feel free to quote me.

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 10:52 AM
No, I didn't

Yes you did:

Forget it, there is no terror threat. Period.

It's not my problem if you don't even understand your own words.

But it does explain alot.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 10:56 AM
Yes, that too, and to escape war also. So I'm pretty confident that the great majority of them don't want to cause trouble, let alone a revolution.

It's the radicals we have to worry about. They are indoctrinating the youth who feel out of place through their imams (the bad ones, most of them are very good people) and the anti-American propaganda, the same Oliver is naively swallowing wholeheartedly.


Well, Pardalis - I live with 3.2 million Muslims countrymen in my country and I AM NOT concerned, mainly because pretty much all of them accept our way of life and understand the society with all it's pro's and contra's. Of course there are radical elements, which are under observation for exactly this reason: Radicalism.

But I don't see Extremists as a threat that would overthrow the western world as you might think and Gumboot suggested. That's Truther-Paranoia to me, even if there's some truth to it after the Iraq mess started.

Only God knows what the effects of the Iraq destabilization will be. And this is exactly why I criticize American foreign policies. Not based on hate - but based on concerns about stability and "Blow-Backs".

"Hate our Freedoms" is simply ridiculous. In this case Holland should be scared to death. :D

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 11:02 AM
Of course there are radical elements, which are under observation for exactly this reason: Radicalism.

Yes, they are under "observation" because they are a threat.

Now that's not fear mongering is it? It's proper caution, which is what it's all about, no more no less. Not fear, just caution.

"Hate our Freedoms" is simply ridiculous. In this case Holland should be scared to death. :DAgain with the same strawman. You keep suggesting that we equate the Muslims to the fundamentalists, we're not. The radicals hate our freedoms, not the moderate Muslims.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 11:05 AM
Yes you did:

It's not my problem if you don't even understand your own words.

But it does explain alot.



That was a deliberately controversial Thread-Title to attract attention, but literally I give you this point, even if the initial post in this thread explained what I actually meant.

And you know that, Rascal. :D

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 11:13 AM
Yes, they are under "observation" because they are a threat.

Now that's not fear mongering is it? It's proper caution, which is what it's all about, no more no less. Not fear, just caution.

Again with the same strawman. You keep suggesting that we equate the Muslims to the fundamentalists, we're not. The radicals hate our freedoms, not the moderate Muslims.


They're are under observation since 10 or more years. It's not the german intelligences fault that the US didn't use the information - nevertheless, so are radical Neo-Nazis, the radical left and so on: ...under observation.

Quite frankly - even if the radical Left is a much, muuuuch smaller group over here, they also caused much more trouble than the radical muslims.

So why should I be more concerned about radical Muslims?

You might not like the Idea, but the Muslim world is located on the same piece of earth like I live - in contrast to all the safe water that protects you in Canada and America.

So why are you more concerned about it than I am? If it's not paranoia, what is it? :confused:

And I don't even mention New Zealand here. Looks like the countries with the smallest groups of Muslims are the most concerned ones, according to Gumboot. :boggled:

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 11:16 AM
Oliver, I already gave you examples of terror cells busted in Canada, of Ahmed Ressam, of the London and Madrid bombings. Just this weekend British police foiled another attack. What more do you want?

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 11:20 AM
Right now, the fastest-growing segment of the population in many European countries is Muslims. "Muhammad" is now the second or third most popular name for newborn boys in the UK.
So that automatically means they'll become the next nazi government?Stop putting words in my mouth. You said "The nazis were in a position the islamofascists will likely never be." Europe's current demographics say it's a distinct possibility.
Will it resemble Turkey, where there is a clear, bright line between church and state? It will resemble europe.Look, Tony, if you don't have a reasonable answer for a question, you really don't have to try to answer. Saying "I don't know" is a perfectly honorable response.

Corsair 115
3rd July 2007, 11:29 AM
I tweaked Pardalis nose for his muslim-paranoia in such a peaceful country like Canada.Peaceful is a relative term. If you measure it by rates of violent crime, such as murder, then while Canada has a lower rate per capita than the United States, we have a higher rate of occurrence than many European nations.

In terms of radical or extremist Muslim practioners, there are some here. There was a suspected terrorist plot broken up here; some of the individuals involved had purchased large quantities of fertilizer which they had no rational use for (they were not farmers).

These folks will eventually have their day in court and will either be convicted or acquitted of the charges against them.

chocolatepossum
3rd July 2007, 11:33 AM
Right now, the fastest-growing segment of the population in many European countries is Muslims. "Muhammad" is now the second or third most popular name for newborn boys in the UK.


Do you have a link for that stat about Mohammed being the second most popular boys' name in the UK? I'm not accusing you of making it up because I saw it reported too, but it would really surprise me if it was actually true. Muslims can't make up more than a few percent of the population, five at the very most I would say. They must be calling almost every male child Mohammed, and having a LOT of them, to make that stat true. :confused:

Plus, I've met many muslim males, and none of them have been called mohammed to my recollection.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 11:35 AM
Oliver, I already gave you examples of terror cells busted in Canada, of Ahmed Ressam, of the London and Madrid bombings. Just this weekend British police foiled another attack. What more do you want?



Are you THAT stubborn???

In 2006 there were 14,352 Terror Attacks.
In 2006 there were Null, Nada, Zero, None executed Terror Attacks in the US or Canada.
Please stop whining. You're obviously exaggerating, don't you see that on your own? :confused:

So what's your complain anyway?

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 11:41 AM
In 2006 there were Null, Nada, Zero, None executed Terror Attacks in the US or Canada.

That's because our governments and security agencies do take this threat seriously and are acting upon it, like those terror cells that were busted:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...d5d6cc&k=46849 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849), http://www.canada.com/national/natio...a-3c8f6009581c (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aa8696a1-5a53-40ca-868a-3c8f6009581c)

and those plots that were foiled :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html, http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html.

Tony
3rd July 2007, 11:50 AM
The western sphere of influence is shrinking rapidly. We have lost Africa and the Middle East already, and we are rapidly losing the Pacific.


So? You seem to see this as a zero sum gain. It doesn't follow that western civ is declining because former colonies are wanting self-determination. Furthermore, since countries around the world are increasing adopting western language, clothing, science, entertainment, sports, political systems and ideologies, I'd say Western Civ's lock on the world is solid for a very long time. What do you see as Western Civilization?

In Europe, the birthrate amongst Muslims is triple the rate of non-Muslims, and the majority of immigrants to Europe (immigration accounts for 85% of Europe's total population growth) are Muslim.

So?

Internally, we're also fracturing. The west is becoming increasingly divided. The cracks are beginning to appear.

Umm no. Division in the west now is not anywhere near the levels it was during WW1 or WW2.

All of this does not constitute evidence. These are merely the reasons for why I hold the opinion I do. I don't expect anyone to be convinced by my opinion.

Frankly, your position is "the sky is falling" and you show symptoms of "good ole days" syndrome.

fuelair
3rd July 2007, 11:51 AM
...to Canada and their nasty Canadian military interventions around the globe. :D
You're starting to understand, Thank you.

Oh Wait: Don't they have freedoms in Canada, too???

Canuck, Canuck uber alles, Uber alles................:D :jaw-dropp :rolleyes:

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 11:53 AM
That's because our governments and security agencies do take this threat seriously and are acting upon it, like those terror cells that were busted:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...d5d6cc&k=46849 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849), http://www.canada.com/national/natio...a-3c8f6009581c (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aa8696a1-5a53-40ca-868a-3c8f6009581c)

and those plots that were foiled :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html, http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html.



It may sound like a dumb question but how many terrorist attacks do you think were prevented if 14,352 Terror Attacks actually happened? :confused:

I also think that you wouldn't know about the links you gave if 9/11 wouldn't have happened and Terrorism wouldn't be such a trendy issue.

So let me ask: How many terrorist-attacks were prevented in Canada BEFORE 9/11. Do you have a "Counter terrorism-Federal Office" in Canada and could you link me to their official reports?

Tony
3rd July 2007, 11:54 AM
Stop putting words in my mouth. You said "The nazis were in a position the islamofascists will likely never be." Europe's current demographics say it's a distinct possibility.


Sure it's a possibility, but I still think it's unlikely.

Look, Tony, if you don't have a reasonable answer for a question, you really don't have to try to answer. Saying "I don't know" is a perfectly honorable response.

How is that unreasonable? It will resemble europe because those people will have grown up in and carried on the traditions of european governance.

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 11:57 AM
It may sound like a dumb question but how many terrorist attacks do you think were prevented if 14,352 Terror Attacks actually happened? :confused:

It is a dumb question.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 12:01 PM
It is a dumb question.


Well, let's proof or disproof your point once and for all:

Do you have a "Counter terrorism-Federal Office" in Canada and could you link me to their official reports?

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 12:01 PM
Oliver, you seem to be the one using Twoofer logic:

If it did happen, it didn't happen enough, if it didn't happen, then it's not a threat. :hypnotize

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 12:05 PM
Do you have a link for that stat about Mohammed being the second most popular boys' name in the UK? I'm not accusing you of making it up because I saw it reported too, but it would really surprise me if it was actually true. Muslims can't make up more than a few percent of the population, five at the very most I would say. They must be calling almost every male child Mohammed, and having a LOT of them, to make that stat true. :confused:

Plus, I've met many muslim males, and none of them have been called mohammed to my recollection.UK's office for National Statistics (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece)

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 12:07 PM
Oliver, you seem to be the one using Twoofer logic:

If it did happen, it didn't happen enough, if it didn't happen, then it's not a threat. :hypnotize


Nope, that's not my point. My point is that "X000" terror-attacks happened in Iraq since the beginning of the war.

Do we hear them yell about that? No.
Do we hear Pardalis whine about none terror attacks in Canada? Yes.

Why? Because 2 or 3 plots were prevented. :D

Sorry, but you're cute. :)

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 12:13 PM
Nope, that's not my point. My point is that "X000" terror-attacks happened in Iraq since the beginning of the war.

If that's you point, then your point is irrelevant.

Do we hear them yell about that? No.
Actually, yes.

Do we hear Pardalis whine about none terror attacks in Canada? Yes.Actually, no. I'm not whining, that's your strawman.

Why? Because 2 or 3 plots were prevented.Remind me to thank the Canadian police and government.

Sorry, but you're cute. :)I know.

BPSCG
3rd July 2007, 12:21 PM
How is that unreasonable? It will resemble europe because those people will have grown up in and carried on the traditions of european governance.You're assuming the Muslim immigrant population will somehow be assimilated into the culture that is already there. The problem is, the Europeans have, up to now, shown little interest in assimilating their Muslim populations, and the Muslim populations show little interest in being assimilated. The result has been an angry Muslim underclass - think of France's car-torching youth - that may well not have any particular European values when they become the majority in the next 50 years.

To say, "Europe will resemble Europe" is not an answer; it's a tautology. How much will it resemble today's Europe? Will it resemble today's Europe more than it resembles today's Pakistan?

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 12:40 PM
If that's you point, then your point is irrelevant.

Actually, yes.

Actually, no. I'm not whining, that's your strawman.

Remind me to thank the Canadian police and government.

I know.


I'm studying your countries Counter-Terrorism-Reports right now:

source: http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/annual_report.asp

1993: Overall, the global security environment reflects a marked drop in superpower tensions and a reduction in traditional espionage activities which characterized the cold war era. Conversely, a rise in the number of conflicts involving nationalist, ethnic, religious and economic forces continues to pose a range of threats to Canadian security.

1993: With the growth abroad of extremist groups and incidents in the 1970s, international terrorism had become a significant concern from which Canada was clearly not immune. The 1982 assassination of a Turkish diplomat in Ottawa confirmed the point. So too did the attempted take-over of the Turkish Embassy in 1985. The greatest tragedy took place in June of that same year when an Air India aircraft, having departed Toronto, exploded in flight off the coast of Ireland, killing 329 people.

1994: Incidents of Islamic extremist violence continue to increase and have become more disquieting as they spill over into Western countries.


Sorry, Pardalis - Look's like the threat isn't new to Canadians - and even if Terrorism was also an "increasing threat" back in 1993, I see no reason to believe in your worries because you're telling nothing new. Same old business as before 9/11 ... exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

Pardalis
3rd July 2007, 12:45 PM
Yes there is a terrorism threat in Canada. Finally we agree.

Oliver
3rd July 2007, 12:48 PM
Yes there is a terrorism threat in Canada. Finally we agree.


Agreed. :D

Corsair 115
3rd July 2007, 07:53 PM
Do you have a "Counter terrorism-Federal Office" in Canada and could you link me to their official reports?Counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering duties used to be handled by the RCMP. But after a couple of high-profile cases of wrongdoings in their handling of certain investigations some decades back, such duties were stripped from them.

A new organization was then created to handle such tasks - it's called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS for short.

You can find the English language version of their web site here (http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/index.asp). Have a look around it - I'm sure you can probably dig up some reports on it.

Here, I'll even get you started. On this (http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/publications_terrorism.asp) page you can find a list of publications they have put together on terrorism-related matters.

ETA: I see now you've already found it.

Oliver
5th July 2007, 07:42 PM
*bump*

gumboot
5th July 2007, 08:12 PM
So why should I be more concerned about radical Muslims?


Because as a percentage of your population they're increasing dramatically. (And by "your population" I mean Europe's population).

85% of Europe's population increase is due to immigration, and the overwhelming majority of those are Muslims. In addition, if we look at the population increase due to the birth rate, the birth rate of European Muslims is triple that of non-Muslims. Do the math.

Finally, and here's probably one of the key points, Radical Islam is far more widespread than anyone is willing to accept. If the supposedly most moderate mainstream mosques in the UK are preaching extremism, there's a major problem.




And I don't even mention New Zealand here. Looks like the countries with the smallest groups of Muslims are the most concerned ones, according to Gumboot. :boggled:


New Zealand is not concerned at all. My view on this matter is quite different to that of my fellow countrymen.

-Gumboot

gumboot
5th July 2007, 08:22 PM
So? You seem to see this as a zero sum gain. It doesn't follow that western civ is declining because former colonies are wanting self-determination. Furthermore, since countries around the world are increasing adopting western language, clothing, science, entertainment, sports, political systems and ideologies, I'd say Western Civ's lock on the world is solid for a very long time. What do you see as Western Civilization?



By Western Civilisation I mean the fundamental values of Western Civilisation - free society, equality, liberalism, and so forth.

The independence of former western colonies is actually a product of western civilisation. But many of those nations are now rejecting those values. Look at Fiji for a prime example. There are countless others all over the Pacific, Africa, and Middle East.



So?


So I consider that a bad thing.



Umm no. Division in the west now is not anywhere near the levels it was during WW1 or WW2.

I disagree. Despite our conflicts, and despite the brief ugliness of Nazi Germany, the ideological values of our societies have been very similar. Now they're not. Liberals and conservatives are diverging into extremist positions.




Frankly, your position is "the sky is falling" and you show symptoms of "good ole days" syndrome.


The sky's not falling. It's changing, as it always does. The notion of "western civilisation is invincible" is stupid and wrong. All civilisations fall.

As for "good ole days" syndrome, I'm not old enough to have ant "good ole days". :p

I think right now are the "good ole days". I consider our current state more or less the height of western civilisation.

-Gumboot

Gurdur
5th July 2007, 08:31 PM
By Western Civilisation I mean the fundamental values of Western Civilisation - free society, equality, liberalism, and so forth.

The independence of former western colonies is actually a product of western civilisation.
Fascinating. You mean like, um, it's Western thinking that gave the former colonies independence, because, like, it was aliens who had taken them over in the first place and profited out of them in the first place?

Or like Mahatma Ghandi was such a paragon of Western thinking that he successfully led a national campaign, despite violence against him and his followers, against those UFO-aliens who were desperate to hold onto Empire?

Or was it a prime example of Western thinking that finally got Vietnam de-colonialised?

Those damn UFO-aliens, grabbing those colonies in the first place. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold_in_the_Congo)

And of course, the Amritsar Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar_Massacre) was carried out by those same UFO-aliens, while Western thinking opposed it!
________

Hint: face up to it, modern thinking owes just as much to East as to West, and to South as to North.

Oliver
5th July 2007, 08:36 PM
Because as a percentage of your population they're increasing dramatically. (And by "your population" I mean Europe's population).

85% of Europe's population increase is due to immigration, and the overwhelming majority of those are Muslims. In addition, if we look at the population increase due to the birth rate, the birth rate of European Muslims is triple that of non-Muslims. Do the math.

Finally, and here's probably one of the key points, Radical Islam is far more widespread than anyone is willing to accept. If the supposedly most moderate mainstream mosques in the UK are preaching extremism, there's a major problem.

New Zealand is not concerned at all. My view on this matter is quite different to that of my fellow countrymen.

-Gumboot


I'm aware of the birth-rates and that you may think that this automatically lead to a collapse of Europe some day. But until this will happen, there will be a lot of politics concerning overpopulation. Maybe with similar birth-restrictions as in china, you know: "For everyone".

So you think that muslims growing up and integrating themselves into the democratic system (Which pretty much most do), will suddenly change their mind and want some nutty, extreme, islamic Regime. :confused:

That would make a good laugh in the muslim communities here. :D
Why don't you ask someone in New Zealand who was born into your system?

And remember, Germany is more concerned about infiltration - so we might be more aware of this threat in contrast to what you said about Scientology.

gumboot
5th July 2007, 08:39 PM
Fascinating. You mean like, um, it's Western thinking that gave the former colonies independence, because, like, it was aliens who had taken them over in the first place and profited out of them in the first place?



No, of course not. You obviously missed the bit where I mentioned that western thinking naturally resulted in a progression of increased freedom and liberalism.

The Roman Empire retained its "colonies" for a thousand years. Most western colonies gained independence within a century or two of being conquered.




Or like Mahatma Ghandi was such a paragon of Western thinking that he successfully led a national campaign, despite violence against him and his followers, against those UFO-aliens who were desperate to hold onto Empire?


Western thinking meant he and his followers weren't exterminated the moment they resisted.




Or was it a prime example of Western thinking that finally got Vietnam de-colonialised?

Ever heard of an organisation called the UN?



Those damn UFO-aliens, grabbing those colonies in the first place. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold_in_the_Congo)

*yawn*



And of course, the Amritsar Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar_Massacre) was carried out by those same UFO-aliens, while Western thinking opposed it!


Actually the Amritsar Massacre was carried out by Indians against Indians. The westerners were the ones that came in afterwards and cleaned it all up. (I should know, my Great Grandfather was one of them).




Hint: face up to it, modern thinking owes just as much to East as to West, and to South as to North.


One of the great things about western culture is it gathers up everything from the cultures in comes into contact with and assimilates them into its own culture.

Much of the east is part of western civilisation.

-Gumboot

gumboot
5th July 2007, 08:45 PM
I'm aware of the birth-rates and that you may think that this automatically lead to a collapse of Europe some day. But until this will happen, there will be a lot of politics concerning overpopulation. Maybe with similar birth-restrictions as in china, you know: "For everyone".


I don't think anything will lead to a "collapse of Europe".




So you think that muslims growing up and integrating themselves into the democratic system (Which pretty much most do), will suddenly change their mind and want some nutty, extreme, islamic Regime. :confused:

No, I think a great chunk of them are not integrating themselves into a democratic system. Further, I think a smaller chunk of them are actively trying to deceive the west into thinking they are integrating. And indeed another chunk are taking advantage of the democratic system to undermine it.




That would make a good laugh in the muslim communities here. :D
Why don't you ask someone in New Zealand who was born into your system?


Ask them what?






And remember, Germany is more concerned about infiltration - so we might be more aware of this threat in contrast to what you said about Scientology.


I think the problem is we're all focused on infiltration by terrorists. That's not the real threat.

-Gumboot

Tony
5th July 2007, 09:12 PM
By Western Civilisation I mean the fundamental values of Western Civilisation - free society, equality, liberalism, and so forth.


Ok. I think it's much broader than that, but good.

The independence of former western colonies is actually a product of western civilisation.

Agreed.

But many of those nations are now rejecting those values.

What's the ratio of nations rejecting western values to the nations retaining those values? What are they rejecting western values in favor of?

Look at Fiji for a prime example.

What's happening in Fiji?

There are countless others all over the Pacific, Africa, and Middle East.

What countries?

So I consider that a bad thing.

It has the potential to be a bad thing, but I doubt every muslim born into europe in the next 100 years is likely to retain that identity.

I disagree. Despite our conflicts, and despite the brief ugliness of Nazi Germany, the ideological values of our societies have been very similar. Now they're not. Liberals and conservatives are diverging into extremist positions.

I don't think that justifies your disagreement. Division is never higher than when nations are at war with each other. There is no war, nor is there an immediate danger of war within the West at the moment. The same cannot be said in times past.

The sky's not falling. It's changing, as it always does. The notion of "western civilisation is invincible" is stupid and wrong.

I think the west has already conquered the world, I believe it's only a matter of time before "western civilization" becomes "human civilization". The two largest nations in the world are becoming more westernized every year.

I think right now are the "good ole days". I consider our current state more or less the height of western civilisation.

I strongly disagree.

Oliver
5th July 2007, 10:33 PM
I don't think anything will lead to a "collapse of Europe".

No, I think a great chunk of them are not integrating themselves into a democratic system. Further, I think a smaller chunk of them are actively trying to deceive the west into thinking they are integrating. And indeed another chunk are taking advantage of the democratic system to undermine it.

Ask them what?

I think the problem is we're all focused on infiltration by terrorists. That's not the real threat.

-Gumboot


Why do you have the impression that a great chunk doesn't integrate themselves - is this your experience in New Zealand? And why should a great chunk of Muslims in New Zealand dislike your democracy? :confused:

I'm sorry, but that's not my experience with Muslims who grew up here. They're a completely different Generation, also about traditional values that made it much harder for their parents to integrate when they came here.

I guess THEY should be scared to lose their traditional values instead we ours, don't you think? Because that's what happening. Oh, and they're much less religious than their parents. ;)

gumboot
6th July 2007, 05:14 AM
What's the ratio of nations rejecting western values to the nations retaining those values? What are they rejecting western values in favor of?


Good question.

For me these two maps are telling:

Governments that identify themselves as democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Claims_Of_Demoracy.png)

Nations classified as free by Freedom House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom_House_world_map_2007.png)




What's happening in Fiji?


Um... they've only had yet another coup d'etat. They've become increasingly aggressive towards New Zealand and Australia, have kicked out the New Zealand High Commissioner, and are refusing to allow various high profile Fijians to leave the country.

Fiji is now a military dictatorship.





What countries?


See the maps I posted for some examples of nations that claim to be democratic, but are not.





It has the potential to be a bad thing, but I doubt every muslim born into europe in the next 100 years is likely to retain that identity.


Neither do I. And let me be clear, I believe the threat is only from Radical Islam. The problem is, how many people practising Radical Islam does there need to be, before there's a problem?

And while most Muslims are not Radicals, most Muslims are also unwilling to take a strong stance against Radicals in their society.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"



I don't think that justifies your disagreement. Division is never higher than when nations are at war with each other. There is no war, nor is there an immediate danger of war within the West at the moment. The same cannot be said in times past.


I'm not entirely sure I agree. During times of war societies tend to bond together and put aside their differences in support of the common goal. During times of peace those differences fester and become focus points for social fracturing.

A typical WW2 American soldier probably has more in common with a typical WW2 German soldier than a hard core American left-winger has with a hardcore American right-winger.





I think the west has already conquered the world, I believe it's only a matter of time before "western civilization" becomes "human civilization". The two largest nations in the world are becoming more westernized every year.


I can't agree. And if history is anything to go by, western civilisation will collapse. The Goths were becoming more Roman every year up until the point that they sacked Rome.




I strongly disagree.


Fair enough. I'm glad we can discuss the topic. :)

-Gumboot