Richard Wiig

A mess, without a doubt.

It doesn't beat the guitar intro to Steely Dan's Reeling in the Years.

The Hellion. Best damn guitar intro to a song in the entire universe! Pretty much my favourite song of all time when I was growing up. (Still like it!)

Not sure if I can warm to that version, Jules, although I can't say I disliked it. I'm a big N.Y. fan, apart from his loony lefty, enviro-wacko beliefs. To keep with the thread title, perhaps this song is anti-life. Or, perhaps not. The lyrics don't make it clear. Anyway, I love this song regardless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frtJQFe9apw/p>

One of my favourite caterwauling songs from many many moons ago.

If only a Western leader had the courage to say the same things that Al-Sisi is saying.

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/in-the-media/we-are-in-need-of-a-religious-revolution/

It is certainly a non-sequiteur, but that doesn't mean that the man who asks it isn't a mystic or a savage. It all comes down to whether there is honesty or dishonesty behind the question.

The question "Why does anything exist" can be quite honestly asked, But it is a futile unanswerable question. Any question that has an answer requires the existence of some domain from which the answer flows. If anything exists then something must exist and there is no why.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It can be honestly asked for sure, but it can't be honestly sustained. My experience, generally, with Christians faced with contradictions in their beliefs is that they revert to "Who are we to know God". I haven't really found a fully honest Christian yet. It seems to be the same pretty much with Socialists. Their evasion might not constitute the act of a savage, but it does ultimately lead to the ascension of savagery. It would help to determine just what it takes to be a savage.

In 1962 Nathaniel Branden wrote:

"This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence."

No, this is the mentality of the honestly philosophically ignorant dealing with a non-obvious and difficult series of ideas. Branden's is the mentality of the religioso and cultist who attempts to intellectually intimidate and silence the innocent and good by wildly unjustly calling them "mystics" and "savages". Branden is immorally attempting to cut off discussion and debate in mindless and malicious fealty to the cultist version of the philosophy of Objectivism. And even 52 years later, and from the grave -- he's doing a really good job of it.

It is certainly a non-sequiteur, but that doesn't mean that the man who asks it isn't a mystic or a savage. It all comes down to whether there is honesty or dishonesty behind the question.

Philosophy and powerful thinkers rule the world.

Greed, fear and the urge to merge rule the world.

--Brant

my asseveration is as such as valid as yours and maybe even more defensible

Kyrel is right, and so was Ayn Rand. Philosophy and powerful thinkers do rule the world. Greed and fear is nothing, other than something to be guided by philosophy.

Richard, you need to reset and think of relations of one country to another. A country's foreign policy: what should it be? You have two workable perspectives. One is Australia and the other the United States. I've been working the latter. Not being an Aussie I cannot get specific enough about what Australia needs to do to protect itself. That's your job, if you want it, as an Australian. Geert in Denmark represents much the same thing with Denmark replacing Australia. Etc.

Although, Geert Wilders, doesn't think that way. He sees it as a global issue and he acts globally.

"As I said, our leaders still refuse to defend our freedoms because they are either cowards or appeasers. This is why the task of defending freedom has now fallen on us. On you, on me, on ordinary citizens.

To this end, I have established the International Freedom Alliance IFA."

"IFA aims to be a network of resistance fighters in all the countries threatened by Islam."

but we'll clobber fascists as fascists when they crawl out of their holes with the greatest of ease if we're allowed to do so. Whack-a-mole.

You have my respect for what you've done and where you've been, it doesn't change the reality though. Islam is fascist. That is a bare-naked fact, and responding to it defensively isn't to fight a religious war. It's to defend liberty.

It's a simply Now, as an Australian, what are Australia's problems with Islam and what might Australia and Australians do?

To the extent that any problems are universal, they don't just apply to Australia. Australia is wrestling with the exact same things they are in New Zealand, in Canada, in France, etc. We all can learn from each other.

It seems you've been writing as a citizen of the world respecting Islam but the world is not a country and has no foreign policy or army.

As someone who values freedom. That isn't country specific, and neither is Islam country specific.

The Caliphate--not the religion.

The Caliphate is a religious imperative.

They want a country to fight for being young, ignorant and stupid.

They want Islam to be united and strong, headed by a Caliph. In Islamic law only a legitimate Caliph can all Muslims to war. That is one of the aims the jihadists are working towards. They want the Ummah to unite and put an end to Dar al-Harb for good. This is what they're aiming for. It is a religious imperative, and they work for it across a broad front, overt and covert.

You might find this an interesting read. It was written ten years ago, and so far what was predicted has all come to pass.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/exposed-obama-helped-decade-old-plan-to-create-is/

A good Muslim (which implies a bad person) follows the teachings and example of Muhammad, including the contradictions. Muslims are not required to be logically consistent.

The average Muslim relies on Islamic scholars to tell them what is halal and haram. Islamic scholars have used the doctrine of abrogation to overcome contradictions. So, when Allah told Muhammad one thing, and it is later contradicted by another, it is the latter that has authority.

Excuse me. Go right ahead and criticize Muhammad, the bandit and little girl fucker. He ain't listening. He's 1400 years dead. You go tell the Muslims for the good it does you or them.I don't give a shit. Go to the mosques and tell them. And since I'm an atheist I'm going to church on Sunday and laugh at Jesus for saying, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone." Then we'll stand back and watch these two religions fall down on top of each other (if we make it out alive).

If I have misrepresented you then it's because I haven't understood you. I don't want to misrepresent you. I'll make an effort to read you correctly. Likewise, your comment above misrepresents me. I am not about going to the mosques and hounding Muslims. That Muhammad wasn't a nice guy is simply a fact. It's a fact that I think should be widely known amongst non-muslims and not hidden.

thanks for distorting and misrepresenting what I've been saying: note I've been advocating kicking--really kicking--ISIS ass, but you're only into talking--I

No. I advocate really kicking the Islamic States ass too. I'd go further and decimate Iran's nuclear facilities.

don't care enough about Islam to hardly even think about it (and while George wrote a great book on atheism I never would have if I could have [not as well as he did, for sure])

Fair enough. You don't care enough about Islam to look at it, but that doesn't mean other's are like you. They do care, and do look at it, and they do not like what they find.

P.S. I'm not quite sure just in what way I've distorted what you've said? Do you mean my voluntary submission blasphemy law comment?

You can say you are fighting fascism rather than Islam all you like, but every muslim who knows what Muhammad and Allah wants will know that you are fighting Islam. Go and smash the brothers in Iraq and Syria, but do so knowing that there are millions of muslims around the world who will think of you as an enemy of Islam.

That's their problem.

It is your problem. You are telling critics of Islam that they shouldn't criticise Islam by pointing out that Muhammad was a pedophile or a "bandit prophet" because it radicalises muslims who would otherwise remain peaceful, but here you are criticising Islam. You've been making efforts to say that it's fascism, not Islam, that is the problem, but you're not able to maintain that fiction.

I haven't prejudged existence. I look at the real world. We don't live in the abstract. The real world is brimming with collectivist, tribalist mentalities, with desires and urges that are anything but freedom loving or good. It's true to say that Islamic theology won't inevitably make jihadists of all people, or inevitably turn a person into a jihadist. Certainly not everyone will choose it. Perhaps the majority will not choose it. But that isn't what you said. It is inevitably going to find targets and mould them like putty.

The problem is presupposing that the Islamic sacred writings must inevitably produce terrorists. They don't.

I think that statement can only hold true in a world where everyone is an individualist who desires individualism and individual rights. But that world doesn't exist. There are literally millions who don't desire those things, who in fact desire the opposite, who choose and love mysticism, collectivism and whatever collectivist cause suits their need. I think it is inevitable that when psychopaths, pedophiles, power-lusters, and other misfits and deviants find a theology that gives sanction to their desires, they will latch onto it.

The animals in the below video have found plenty of sanction. Islamic theology encourages them and urges them on. And what a terrible place to be if you're in the middle of that, and you have doubts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVISyjFwXAU

You can say you are fighting fascism rather than Islam all you like, but every muslim who knows what Muhammad and Allah wants will know that you are fighting Islam. Go and smash the brothers in Iraq and Syria, but do so knowing that there are millions of muslims around the world who will think of you as an enemy of Islam.

Richard is holding the wrong end of the stick. You are both conflating jihad with Muslims generally. I think we'd get clarity if we specify what's to be done with 1.3 billion Muslims. Me? Nothing. Jihadists? Kill them where you find them. As to psychological warfare? Be careful. You may create more of what you hate. Telling Muslims Mohammed had sex with a 9 yo girl isn't necessarily wise. Etc. Targeting members of a faith for being members of a faith because some use it for terrible purposes has a tendency to radicalize other members. War with a 1.3 billion people pool is not winable if not unending. A secular state needs to wage secular war against secular forces hiding behind a religion. Jihadists are murderous, tyrannical fascists. They want the Richards of the world to help them recruit. These Richards are the jihadists "useful idiots." That's why this thread is on The Garbage Pile. Michael isn't supporting this approach and calls it bigotry. I guarantee if it keeps up he'll do more than that. He won't pay for the platform for such animadversion upon comparatively innocent people. In the meantime, maybe you can see the light. The "humanitarian" won't. He's been doing this stuff for years and years on SOLO with little attention to anything else.

--Brant

I see this as a recipe for the downfall of Western civilisation.

Richard is holding the wrong end of the stick. You are both conflating jihad with Muslims generally.

What are you saying here? We know that not all muslims are jihadists, but we also know that jihadists come from, and live within, the Muslim community. So what does that mean in regards to determining who is and who isn't a jihadist? You want to kill the jihadists. Fine, but dealing with them on the battlefield, once they are overtly out there, is relatively easy. You see them, you take aim, you fire. What about before then? What about the covert, the surreptitious, the deceitful? Should this be a concern, and how do you deal with it without upsetting the Muslim community as a whole? Or is it of no concern?

I think we'd get clarity if we specify what's to be done with 1.3 billion Muslims. Me? Nothing.

I agree, do nothing with them. The 1.3 billion Muslims are not the issue. The Jihadists and their supporters within our respective countries is the issue, along with any openly hostile groups such as the Islamic State.

Jihadists? Kill them where you find them.

As I said, fine, but again, what about the ones you cannot see who are acting within your nation, on a much more subtle level than in your face brutality.

As to psychological warfare? Be careful. You may create more of what you hate. Telling Muslims Mohammed had sex with a 9 yo girl isn't necessarily wise. Etc.

In other words, stop speaking truth and appease. Appeasement is no way to defend values.

Targeting members of a faith for being members of a faith because some use it for terrible purposes has a tendency to radicalize other members.

Speaking truths cannot honestly be characterised as targeting members of a faith for being members of a faith. You are saying that the West must muzzle itself lest those who don't like what they hear get even angrier and become jihadists. We should voluntarily act as if we live under Sharia blasphemy laws.

War with a 1.3 billion people pool is not winable if not unending. A secular state needs to wage secular war against secular forces hiding behind a religion. Jihadists are

murderous, tyrannical fascists. They want the Richards of the world to help them recruit.

They don't make recruits by pointing to people like me. I don't say anything that they don't say themselves. They make recruits by appealing to a muslims commitment to his religion and by convincing him that this is what Muhammad and Allah wants from him. By convincing him that, here is the true Islam. They do this by reference to Islamic theology. Not by reference to me, or anyone like me.

These Richards are the jihadists "useful idiots."

The useful idiots are the ones who are mired in PC relativism and so do all they can to sever the link between Jihad and Islamic theology. In other words, people who work to ensure we all remain ignorant. Obama and Cameron are both prime examples.

Thanks, Mike.

" You are both conflating jihad with Muslims generally."

A false statement if ever there was one.

Great job at persuasion.

Michael

I of course wasn't trying to persuade anyone.

I'm only talking about Richard's approach to the subject. It's all he's about. Boring. You don't free Muslims from their oppressive religion by pointing out how nonsensical it is. It was spread by the sword and they are oppressed by the sword. The only way to help them is to beat up on sundry Islamic countries when terrorism comes out their doors. It's also known as self defense, not their defense except as a happy(?) consequence. Not much knowledge of their religion is needed. That's what happened to Nazi Germany--not a Muslim country. The German's paid a terrible price for Hitler. Not much knowledge of Nazism was required. Telling 1930s Germans how bad Nazism was would have done not a whit of good. You have to fight the right country in the right way of course. It doesn't have to be military action. Iraq circa 2003 was a stupid and costly joke.

Every thread that starts out about Muslims and their religion deserves immediate placement in the Garbage Pile because of Richard. It's no justice to a thread starter to wait until he posts on it. Know it going in. Either that or ban the guy according to the site owner's moral metric.

--Brant

You make me think of those anti-smut campaigners who, when they see a television channel they think might have smut on it, rather than go to another channel, dive in with relish and then proceed to tell everyone else how they need to be protected from the smut that they've found. Another thing that stands out to me, Brant, is that you seem to prefer all out war over nipping it in the bud before things ever get to that point. In that other thread Michael says it's preposterous to say that the mainstream doesn't address Jihadist ideology. It isn't preposterous. The only ones who are addressing it are the counter jihadists, and they're all being denounced as bigoted Islamophobes, of which Geert Wilders is a prime example. The mainstream twist themselves into knots to sever any connection between Jihadists and Islam. That, of course, is going to ensure all out war. It certainly won't nip anything in the bud. I posted Geert Wilders speech simply because I thought it was a rousing call to freedom that was worth the read. It should move the heart of any freedom lover.

Dear friends,

I am happy to be in Copenhagen again.
It is always a pleasure to return to this wonderful city – the home of my good friend and fellow freedom fighter, the Danish hero Lars Hedegaard.
It is always a privilege to be in the capital of the brave Danish people.
And it is always an honor to be a guest of your great organization.
The Danish Free Press Society is a beacon of light. For Denmark, for Scandinavia, for the whole of Europe, and for the entire West. Your staunch defense of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, serves as an inspiration for many, including myself and my party.
On a moment like this, when the free world is in mortal danger, an organization such as the Danish Free Press Society is needed more than ever.

Exactly ten years ago, today, my fellow countryman Van Gogh fell as a martyr of free speech.
I remember that morning very well. The press came to my office to ask for a reaction, but hardly anyone could believe that what had happened was really true. We all realized that the Netherlands would never be the same again. Unfortunately few lessons have been learned since that horrible day in 2004.

Islam claims that Muhammad was a prophet. But Muhammad was not a prophet; Theo van Gogh was a prophet.
Van Gogh saw what was coming. He spoke out forcefully against the danger of Islamization.
He had also just made a short movie, together with my then colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali, about the plight of women in Islamic society. The movie was called "Submission."
That is why he was murdered. His assassination should have been an alarm bell.

Van Gogh warned us in a strong language, as clear as the colors that his great-granduncle Vincent used when painting his landscapes.
He was a brave man. When he realized the danger of Islam, he did not run like a coward.
He would have hated to see how our freedom of speech has been restricted in the ten years since his death.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, the more Islam we get, the less free our societies become. Not only because of the islamization but also because of the weak appeasers who call themselves politicians.

We are no longer allowed to crack jokes or draw cartoons if Islam feels insulted by it.
If you do so, your life is in danger, as Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks can testify. You might even get arrested, as happened a few years ago with the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot.
Sure, the charges against Nekschot were later dropped. But if you value your life and if you prefer to avoid trouble, it is better not to do anything that might remotely insult Islam.

We are no longer allowed to tell statistical truths, as Lars Hedegaard experienced, when he referred to rape figures in Islamic families.
A murderer came to Lars's door and the state authorities persecuted him for so-called hate speech. Sure, the Supreme Court eventually acquitted Lars. But if you value your life and if you prefer to avoid trouble, it is better to keep quiet.

We are no longer allowed to refer to scientific and historical research, as my friend, the brave Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, experienced.
In a seminar on the historical figure of Muhammad, she mentioned that he had a crush on little girls and had sex with a 9-year old. That is the truth.
But Elisabeth was convicted, and her conviction was even upheld by the Appeals court. Once again, it is better to remain silent if you want to avoid trouble.

But Theo van Gogh did not remain silent. And neither did Kurt and Lars and Elisabeth and Robert and the Danish Free Press Society, and my party, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, and so many other freedom fighters in the West.

We speak out. We will never be silent. Because we love our country. Because we love our freedom. Because we refuse to live in slavery.
Because we believe that without liberty, life is not worth living.
Liberty and human dignity, that is what we stand for.
We are the torchbearers for freedom. We are the torchbearers for democracy.
We are the torchbearers for a civilization that is far superior than any other civilization on earth.

Last Summer, my home town, The Hague, witnessed scenes which brought back memories of the darkest period in our history, the Nazi era.
Sympathizers of the Islamic State paraded in our streets. They carried swastikas, they carried the black flags of ISIS. They shouted "Death to the Jews."
Instead of rounding up these hatemongers, the authorities did nothing.

When we warn against Islam, the authorities call it hate speech and bring us to court. But when the grim forces of hatred march down our streets, the police look on and do not interfere. It is a disgrace. It is a scandal. It is intolerable.

Islam is waging a war against the free West.
Indeed, we are at war. Only fools can deny it. Islam has declared war on us.

America and its allies are currently bombing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

Excellent.

My party supports this offensive. I am glad that Dutch and Danish F16s participate in it and that our two nations stand shoulder to shoulder in this endeavor. We should liquidate Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi and the other criminals who are leading the Islamic State.

But we have to do more than that.
Far more important than fighting Islamic State abroad, is the fight to preserve our own security in our own countries, in the Netherlands, in Denmark, in all the other European and Western countries. It is our homes that we must defend.
It is just to bomb the Islamic State in the Middle East. But our first priority must be to protect our own nations, our own freedoms, our own people, our own children, here, at home.

Recently, the Dutch authorities prevented some forty jihadis to leave our country, when they attempted to go to Syria to fight in the ranks of ISIS. Their passports were seized and they were sent home instead of jailed. These criminals now walk our streets and make them unsafe.

You may have heard that the jihadis who recently murdered soldiers in Canada were also people whom the authorities had previously prevented to leave for Syria and who were not arrested but allowed to go free on the street.

Blocking the exodus of those who want to wage Jihad elsewhere and not detain them is sheer stupidity.
Keeping them here as free people means that they will hit us here.
We must hasten their exit instead of preventing it. But we must never allow them to return. Therefore, we must reinstate national border controls.

Nothing is more important than first protect our own countries from the Jihadis.
Let us restore our liberties, such as freedom of speech.
Let us defend our culture. Let us protect our people.
Let us make our nations free and safe again.
Let us be brave.
That is what we must do; that is our duty.

Let me ask you: Do our authorities actually do this?
Unfortunately not.
They fail to do their duty.
They fail to act accordingly.
They even lie to us.

Everyday, we hear Western leaders repeat the sickening mantra that Islam is a religion of peace.
Whenever an atrocity is committed in the name of Islam, whenever someone is beheaded in Syria or Iraq, Barack Obama, David Cameron, my own Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and many of their colleagues rush to the television cameras to tell the world that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. How stupid can you be.

Fortunately, the eyes of ever more people are opening to this reality.
In my country, a poll last June, showed that 65% of the Dutch are convinced that the Islamic culture does not belong to the Netherlands.
In France, 74% find Islam incompatible with French society.
In Britain, fewer than one in four think that following Islam is compatible with a British way of life. In Germany, over two thirds of the population think negatively about Islam.
Even in the Czech Republic, a country with hardly any Islamic population, almost two-thirds consider Islam a threat to society and 90% are afraid of it. And in Denmark 92% of your citizens believe Muslim immigrants should adopt Danish customs.

With every new terrorist crime, with every new attack, with every new beheading, it becomes clear to ever more people what the true nature of Islam is.

With every Islamic assault on our values, more and more people realize that Islam wants to conquer the world, that it is prepared to kill or enslave anyone who refuses to submit. And that it is ready to commit the biggest atrocities to achieve this goal.

My friends, we are gathered here today, because we are neither prepared to collaborate with evil, nor to appease it.
We say No to Islamic censorship. And No to the politicians who fail us.

During the past ten years, I have been living under constant police protection.
As you know, I am not the only one who has to live through this ordeal. Several people in this room are in the same situation. Our friends Lars and Kurt even came to stand eye to eye with fanatics who tried to slaughter them.

Of course – I repeat it wherever I go – of course, there are many moderate Muslims. I believe in moderate people, but I do not believe in a moderate Islam. There is only one Islam – the Islam of the Koran, the Hadith and the life of Muhammad, who was a terrorist and a warlord.

But even though there are many moderate Muslims, it is wrong to think that the moderates are a majority. They are not. A poll in the Netherlands gave shocking results. It is hard to believe, but almost three quarters of the Muslims in my country say that Dutch Muslims who go and fight in Syria are heroes. Can you believe it? Heroes!
And over two thirds of the Islamic population in the Netherlands consider the religious rules of Islam to be more important than our own democratic laws.
Equally terrifying was an article yesterday in the Dutch press stating that Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh, is still considered a hero today by hundreds of Dutch Muslims.

A few years ago, I called on Muslims to liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, to choose for freedom. I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. So, I told them "Free yourselves. Leave Islam." I still stand by this appeal. But this does not blind me to the present reality.

You may have heard that I will probably be brought to court again soon.
Three years ago, I was taken to court on hate crime charges. The court case lasted almost two years. Fortunately, I was acquitted.
But now, the Dutch judiciary is going after me again because I asked Dutch voters whether they want more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.

Moroccans are the largest Islamic population group in the Netherlands. In The Netherlands the Moroccan problem is the problem of Islam.
I referred to Moroccans, not because I have anything against Moroccans but because they are overrepresented in the Dutch crime and welfare statistics. They also account for three quarters of all Dutch Muslims who leave for Syria to wage jihad. No-one in the Netherlands wants more Moroccans.

As I said, our leaders still refuse to defend our freedoms because they are either cowards or appeasers. This is why the task of defending freedom has now fallen on us. On you, on me, on ordinary citizens.

To this end, I have established the International Freedom Alliance IFA.
We want IFA to be the shield of all those who refuse to submit to Islamic tyranny.
The mission of IFA is to stop the Islamization of non-Islamic countries and to fight for the preservation of our freedom and democracy.

We want to stand firm. We want to preserve our civilization for our children and grandchildren. Because there is nothing more precious than liberty and freedom. But it has a price. And the price can be high. Sometimes a man must give all he can.

Our political leaders may fail us. But we, my friends, we will not fail.
There is a path we shall never choose, and that is the path of submission.
This is why we say: Yes to freedom! No to tyranny!

IFA aims to be a network of resistance fighters in all the countries threatened by Islam.

Friends, I have good news from the Netherlands.

Today, the popularity of my party, the Party for Freedom, is at a high. An opinion poll published this morning shows that we have by far become the largest party in the Netherlands, with almost 20 per cent of the vote. 1 out of 5 Dutchmen would vote PVV today.

The policies that we stand for are also getting more popular than ever.
We want to stop all immigration from Islamic countries.
We want to stimulate voluntary re-emigration to Islamic countries.
We want to expel all criminals with dual citizenship and deprive them of their Dutch nationality.
We want to de-islamize our nation.

Dear Friends, there is a lot of work to do. We, the defenders of freedom and security, have an historic duty.

Our generation has been entrusted with a huge task: To oppose Islam and keep the flame of liberty burning.

I say it without exaggeration: the future of human civilization depends on us. Now is a time when everyone in the West must do his duty. We are writing history here.

So, let us do our duty.
Let us stand with a happy heart and a strong spirit.
Let us go forth with courage and save freedom!

Thank you.

http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php/94-english/1890-geert-wilders-speech-danish-free-press-society-copenhagen-2-11-2014

I suppose if you're from Australia, a militarily insignificant country, it's easier to think of fighting jihad as fighting people instead of countries.

--Brant

I think of it as combating an ideology. It is futile fighting people in any country if the ideology is never to be addressed. In the Fountainhead, Gail Wynand, ended up perplexed and bewildered when he realised what little power he actually had. The West is going down the plughole. Throw all the bombs and troops into Iraq that you want, while going into greater and greater debt, but it won't save anyones bacon.

Michael, wouldn't a better appellation be "prejudiced" as in "prejudiced against"? It's hard to introspect as to whether one is a "bigot." Bigot implies a more general negative reflection on character than prejudiced. It's a conclusion so final as to imply it's beyond redemption. Bigot is worse for that reason. If by your standards as stated Richard is a bigot you can also say he's prejudiced. Since you only know him--I hope--for this one prejudice how can you dump him into the deeper can except to grab everyone's attention? (Could be a valid point but also just wrong.)

--Brant

I wouldn't class myself as prejudiced either. I certainly have trust issues with the Muslim community in general in regards to the discourse about Islamic supremacism, but I don't think that means prejudice. I don't prejudge any muslim. I wait until I hear what they have to say. That doesn't mean I don't generalise. Generally, the Muslim leaders keep making excuses for the supremacists. There was another clear example of this on last nights Q & A program here in Australia. It happens time and time again. I certainly make a judgement on that, which is after the fact. In raising this it doesn't mean I am trying to spread hate. So far as I am concerned, Michael is nothing but a bully.

It's not that I say bad things about Islam, it's the way I say it that Michael doesn't like.

Nope.

It's not a matter of taste. It's looking at words and actions, not just words. I judge people by what they say, but I judge them much more by what they do.

When someone ONLY shows up to bash within the confines of a specific topic, and he ONLY has the same bashing view that he regurgitates over and over, and if you let him, he will post a gazillion times a day saying the same damn thing from different angles, there is more going on than critique or a discussion of ideas.

That's bigotry.

I haven't read past here. You assume that my primary reason is to bash, but that isn't me. My primary reason is to defend liberty. My interest in Islam started on 9/11, prior to which I didn't give a damn about it, and still wouldn't if it wasn't for what is going on with it. The reason I bang on about it is because I think it is important that people wake up to it, because I think the threat is being massively underestimated. That can only end in disaster for us if people don't wake up. As for my deeds. You do not know them. My posts here are such a tiny slice of my life.

Is there a religion that is not based on submission?

I don't think that's relevant if the focus is Islam, unless it's to highlight any differences.

Really?

And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

I did say, "if Islam is the issue". The reason is because large numbers of its followers are at war with the rest of the world. They explicitly state that they are going to bring the West down, so to my mind that makes it important to determine what sets Islam apart from the rest so that the enemy can be fully understood so that a proper defence can be made. Exercises in equivalence do not achieve that. They serve to hamper that.