Richard Wiig

Richard, This isn't what you normally say. You normally say that the problem is Islam. You are on record countless times saying this. I know you are against those things (Islamism and Shariah) but you don't tie those things to Islam. In doing so you act as your own worst enemy. If the problem is not Islam, then Islam does not need reforming. The fact is, the problem is Islam. It is specifically Shariah and the political aspects of Islam that are the problem. They are as much a part of Islam as any benign part, and for you to pretend otherwise is less than honest. Do you really think that Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller, and myself for that matter, has a problem with any parts of Islam that are benign? You could only think that if you are ignorant of what they say, or if you havne't taken the time to truly understand what they say. If you are against Shariah and Islamic supremacism, then you are against those aspects of Islam that are causing the problems. The muslim faithfull who believe in and support those aspects of Islam would certainly class you as anti-Islam for your views. The politics are part of Islam. Unlike you, I do not sever them. I look at Islam for the whole that it is, rather than try to separate pieces and say this part is and this part isn't. You believe they would not object to building a mosque right next to Ground Zero? Even if it were spearheaded by a more benign person? Really? On what planet? Michael I don't believe a benign muslim would build a mosque right next to ground zero. I think a large number of people are sensitive to a mosque being built next to ground zero regardless of who's building it, and Mr Spencer and Pamela Geller would be just as sensitive. It's understandably an emotional thing. But in regards to not objecting to the building of mosques in general, absolutely, and they are on planet Earth. You dont' even read Robert Spencer, because you are so biased against him, yet you have him pegged. What he's fighting against is the aspects of Islam that are supremacist and opposed to, and a threat to, individual rights, equality before the law and between the sexes, freedom of conscience and speech, etc. All the things that you, supposedly, are fighting for. You need to look at yourself and see what it is that's messing with your ability to see clearly.

I once saw him offer to help--out of his own pocket--a Sufi lady build a mosque near ground zero. That's on tape. She would never do that, but Beck said if she wanted to, he was all for it. (As opposed to Rauf.) I wonder what Spencer or Geller would think about that... This makes me laugh. Jihadwatch has a muslim on its board, and Mr Spencer has muslim friends, and it wouldn't surprise me if Pamela Geller does to. They are not opposed to mosque building, nor to muslims, nor to Islam. They are opposed to Islamic supremacism and Shariah, a difference that you appear unable to fathom.

Meddlers. Not when it comes to the Iranian regime.

I'm a New Zealander, Adam.

Or more deadly, depending on what you've got. I don't think the victims really make the distinction that you do. Democracy doesn't necessarily equate to better at all. It just so happens that we live in times in the West when it is better, but that doesn't mean it will always remain so.

Yes, except there is not one thing I've proposed that is even remotely fascist, let alone goes against the principles of individual rights.

You talk of democracy, Adam, as if it is a good thing. Democracy doesn't equate to freedom, or to a freedom movement. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/crisis-in-egypt/poll-shows-egyptians-favour-democracy-and-stoning-for-adultery/article1892414/

I do wonder if Glen Beck is a bigot. He's saying nothing other than what the likes of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have been drawing to peoples attention for years.

Yes, paint my position as one of nazism. Good one, Joel.

LOL

Yes, but you are just plain wrong on the bigotry. There is no bigotry in clearly identifying what's at war with us.

Yes, we do don't we. As for the second, it's the opposite that should scare you. The proper function of government is the defence of individual rights, but it can't function in that duty if it's permeated with politically correct language designed to obscure and hide the threat.

Thankyou for the link.

what is yours? How do you recommend eliminating the threat of I-fundamentalism? Yes, Daunce, his approach is entirely absent. He keeps stating what aim - to pursuade muslims rationally - and the ideas he believes, but not how he'd actually go about it or why those ideas will work. Here's some things I'd do, in no particular order or priority. 1. Properly identify the enemy and make it explicit at a government level. 2. Educate the wider population as to the full nature of what we are facing so that no one is left in the dark. 3. Set up a department to work closely with Imams and Clerics in the west who want to fight Shariah supremacists and their violent co-religionists. 4. Provide protection and support to anyone who wants to leave Islam. (and for the likes of Molly Norris - it's a crime that she's been left in the wilderness) 5. Set certain conditions for mosques to meet in order to monitor for radical activity. 6. Place restrictions on Muslim immigration, and on the building of any new mosques in the West, to be lifted on the lifting of restrictions in Islamic countries. 7. Use the military wherever necessary, such as against Irans nuclear sites. 8. If any mosque does turn out to be a sanctuary for radical activity, close it down. There's a few for starters. I haven't seen one concrete step from Michael yet, other than to say he'd use reason on the good guys. Well that's fine, reason is of course essential, but I wanted to see the steps he'd take in employing it.

Dear Michael, I did not mean your reply was really absent! I have read the whole thread. I just wanted Infidel to state his own "solution". You didn't need to take the trouble, but thanks. I note that this thread now has 666 views, aaargh, the Number of the Beast! I see what you mean by on/off button now. That's the last thing I expect. Anyway, in all of that you've given me nothing practical whatsoever. I still know know your strategy for combatting the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. There's zero specifics in that post, even though Daunce seems to have accepted it as an adequate answer. What you've said is that you'll teach the good muslims how wrong the bad muslims are. Just how Islamically wrong are the bad Muslims?

Richard, You got that right. I keep saying (I don't know how many times now), but you keep asking as if I haven't. That's why I conclude you are blind to people thinking for themselves. There's not many other explanations for that many times ignoring it. Michael You may have outlined your plan somewhere, but you haven't directly to me. If I have to trawl to find it, then it's just a case of you being difficult, and I really do not understand why. You've said you'll reason with muslims, that much I have picked up, but I'm looking for your specifics. Do you have any?

I got an on/off button? I don't understand. Why can't you just direct me to your approach to combatting Islamic fundamentalism. I'm in sincerely interested in how you'd approach it.

I haven't the foggiest notion where you're coming from there. You've talked of persuading the 93% to reject the 7%. All I've asked is what's your plan for achieving that and you ramble on about crowd control games. If that's what you think I stand for, then you don't understand me. In fact, I know you don't understand me. Anyway, you tell me it's about intellectually pointing across points. Well, that's stating the obvious. What I want to know is what points you are going to put across in order to persuade people? Richard, This is totally wrong. I'm not in the crowd control game.

I don't want anything of the sort. I'd merely like to know what your solution is. I haven't seen this on another thread, and I don't even know what thread you are refering to. If you could provide a link, or name the thread, I would appreciate it.

Bob, That's not what I said--by a long shot. I said we should try to encourage the moderate 93% to turn on the violent fundamentalists and reject them. Not "nicely talk them out of it." And I said that the military should handle the force part. As an added thought, I said that this was a good goal for intellectual warfare--and far more effective than antagonizing moderates with bigoted statements.. The problem with haters is that they can't read correctly. Your spiteful manner even got me to not read you correctly as a reaction to you. Go back and read what I wrote--in the proper context--if you are truly interested in what I said. Michael But it is the consequences of what you said. You say that the majority should be persuaded to turn against the tiny minority of extremists (and why aren't they turning on them already if their values are so opposed to the extremists) but without using words or ideas - such as Bobs "bigoted" ones - that might offend them. Tell me, do you know what will and won't offend a muslim and why? Should people who are not as smart or knowledgeable or sensitive towards the feelings of Muslims as you are, remain silent lest they offend the muslims and ruin the chances of persuading them? I'm keen to hear your plan.

Michael said: There's a much smarter way of doing things. I asked: What is the solution to the problem? Michael said: Why not try to get the other 93% to turn on the 7%? That will do some real damage--and you don't even have to get the whole 93%. Just the public voices of that 93%. The rest will follow. I asked: It's not actually 93%, because there's a whole segment that sympathises without actually supporting the tactics. They support the cause and ultimate goal. But anyway, whatever percentage it is that might be persuaded, how do you propose to persuade them? I'm very interested in hearing your plan.

Not everyone. But everyone has been treating this as if it were spontaneous.

There's a much smarter way of doing things. What is solution to the problem? Why not try to get the other 93% to turn on the 7%? That will do some real damage--and you don't even have to get the whole 93%. Just the public voices of that 93%. The rest will follow. It's not actually 93%, because there's a whole segment that sympathises without actually supporting the tactics. They support the cause and ultimate goal. But anway, whatever percentage it is that may be persuaded, how do you propose to persuade them?

The reason for the quotes is to make it easier to maintain the context, which is a very important thing to do. That you can't follow the posts, which are certainly not long or hard to fathom, because they have a few quotes in them, says more about you than anything else. It's actually very convenient for you - it helps you to maintain your unjust treatment of people.

This quote is what I just wrote to Bob. It was good for the three-and-a-half hours it lasted. Gotta withdraw it, though. (Man, I hate bigotry.) Michael Tell me what's bigoted about that. Seriously, enlighten me and everyone else who wants to know. How would you describe people who overtly agree that 911 was completely justified. That's who these people are. Seriously now, enlighten me. Bob There's nothing bigoted about that. Michael obviously thinks you should be polite about drooling jihad freaks.