.....from "P1SS OFF ISLAM BOARD",

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2009 at 8:33am:

".....Freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc only works if you can trust people to think for themselves. I think we can."

FD,

No we can't FD, no we can't !!!!

Trust me!       




FD,

Q.
Why do intelligent ppl such as yourself, want to keep insisting that ISLAM, is a religion?

A.
Because muslims say that ISLAM is - a religion ????????










+++++++











FD,

Why, why, why, can't supposedly rational people work this out?

i.e.
APPLY THE SAME 'CRITERIA' TO ISLAM, TO UNDERSTAND,
.....TO DEFINE, WHAT ISLAM IS.





Religion is the 'vehicle', which ISLAM the political philosophy, uses to approach its victims.

e.g.
The muslim mantra is.....






Wake up sleepers!!!






But ISLAM, is not a 'religion' at all.

Dictionary,
religion = =
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Ø a particular system of faith and worship.
2 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Typically, 'religion' is understood to be the devotion to, and the worship of, a God.




Calling yourself a 'religion', is not a justification for the murder of all who would resist your WORLDLY, POLITICAL influence.

'Religion', is not a justification to use your professed belief in

'Allah the most merciful'

to slaughter those who would live outside of your worldly influence.

ISLAM is not a religion, it is a political ideology focused intently on the generation of hate, towards, and against, anyone who demonstrates any resistance to its influence.

ISLAM is a political ideology.






If a group of Nazis arrived in Australia and said,



They would be laughed out of the arrvial terminal, and placed in detention, until they could be returned, from where they came.

We should treat ISLAM exactly the same.

ISLAM, for all intents [literally!], and purposes [literally!], IS a political party.

Why, can't supposedly rational ppl see that?i

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2009 at 7:01pm:


FD,

Yes.

I agree with freedom of speech for all, especially for devout muslims!      

After all, they are sometimes their own worst enemies - when they are being very candid,
.....[but that occurs usually when they think that they are speaking only among themselves.        ].



Quote:



I agree, freedom of speech [for all, including for muslims] is our best defence.





FD,

What i argue for additionally, is that if we already know in large measure, what ISLAM is about,
....i.e. that it is a fascist political philosophy which uses lies, deception, and violence,
....then shouldn't ISLAM be proscribed [banned], for what it encourages, and for what ISLAM's 'religious' texts plainly promote ?






EXAMPLES OF BEHAVIOUR WHICH SHOULD BE CENSURED [OUTLAWED!]














Why aren't these THUGS rotting in an English goal!?

n.b. This last image does not display muslims engaging in 'freedom of speech',
....some of those placards are promoting incitement to murder!







Of the activities displayed in the previous images, only this last bombing was a 'proscribed' activity.

Why?





01/05/2007
In documents seen by The Daily Telegraph, al-Muhajiroun claimed: "Terrorism is a part of Islam" and "Allah made it obligatory to prepare and to terrify the enemy of Allah".
The article advised: "The kuffar of USA and UK are without doubt our enemy.There is no such thing as an innocent kafir, innocence is only applicable for the Muslims. Not only is it obligatory to fight them, it is haram [forbidden] to feel sorry for them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/01/nplot901.xml

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 4:21pm:




So it is OK to publicly broadcast incitement to murder?

You think that promoting incitement to murder is free speech?




If yes.

Sorry FD, we are travelling on 'different buses'.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 4:54pm:



FD,

Ah, yes.

I can see the distinction you are making there.



If that is what the ppl want, then that is 'democracy' isn't it?

Laws which reflect the will of the ppl.

Oh happy day.      

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 5:07pm:





This 'Democracy', is sounding more and more, like locutius current tagline....      



-Benjamin Franklin


Liberty has a cost!
.....blood.



Dictionary,
democracy = = a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. Ø a state governed in such a way. Ø control of a group by the majority of its members.


Dictionary,
republic = = a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 5:42pm:


I looked it up out of curiosity, and pasted it.

Why....

On forums, i've heard US 'libertarians' speak of a 'Republic' as preferable, to a 'Democracy'.

But on the basis of the slim definitions i provided, i can't see much diff???







+++++++





Getting back to the rule of law, democracy, and empowering muslims so that they can use [our own hard won, but not by us!] rights and freedoms, to destroy our culture, and replace it with a form of fascism.


Maintaining a basis of 'fair play', and affording our muslim brothers a 'level playing ground' in their 'contest' with us, how do we effectively confront their 'philosophy', and preserve our own rights and freedoms?





".....Many Islamist activists are so perturbed that they've taken to the streets to proclaim their seething anger at the Pope for questioning their pacifism."
http://www.jewishblogging.com/blog.php?bid=80931









Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

I don't speak for libertarians, infact I hate them. But I've always been in favor of a republic based on rank rather then popularity.

In theory, the country would be ruled by the scientist, the military generals, and the succesful buisness ceo..

Ofcourse this doesn't mean there won't be corruption. All forms of governing can and will become corrupt. Because humans are corrupt.