BF2S Forums Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws

Bush is Stupid and Evil      Mathias Döpfner

The worldview of the average German in 2004 in seven sentences: Bush is stupid and evil. Iraq is the new Vietnam. America is doing virtually everything wrong. Sharon has himself to blame for the Palestinian terror. Israel has gotten us into this whole quagmire. Germany has thank God stayed out of it. Now we just have to be careful that our nice democracy isn’t turned into a police state by unnecessary security fears.

You think I’m exaggerating? A little! But when you listen in on the conversations at the watering holes of the leftist establishment – and much worse still – at the salons of the so-called bourgeois camp, you will rediscover these elements.

Above all, anti-Americanism has become a "Comme il faut" of intelligent conversation. But – and this is new – not just on the side of the Left. Even in nationally conservative and culturally conservative circles a sense of relief predominates that one can once again finally be open about the Americans. …

Only when two things come together can the network of self-declared holy warriors really be weakened: Tough resistance from the outside through the Western democracies and a clear distancing of the moderates in the Moslem world, especially among the clerics, from such extremists. George Bush has realized that from the beginning and made that excessively clear with his visits to mosques: The terrorists can only be stopped together with Islam.

When one takes seriously the challenge of this war of religion, which in reality is one of culture and capital, when one is convinced that “there can be no compromises reached with Jihadis,” when one prepares oneself to take on such a long-term and desperately aggressive threat, then the question has to be asked why the non-Islamic world apparently has little willpower to complete its part of the job.

Who is really protecting himself? Who is defending us effectively?

Since September 11, the day that Islamic terrorists declared a world war, there have been above all two nations who have done something and believed in themselves: America and England. And since that day three nations above all have been grilled morally: America, England and Israel again and again. …

Naively, and from the comfortable and seemingly secure gallery of the European observer, tips are being given out as to how Israel, surrounded by an anti-Semitism of the most bloodthirsty sort, should carry out the fight against suicide commandos and those madly seeking to destroy Israel and drive the Jews out: More compromises, more allowances, more negotiations please! I ask myself how the German government would behave when on virtually every weekend a bus full of German school children would be blown apart in downtown Berlin.

He who acts, makes mistakes. Case in point Bush and Blair: For example in their reasoning and communication regarding their Afghanistan and Iraq policy, in the concept and the management of expectations the key question is how fast the region can be pacified and democratized. But despite all of the mistakes regarding the details (or often just in public relations) their policy and politics are at their core right. It is a policy of clear and tough resistance against the enemies of the free world.

One can truly see that the leaders of the governments in London and Washington are doing exactly that which the general public is supposedly increasingly demanding from politicians: They are following their convictions against the general spirit of the times, against resistance, in part within their own parties, and they are doing that which an international alliance of cowardice is not prepared to do.

In that sense it is not about downplaying war and violence as long as they serve a good purpose. On the contrary: Morality and good intentions as arguments to defend violence are always suspect. But it is about weighing the balance as to when tolerance for intolerance has to stop. And when doing nothing is worse than defending the Western system with military means. …

In broad sections of Europe and in less threatened parts of Asia an appeasement is spreading that is frightening. If the consequence, for example, of the terror in Madrid is that Poland comes to the conclusion that it would be better to stay out of the matter, then the strategy of Al-Qaeda will soon succeed: Short-term in that the alliance of opponents collapses demoralized and discouraged. And long-term in that a demographic bomb is ticking whose explosion will be more damaging than any explosive.

The illusion that the aggressor can be soothed by good behavior reminds of 1936: Had the Allies not waited, negotiated, formed pacts and maneuvered back then and instead intervened, than millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, millions of soldiers, millions of people who thought differently could have been saved.

We are the ones who think differently. Maybe we need more toughness and vigilance to secure our democracy. Maybe it is wrong that Germany has refused to join the coalition of the willing. Maybe Israel is one of our most important allies. Maybe we should help this ally and not give them advice. Maybe America is doing more right than we think. Maybe more people in Iraq are better off today than they were one year ago. Maybe George Bush is not as stupid and evil, maybe one day, looking back on the developments that have just begun – we might even be thankful to him because he was one of the few who acted in accordance with the maxim: These things must be nipped in the bud. (A phrase often used in Germany to refer to stopping the re-emergence of Nazism.)

And maybe we Germans need more than seven sentences for our worldview.

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

while i've no great love for the British, and i'm pretty indifferent to the French, A German ranting that the deaths of all the millions of Jews was the fault of both the British and the French leaves me pretty speechless, dumbfounded even..

(...) "Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as allies Britain and France negotiated and hesitated too long before they realised that Adolf Hitler needed to be fought and defeated, because he could not be bound by toothless agreements."

Makes perfect sense. What is about this that does n't make sense to you?

I think you will find it was the German's who were switching the ol' ovens to gas mark 6, not the British or the French - also the war was well under way before your kith and kin were firing up the ovens and getting the "Final Soloution" under way..

It was European appeasement that let Hilter get as far as he did. THis is his point. YOU should have dealt with him earlier, he was after all your problem to deal with in the beginning.

Before I start, lowing... you and Mathias owe me one hour of my life that I can never get back.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

The writer Henryk Broder recently issued a withering indictment: Europe, your family name is appeasement. That phrase resonates because it is so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as Britain and France negotiated and hesitated too long before they realised Adolf Hitler needed to be fought and defeated, because he could not be bound by toothless agreements.

A German blaming everyone else except his own countrymen for the holocaust, now that is rich. While we're on the subject, the 'great saviour' America only decided to throw its hat in the ring after it was attacked by Japan, so let's not get up on our high horse about moral compasses and punctuality in times of war.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

Later, appeasement legitimised and stabilised communism in the Soviet Union, in East Germany and then throughout the rest of eastern Europe, where for decades inhuman, repressive and murderous governments were glorified.

"Glorified"? Were they indeed. What would he rather we had done? Confront the nuclear powerhouse head-on and hold hands in solidarity as WW3 destroyed the planet? We endured a generation of brinksmanship in Europe, a situated exacerbated equally as much by a US regime with just as much blood on its hands.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

Appeasement similarly crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Bosnia and Kosovo. Indeed, even though we had absolute proof of mass murder, we Europeans debated and debated, and then debated still more. We were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, to do our work for us.

Genocide of Muslims by the way lowing, Muslims. I thought we Europeans did everything within our power to appease and encourage the Muslim population here in Europe?

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

Europe still hasn’t learnt. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement often seems to countenance suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Ahhhh now we're nailing our colours to the mast Mathias. The appeasement door only swings one way I see, when a Zionist regime wants to establish a nation in someone else's backyard, initially through terrorism (e.g. King David hotel bombing, 1946), and subsequently through tyrannical rule and oppression it's perfectly fine. It's also apparently fine with Mathias to operate an apartheid regime that favours one religion over another because of something written in an ancient book... nothing fundamentalist about that at all.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

Similarly, it generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore the almost 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein’s torture and murder machinery and to harangue George W. Bush as a warmonger.

Saddam Hussein... a man whom the US installed, aided, and sold weapons to.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

This hypocrisy continues even as it is discovered that some of the loudest critics of US action in Iraq made illicit billions — indeed, tens of billions — of dollars in the corrupt United Nations oil for food programme.

Mathias obviously favours 'blood for oil' programs instead I presume. Also, the UN is not Europe. You may not have noticed Mathias but Kofi Annan is from Ghana.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

Today we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in the Netherlands, Britain and elsewhere in Europe? By suggesting — wait for it — that the proper response to such barbarism is to initiate a Muslim holiday in Germany.

Where are his sources in relation to this claim? Are the Germans indeed talking about introducing an Islamic public holiday as a means of quelling Islamic violence? Or are they just introducing a public holiday in the interest of equality in a diverse society? It seems to me that for Mathias 2 + 2 = 10.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of Germany’s government — and, if polls are to be believed, the German people — believe that creating an official state Muslim holiday will somehow spare us from the wrath of fanatical Islamists.

Democracy's a bitch Mathias isn't it. Imagine having to live in a society where people agree with what's being proposed and implemented at a Governmental level. I suggest you move to somewhere like Saudi Arabia, you might prefer it there.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

One cannot help but recall Neville Chamberlain on his return from Munich, waving that laughable treaty signed by Hitler, and declaring the advent of peace in our time. What atrocity must occur before the European public and its political leadership understand what is really happening in the world? There is a sort of crusade under way; an especially perfidious campaign consisting of systematic attacks by Islamists, focused on civilians, that is directed against our open western societies and is intent on their destruction.

"Systematic attacks"? How many attacks have there been Mathias? What infinitesimal portion of the European Islamic population do these extremists represent? You give these extremist crackpots far more credit than they deserve.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

We find ourselves faced with a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military clashes of the last century, a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation because it is spurred on by such gestures. Such responses have proven to be signs of weakness.

You sound like the great Adolf Hitler himself there Mathias with all that sweeping, militaristic rhetoric.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

Only two recent US presidents have had the courage needed to shun appeasement: Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. The US’s critics may quibble over the details, but in our hearts we know the truth, because we saw it first hand.

Relax your neck and open out your throat Mathias, I'm sure you can fit another inch or two of war criminal cock in there.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

Reagan ended the cold war, freeing half of Europe from almost 50 years of terror. And Bush, acting out of moral conviction and supported only by Tony Blair, recognised the danger in today’s Islamist war against democracy.

Glug, glug, glug, glug...

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

In the meantime, Europe sits back in the multicultural corner with its usual blithe self-confidence. Instead of defending liberal values and acting as an attractive centre of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, the US and China, it does nothing. On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the supposedly arrogant Americans, as world champions of tolerance, which even Otto Schily, the German interior minister, justifiably criticises.

China???

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

Where does this self-satisfied reaction come from? Does it arise because we are so moral? I fear it stems from the fact that we Europeans are devoid of a moral compass.

Baseless subjective opinion. Sounds like someone's got a chip on there shoulder to me, got a Grandfather we're not too proud of Mathias?

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

For his policy of confronting Islamic terrorism head on, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the US economy. But he does this because, unlike most of Europe, he realises what is at stake is literally everything that really matters to free people.

You're beginning to make yourself sound stupid Mathias... let's not even talk about the potential of a cynical desire to create a free-market experiment in the middle of one of the most oil-rich nations in the world. Let's instead look at the 'great' G.W. Bush's record of consistency on the issue of confronting 'Islamification'. If Islam is to be feared, and if it is encroaching on the West in a dangerous fashion, then why endorse a gerry-mandered Muslim state like Kosovo? Kosovo is an example of the very thing Bush and his cronies are telling us to be afraid of and yet here he is rubber-stamping it and heralding it as a victory for democracy and freedom? I call shenanigans.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

While we criticise the capitalistic robber barons of the US because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our welfare states. “Stay out of it. It could get expensive,” we cry. So instead of acting to defend our civilisation, we prefer to discuss reducing our 35-hour work week, improving our dental coverage or extending our four weeks of annual paid holiday. Or perhaps we listen to television pastors preaching about the need to reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive.

Who's asking for terrorists to be understood or forgiven Mathias? Did I not get that email? Also, I think you'll find those European that opted out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did so because they found it morally reprehensible, not because of any financial reasons... you may think that way Mathias, but not everyone.

Mathias Döpfner wrote:

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewellery when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbour’s house. Appeasement? That is just the start of it. Europe, thy name is cowardice.

Mathias, thy name is bell-end.

Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-19 17:26:15)

Braddock wrote:

That was a lengthy retort I posted just there, but don't let it distract from the fact that I have given several examples of EU nations being anything but fans of appeasement in relation to the Muslim community, and lowing has yet to counter these examples with any good argument...

• Bans on burqhas in France?
• No examples of prosecutions in relation to anti-Islamic blasphemy?
• Racial profiling for security purposes being discussed in British parliament?
• Muslim groups in the UK such as 'Islam4UK' being banned while the BNP get seats in Europe?

...Your central argument doesn't add up lowing.

Your responses are nothig more than counter opinion  Braddock, no more superior than he

Also before you hang your hat on denial, you are also forgetting the wave of Sharia that is becoming ever more present in Europe.

Let us also not forget as far as European appeasement, WHO let Hilter take over your continent starting with nothing more than a hand full of political extremists.

Bottom line is this, Even your fellow Europeans see what is happing regarding Islam in Europe, countless books and discussions about it. I believe it. You choose to deny it,You choose to embrace it, I choose to reject it. 


You mention france

http://www.meforum.org/337/islam-in-fra … life-is-in

This is not my opinion against europe. This is Europeans opinions against yours.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

That was a lengthy retort I posted just there, but don't let it distract from the fact that I have given several examples of EU nations being anything but fans of appeasement in relation to the Muslim community, and lowing has yet to counter these examples with any good argument...

• Bans on burqhas in France?
• No examples of prosecutions in relation to anti-Islamic blasphemy?
• Racial profiling for security purposes being discussed in British parliament?
• Muslim groups in the UK such as 'Islam4UK' being banned while the BNP get seats in Europe?

...Your central argument doesn't add up lowing.

Your responses are nothig more than counter opinion  Braddock, no more superior than he

Also before you hang your hat on denial, you are also forgetting the wave of Sharia that is becoming ever more present in Europe.

Let us also not forget as far as European appeasement, WHO let Hilter take over your continent starting with nothing more than a hand full of political extremists.

Bottom line is this, Even your fellow Europeans see what is happening regarding Islam in Europe, countless books and discussions about it. I believe it. You choose to deny it,You choose to embrace it, I choose to reject it. 

You mention France

http://www.meforum.org/337/islam-in-fra … life-is-in

This is not my opinion against Europe. This is Europeans opinions against yours.

Denial? Care to address the issues I listed in bullet points for you lowing? I've asked you about 3 times now.

By the way, you do realise that Hitler was democratically elected by the nation of Germany? Not exactly a "handful of political extremists".

You say my arguments are subjective opinion and no better than his... well, that was my point to begin with lowing. We've been asking you for sources of evidence proving SPECIFIC INSTANCES of appeasement; quoting the subjective opinions of this music critic is no better than quoting the opinions of someone like Lotta_Drool. The opinions of one American-fan-boy are neither here nor there, it proves nothing.

You say we are forgetting "the wave of Sharia that is becoming ever more present in Europe"? What wave lowing? Tell me, what wave? Is it the wave in France, where they have banned burqhas and conspicuous religious symbols in schools and in public institutes? Is it the wave in the UK, where they recently banned an Islamic campaign group using new anti-terror powers, and where they're discussing the possibility of racial profiling for security purposes, and where the BNP are more popular than ever? Or is it in the rest of Europe, where the only blasphemy cases that are upheld are the ones that insult Christianity? Sharia law has not been implemented in any of the EU countries lowing... the only instances in which any form of Islamic law is applied in the UK is in civil law cases where both parties have chosen to abide by it (personal choice - the same way as the Jewish community have Jewish civil courts in the same circumstances).

Finally, the cherry on the cake of your empty retort is a link to an article by a self-confessed Zionist on a site run by the same guys who brought us 'Islamist Watch'. Bravo sir. Feel free to explain away those specific examples of non-appeasement I gave you in your own good time by the way.

Look Braddock, IF there are no problems arising in Europe, explain all of the concern over it, Where did the term Eurabia come from, or do you think I started it?

There is page after page of books, articles, videos all addressing the ever increasing presence of Islam in Europe. I really can not help if you reject everyones opinion because  it does not agree with yours. and I have posted plenty from he beginning of this. The very issues discussed in YOUR OWN MEDIA, so there must be something there to discuss.


"France is now considering a National Islamic History Week. The French think that patience and appeasement will solve everything. Instead the problem gets worse. The majority population becomes angrier, but the Socialist government cannot anger their political base. The immigrant Muslims can loot and burn with impunity. According to the Socialist government, punishing misbehavior would engender more violence, which the government wants to avoid at any cost.

A failed civilization, Islamic countries send their unemployed and uneducated to Europe. Naturally they gravitate to slums because they have nowhere else to go. Through Islamic radical leadership, cohesive, angry, European Muslims, with no loyalty to their new home, do not assimilate into the society that hosts them. Resentment grows and the cities burn."
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,81211,00.html

sounds like appeasement to me, but of course just like Germany adopting Islamic holidays, you have no problem with this. Well a lot of people do Braddock


as far as the head scarf ban in France, didn't France ban ALL religious symbols? Or just Islamic ones?

Islam in Europe is discussed all over the net, all over every media outlet, all over the world, and you claim they are all crazy, fine. So be it, they are all crazy then.

One question, IF they are such a small population hardly noticeable, and assimilate just fine as you say, why are all the laws popping up that you use as examples as proof their is not appeasement. I mean if everything is fine like you say, what is the problem?

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-20 03:34:13)

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

(...) "Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as allies Britain and France negotiated and hesitated too long before they realised that Adolf Hitler needed to be fought and defeated, because he could not be bound by toothless agreements."

Makes perfect sense. What is about this that does n't make sense to you?

I think you will find it was the German's who were switching the ol' ovens to gas mark 6, not the British or the French - also the war was well under way before your kith and kin were firing up the ovens and getting the "Final Soloution" under way..

It was European appeasement that let Hilter get as far as he did. THis is his point. YOU should have dealt with him earlier, he was after all your problem to deal with in the beginning.

Take off the rose fucking  tinted Hindsight 20/20 vision glasses there Lowing ol' buddy - Europe as it functions now is nothing like how  it was in the earlier twentieth century. Maybe the Polish have a right to say appeasement led to their occupation, but, the attempted genocide of the Jews is on no other hands but the Nazi's - no matter what fucking raving Loon's opinion you post as "fact", but hey! given your proclamations on Ireland I can only imagine your grasp on history to be equally as miss-informed & shite as those opinions you have offered on Ireland throughout this thread.

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-20 08:55:51)

Cybargs wrote:

DERAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILED

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 … ain416.jpg

It's just Lowing wriggling on the hook, it's always his tactic!! an attempted switch to something non-relevant  to the discussion at hand when the evidence of facts stack up and confound his shit miss-informed opinions and prove them to be unsubstantiated. This is s clear demonstration of the principle of Godwin's Law at work if ever there was one..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-20 07:04:13)

IG-Calibre wrote:

Its just Lowing wriggling on the hook, it's always his tactic!! an attempted switch to something non-relevant  to the discussion at hand when the evidence of facts stack up and confound his shit miss-informed opinions and prove them to be unsubstantiated. This is s clear demonstration of the principle of Godwin's Law at work if ever there was one..

This.

Cybargs wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

DERAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILED

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 … ain416.jpg

It's just Lowing wriggling on the hook, it's always his tactic!! an attempted switch to something non-relevant  to the discussion at hand when the evidence of facts stack up and confound his shit miss-informed opinions and prove them to be unsubstantiated. This is s clear demonstration of the principle of Godwin's Law at work if ever there was one..

Godwin's law is most evident whenever Lowing enters a thread.

Yes with me usually compared as Hitler or a Nazi

lowing wrote:

Opinion Braddock, opinions...

...is all you've provided in this thread lowing! I have at least given specific examples of laws, policies, and legal cases in my arguments.

lowing wrote:

By the way, IF France started off by wanting to do away with head scarfs and it decided to do away with all relgious symbols, explain how this is not appeasement to Islam. It shows non-bias when really there is bias against the head scarfs. Do you think France knew what might have happened if they singled out Islamic shit for banning when really it was all they cared about?

Because if they singled out one religion over others it would have been a gross example of inequality and an act of appeasement towards every other faith besides the one being singled out. A bit like the Jews in Germany in the run-up to WW2... remember that? Or are you advocating a society where people are allowed to celebrate one type of religion, but not another? That's not a very American attitude lowing.

France's answer to curtail religious fundamentalism is strict secularism, I personally wouldn't be too bothered by Muslims wearing specific types of clothing as I don't believe a Government should be allowed to dictate what an individual can or cannot wear (as an opponent of 'big Government' I would have thought you'd agree?), but if the Government is going to make the call then, as an atheist, I would demand that it is even-handed and across the board.

lowing wrote:

Englands Shraria Law,

Frances banning of all relgious symbols when they really only are trying to away with Islamic shit

Various proposed Muslim holidays, These are all forms of appeasement for some and you want to dismiss them as progress. So be it. I can not help that.

• What English Sharia law would this be lowing?

• Would you prefer France followed Hitler's example during the third Reich?

• Proposed Muslim holidays? Come back to me when it's more than proposals.

I'm not dismissing these 'examples' as progess lowing, I'm dismissing them as nonsense.

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

Englands Shraria Law,

Frances banning of all relgious symbols when they really only are trying to away with Islamic shit

LOL WHAT THE FUCK???????????

I'm sorry, did France have a big push for outlawing habits and clerical clothing and crosses? If so I apologize.

The impression I get lowing, is that you would like the Governments of Europe to ban all Muslims (just Muslims though) from displaying any signs of devotion to their faith publicly, be it through dress, daily prayer, or religious holidays? For security purposes you also appear to favour religious profiling so that all Muslims can be kept track of and easily identified, perhaps make them wear a half crescent on their person? In an ideal situation perhaps you would favour some sort of program whereby we can get rid of all of them (or as many as possible) by denying them access to our countries, and maybe even sending them home? Would I be right lowing?

Why stop there Herr lowing, why not fire up the ovens too?

And France, so as not to appear discriminating, appeased Islam by outlawing even their own Christion symbols in order to do away with the Islamic ones.

You say that if doing so isn't outright discrimination. "You can wear your religion on your sleeve, but not you - wrong religion, sorry"