OK, then don’t try. But do I have to accept your character reference?

Do you have any of that sort? Judges who take a plain law like “don’t steal” and interpret it to mean “unless you really need something” or some such?

So don’t give an inch – because they _will_ take a mile. Apply all laws equally. Make no accommodations for religious sensitivities. Either they want to live in an non-islamic state or they don’t. If living in a non-islamic state is not to their liking, let them return from whence they came.

Our problem in enforcing laws equally is the ACLU – what’s yours?

I couldn’t/wouldn’t even begin to really do credit to all the assumptions, non-sequiturs, deft sidesteps and ad-hominems that the formed bulk of your response.

Thanks for the Federalist 10 tipoff, I won’t return the favour and likewise riff on the evils of Nationalism as it’s as unecessary as your:

“UK = Socialist. Ergo socialists tolerate a great deal so long as the train of goodies keeps rolling.”

jab.

Why not? Because it’s wrong.

One could just as easily, and just as ‘honestly’ say that Republicans ‘tolerate a great’ deal as long as the dollars keep rolling’ (see sponsored terrorism, see hiring illegals, see any number of hands-over-eyes conscience-less deals being done with monsters in the name of greed, achievement and enormous wealth.

Yet I wouldn’t say that, because offering that as an ‘argument’ would be, quite simply, facile propaganda.

So thanks for the broad brush and the rhetoric, but no thanks.

And the muslims in America, I presume, are still every bit as dangerous as Frank pointed out.

Suek, as you say, ‘you’ are now too ’sensitive’ to kill them. So what now?

And thanks for the links. And I do know the problem. How to deal with it is where I get stuck, in all honesty, other than jailing or deporting any extremist who incites hatred towards the UK for not being part of their faction.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/585e69f9-0847-4e76-9750-14d31a46bd81.html

7 years is a crime. A life-sentence of forced labour would maybe suffice.

Also, if that ***** gets extradited to the US, please put a good boot in for me. Or tie his good hand behind his back, sharpen his hook, and drop a whole tub of itching powder down his shorts…

Regards,

JohnD

JohnD

http://towncommons.blogspot.com/2007/03/keeping-eye-on-cair-part-5-conspiring.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/noxford11.xml

My construction is not really faulty, but it would have been more precise had I written “…….may BECOME the first….”

At any rate I did not write “And, England IS the first…….”

Strange that you overlooked this qualifier about feisty individuals in the United States: “One difference between the United States and England is that our country has not stunted the spirit of individual initiative by drugging the people with heavy doses of socialism.”

You then ignore the next sentence: “One major effect of eschewing socialism is a population that is feisty and willing to take on movements that are subversive to that personal independence.”

While liberals have long attacked religion as an opiate of the masses, it turns out that state socialsim has been a far more effective and wider reaching method for creating an addictive dependency. Socialists seem to tolerate a great deal so long as the train of goodies keeps rolling.

Now you ask me to give examples of feisty individuals girding their loins and taking on the subversives.

That is a matter for history to unfold. We will see how quickly the United States comes up with separate doorways, divided classes, covered faces on driver’s licenses, sex segregation, etc. all in deference to accommodating a specific religion. (Our Quakers, Amish and Seventh Day Adventists do not have destructive agenda.)

If “ten” is “extreme social liberal” and “one” is “reactionary conservative”……where would you place England? What are the chances that a George Bush or John Howard type could make it to office in England?

Of the three reads I suggested, Federalist #10 is the shortest and is readily available on the web. It deals with the conundrum of faction. We take these Federalist papers very seriously. They are far superior to parlor talk and have served this country well.

Heliotrope, with respect, your memory must be shorter than my patience!

#24 Heliotrope:

“The liberal English society is treating its enormous problem with Islam in exactly the same way as this daffy feminist went tip-toe through the tulips of marriage with her Afghan husband. And, England may be the first European country to assimilate Sharia in its legal system.”

I didn’t twist your claim, I questioned the validity of it.

Now in order to support your claim that the US raises more ‘feisty’ individuals that deal with ’subversives’ do you have any real-world examples of US muslims being repelled by these superior individuals?

Regards,

JohnD

I can not say what is to be done with Muslims in the United States who will not accept the Constitution as supreme to the dictates of the Koran. I am not a dictator and I am not a friend of dictators, no matter how benign I might suppose them to be. (Although I do recognize the utility of dictators who are friendly to our aims.)

Frankly, your insistence that I proffer a plan is old stuff to me. I have always had students in my ethics classes who wanted me to offer a solution to an enigma for the sheer joy of pitching stones afterward.

One difference between the United States and England is that our country has not stunted the spirit of individual initiative by drugging the people with heavy doses of socialism. One major effect of eschewing socialism is a population that is feisty and willing to take on movements that are subversive to that personal independence. Our Aussie friends seem to cherish the same individualities.

You insist that I have made predictions about Sharia in England that I simply have not stated. England, France, Canada, Sweden, and Germany have all given Islamic “diversity” so much leeway that they are now beginning to understand that they may be caught up in a Faustian bargain.

Strangely, it is the extreme left Dutch who are most in touch with what Islamic “diversity” has cost them. The Dutch have been emigrating faster than their native birthrate and it has them scared. They are getting very serious about the “fifth-column” effect of being soft on Sharia.

George Bush called Islam the “religion of peace” and he was dead wrong about it. However, he is in charge of conducting “real politick” and “geo-politics.” You may be assured that we conservatives were as upset with his ROP statements as many liberals were with his “axis of evil” and “old Europe” remarks.

Our country has organized gangs from Mexico, Russia, El Salvador and elsewhere. We have an enormous number of illegal aliens from Mexico. We are the target of radical Islam. Much of our labor force has to adapt to being in the service sector since much of our manufacturing has gone elsewhere. We have plenty of problems begging a solution. Radical Islam is only one of them.

You can read Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” to better understand the mystery of this country or Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” to grasp the power of the engine of capitalism or James Madison’s (Publius) “Federalist #10″ to see the delicate balance between majority rule and minority rights.

I can not get closer to the answer you demand than that. Your twisted claims of my take on Sharia in England demonstrate that your questions are not benign queries for the purpose of springboards for honest discussion or debate.

Neither you nor I will be much more than observers to the progress of this problem.

I appreciate your comments, but six or seven years ago, I was telling anyone I could about the dangers of radical Islam. At the time, I was concerned about the Taliban (well before 9/11). They demonstrated their “tolerance” for other religions by destroying two beautiful and rare Buddhas. Then, they went on to make Hindus in their country wear yellow cloth badges to “protect” them from non-Hindus. My warnings were greeted with yawns. Until 9/11.

I’ve been studying this issue for quite some time. Again, appreciate the comments, but I think I’m on solid ground in my thinking on the matter.

With respect due, Bush calls Islam the ‘Religion of Peace’and bombed the Iraqis.

How is that the coming up with solutions?

The only reason Saddam touted religion was to rally the extremists to his side when we invaded. Liquor was available to you in Iraq and so were some of the other “vices”, such as gambling and prostitution.

You are keen to portray Britain as a soft-touch on Silam, and that UK law will soon be Sharia law.

I disagreed, while acknowledging that there IS a problem with Islamic extremism in the UK.

Where I get lost is where you start lecturing on the correct ‘way’ to write.

when I try to come up with some solutions to the US muslim problem; that is, the traitorous nature of all muslims in the US, you call it ‘parlor talk”

How do you propose you confront that danger? Seriously?

Otherwise are you not guilty of what you accuse others of, that is, ‘parlor talk’.

I suggested a solid solution to muslims in the US:

Deportation.

There is no need to kill them, as has been suggested by certain right-wingers.

There will not be the political will to do this unless you actively lobby for such, with the supporting facts that Frank mentioned.

So, from your perspective, what is the right way to protect the US from it’s ‘enemy within?’ You acknowledge that they are traitors by default? But that is just acknowledgement.

What is the next step? And what is the US doing that Britain isn’t?

There is no answer that you, me or anyone else on this site is going to come up with to solve this problem.

Our government and numerous other governments, our think tanks and think tanks around the world, our intellectuals and intellectuals everywhere, our simpletons and simpletons everywhere are trying to deal with this issue.

Iraq under Saddam was a vicious dictatorship that treated “problems” with tickets to mass graves.

Egypt’s “popularly elected” dictator keeps his population in constant check. The same is true in Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Tunisia, Morocco and to a lesser extent in Pakistan.

There seem to be three major schools of thought on radical Islam: 1) Confront the major players and neutralize them; 2) Keep a lid on it and stockpile the ammunition; and, 3) Lets talk about it and wait it out to see what happens.

From my perspective, the threats of radical Islam do not make a case for parlor room discussions and sophomoric flights of fancy.

Many people, I believe, are unwilling to confront the danger of radical Islam head on because they are both ignorant of the facts and too invested in being known as champions of diversity, compassion and one world harmony.

One week as a Buddhist on the southern border of Thailand would disabuse any coherent person of most of the pap that those who oppose confronting radical Islam are floating around.

Granted.

>>Iraq was a secular country.>>

True. At least up until the last few years of Saddam’s reign…it seemed as if he was beginning to tout religion there towards the end. But it was not shari’a. No way Saddam’d share power.

>All the “vices” of the West were available to its’ citizens if they so chose.>

I’d call that a real stretch.