Germany’s central bank has decided to ask the country’s president to dismiss one of its board members, Thilo Sarrazin, over comments he made about immigration, Muslims and Jews.
In his book Mr Sarrazin claimed that Germans will end up strangers in their own land because of Muslim immigration.
Speaking on BBC World Service, one of his prominent supporters, Necla Kelek – who herself is a German of Turkish origin – said Germany needed an open debate on immigration.
by Citizen Warrior
In the 1970’s the political scientist Robert Axelrod created a computer “world” using the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma as a game computer programs could play against each other. He wanted to find out which computer program would succeed the best.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a hypothetical situation used to test whether someone will cooperate or compete, and how well the strategies work in the long run.
The game is played by two people. If one cooperates and the other competes, the one who cooperated will lose and the competitive one (the selfish one) will win. If they both compete, they both lose, but not as badly.
If they both cooperate, they both win. That’s how the game is set up.
If you were one of the prisoners, what would you do? That’s the dilemma. How much can you count on the cooperative nature of the other person?
The game is often played repeatedly with the same two people, each of them choosing to cooperate or take advantage of the other through successive rounds of the game.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma game is designed to parallel real life. If two people in real life cooperate with each other, it very often works to their mutual advantage. But if one person cooperates and the other takes advantage, it often works out very well for the selfish one and very poorly for the cooperative one.
On the other hand, if you go around preempting people — trying to take advantage of them before they take advantage of you — you will miss out on the advantages of cooperation, people will resent you, and you might get people working against you.
What is the best long-term strategy? This is the dilemma we are faced with every day, personally as well as culturally.
Robert Axelrod, the man who created the computer world, invited computer programmers to create a program to play the Prisoner’s Dilemma with other programs. The question is, which program would succeed the best?
In a game that resembles the real dilemma we all face, what strategy is the most effective?
The program that proved the best was named TIT FOR TAT. It was designed by Anatol Rapoport and it was one of the simplest programs submitted. For the first interaction, it would cooperate. After that, it would repay in kind whatever the other did. That was the whole strategy.
If the other cooperated, TIT FOR TAT benefited. So did the other. If the other took advantage, TIT FOR TAT cut its losses immediately.
As the game went on, TIT FOR TAT gained more (and lost less) than any other program. In The Moral Animal, Robert Wright wrote, “More than the steadily mean, more than the steadily nice, and more than various ‘clever’ programs whose elaborate rules made them hard for other programs to read, the straightforwardly conditional TIT FOR TAT was, in the long run, self-serving.”
And it’s the most fair to everyone involved.
I suggest we in the West use the same program when dealing with other countries and other cultures. We should begin with tolerance and cooperation, and then be as tolerant and cooperative as the other is from that point on.”
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/10/how-tolerant-country-can-avoid-being.html
by Citizen Warrior
“If we pay attention, we will see some Muslims are not mutually respectful. In fact, they actively exploit our well-ingrained respect for other cultures, and use it against us, considering it a weakness they can exploit.
For years, the Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia have been spending their oil-enriched billions building mosques all over the western democracies. They then preach hatred of the West in those mosques, and we have been allowing this.
Within Saudi Arabia, no churches or synagogues are allowed to be built.
The western democracies, in other words, are being doormats. We are giving and allowing, respecting and tolerating, and the Islamic supremacists are taking, expressing intolerance, and stabbing us in the back. Being a doormat is not a successful long-term strategy.
We would be fools to tolerate intolerance — even if that intolerance is hiding behind a cloak of religion. An intolerant culture should be the exception to the principle of universal multicultural tolerance.
For example, if orthodox Islam does not tolerate other religions, it should not be tolerated itself.
Tolerance and cooperation are definitely the best way to go, but only if the other side is tolerant and cooperative also. If they prove to be otherwise, intolerance and competitively cutting our losses is a sane response.”
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/10/how-tolerant-country-can-avoid-being.html
by Citizen Warrior
“On the DVD, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, you can literally watch what they do. You can see Muslim leaders saying one thing to the western media, appearing to be moderate, peaceful, reasonable Muslims, and then you see the same person saying another thing entirely to their own people in Arabic.
If we didn’t automatically trust, we could see they are intolerant, uncooperative, and even bloodthirsty, and not the cooperative people they pretend to be.
If we pay attention, we will see some Muslims are not mutually respectful. In fact, they actively exploit our well-ingrained respect for other cultures, and use it against us, considering it a weakness they can exploit.”
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/10/how-tolerant-country-can-avoid-being.html
Jack: Americans do not understand or speak Arabic. This is a powerful advantage for Islam. It can insert itself directly into the heart of the United States, raise its children to be “true Muslims” working toward destroying the corrupt American culture and replacing it with Sharia Law and Islam.
by Citizen Warrior
TOLERANCE AND mutual respect for different cultures and religions is great — as long as it is mutual. When it’s not mutual, then tolerance becomes a self-destructive doctrine. When it is not mutual, one side gives and the other side takes.
Islamic supremacism is religiously-sanctioned intolerance, and many in the West tolerate the intolerance out of a blind multiculturalism. But multiculturalism (respect for other cultures) need not be blind.
All that’s missing is the added distinction of mutuality.
What [do you] do with uncooperative, selfish, self-serving people? A small percentage of the population doesn’t have normal human empathy. The way you deal with these people must be different or you’re just being foolish.
We respect all religions and cultures who do us the honor of respecting ours as well. All others will be treated with less generosity.
Another characteristic of both selfish people and Islamic supremacists is the use of deception.
They pretend to be thoughtful and kind. They pretend to be peaceful, tolerant, and cooperative. They try to fool their victims into keeping their guard down. They pretend in order to gain an advantage.
Orthodox Muslims often try to fool non-Muslims in the same way selfish people do.
They mimic peaceful religious people. They try to act as if they believe what we believe (see the principle of religious deception), and this makes it more difficult to determine whether or not these are cooperators or back-stabbers. But we can apply the same principles we use in our personal lives.
We can watch what they do and see if it matches what they say. We don’t have to automatically trust. Let them earn our trust.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/10/how-tolerant-country-can-avoid-being.html
by Citizen Warrior
“Some people say Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam has been hijacked by extremists, terrorists, and stealth jihadists who twist and distort the peaceful teachings of the Quran and quote it out of context.
Others say that political, supremacist, and even violent teachings are fundamental to Islam, and that people who say otherwise either haven’t read the Quran or are protecting Islam with religious deception (taqiyya).
The general confusion about the nature of Islam makes us collectively unable to make informed decisions. You can help end this confusion by reading the Quran. Stop believing what other people say and find out for yourself.”
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/09/definition-of-abrogation.html
by Citizen Warrior
“I have been a Muslim all my life. Westerners in general love to take the verses of the Quran out of their historical context and just blindly accuse Islam and the Quran of violence.
For your information, many of the “violent” verses were revealed to prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) when he was at state of war with the pagans of Makkah.
So read the reason of revelation very carefully. Then you will understand what those verses were intended for.”
I have gotten many comments like yours. In fact, I’ve gotten so many that I wrote a “standard” answer which you can read here:
My more specific response to what you’re saying is this:
1. According to mainstream Islam since the time of Mohammad, the Quran is the perfect, unalterable, eternal word of Allah.
2. It says in the Quran 91 times a Muslim must follow the example of Mohammad.
3. Mohammad was intolerant and violent toward non-Muslims, repeatedly and consistently, as soon as he had the power to do so. He ordered the assassinations of those who insulted him or Islam.
He ordered and personally oversaw the beheading of his political prisoners.
He raided and plundered and conquered for the last ten years of his life. This is not history as told by his enemies, but history as told in the Sira and the Hadith, written by devout Muslim believers.
4. There are not many peaceful passages in the Quran, but what few exist have all been abrogated by more intolerant and even violent verses revealed to Mohammad later in his prophetic career.
To abrogate means to abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by authority.
This is a key term in studying the Quran. There are some peaceful, tolerant verses in the Quran. But the violent, intolerant ones have abrogated them. The Quran itself explains what to do with conflicting verses. If two passages conflict, it says, the one written later is better than the one written earlier. The earlier passage has been abrogated by the later one.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/09/definition-of-abrogation.html
And finally, whether you believe the Quran commands you to be intolerant or violent towards non-Muslims, many Muslims do obviously believe it, and they are using the Quran to justify their violence against non-Muslims all over the world, and they have been doing so for 1400 years.
US public TV hijacked by Islamic propagandists
“The host, [of the TV show “Living Islam in America,â€] Johari Abdul Malik, is described by his supporters as an advocate of non-violence. However, the Investigative Project on Terrorism says that he supports radical and political Islamic causes. It reports, “At a 2001 conference hosted by the Islamic Association of Palestine, a now defunct propaganda branch of the Specially Designated Terrorist organization Hamas, he called for attacks against Israeli infrastructure to show Muslim displeasure with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.â€
Abdul-Malik said, “I am gonna teach you now. You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work. You can blow up power supplies… the water supply, you can do all forms of sabotage and let the world know that we are doing it like this because they have a respect for the lives of innocent people.â€
Abdul-Malik has also been quoted as saying, “before Allah closes our eyes for the last time you will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America—that’s where we are now—to being the first religion in America.â€
American taxpayers are helping to put this material on the air whether they watch it or not.
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/09/03/%E2%80%9Cbefore-allah-closes-our-eyes-for-the-last-time-you-will-see-islam-move-from-being-the-second-largest-religion-in-america%E2%80%94that%E2%80%99s-where-we-are-now%E2%80%94to-being-the-first-rel/
Being the first religion of America would not be so bad – if it were Buddhism. If Islam reaches its goal would see America fundamentally changed – and not for the better if you like your freedom.
From, “A Soldier’s Perspective”
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/
This is a guest post from a friend of mine here in Texas named John Alaniz. I ask that you please copy this letter to the editor if you see fit and pass it around through Facebook, Twitter, or email. He makes some great points.
With the moratorium of offshore drilling, we become more dependent on foreign oil, thus strengthening those whom many think desire to reshape America. Now funds are being sought from those countries to fund the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. This has caused a firestorm of debates as Americans are torn by this prospect and the desire to protect Freedom of Religion.
I offer two points: a case be made that Islam is more of a militaristic totalitarian ideology than a religion. Secondly, Freedom of Religion must be protected when it is compatible with other aspects of our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. It is my view based on history and quotes from the Koran that the Nation of Islam is diametrically in conflict with all three of our Founding Documents.
And asking Americans to believe the acts of terror are at the hands of a fanatical few is imply too much to ask while there remains a very long list of occurrences and casualties before 9-11, including the Beirut barracks bombing and the attack on the USS Cole. [CJ note: I would add that the number of attacks by Islamic jihadists has increased since 9-11.]
One final note – this debate rages on while Sharia Law is being introduced to America. Asking America to disregard our Constitutional Republic for Sharia Law is simply too much to ask while Americans understand the blood that has been shed to protect our Constitution and the peace loving Judeo/Christian principles that inspired it.
So, it is my plea that we lift the moratorium on offshore drilling and implement one for the mosque at Ground Zero.
Offered and Written by John Alaniz
Temple, TX
Imam: “When we say ‘innocent people’, we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God.”
So, to all those clamoring for “tolerance” of Islam: are you willing to tolerate people like this man teaching others that only Muslims are innocent? That all other viewpoints are a crime against God?
Is that religious freedom?
Is fighting the growth of Islam an oppression of the freedom of religion, or is it protecting freedom of religion from the toxic, bigoted, hateful teachings of Islam?
Sure, if those teachings could be taken out of Islam, if it could become a religion that truly is tolerant, that would be fine. We could all live with that. But this group is not content to co-exist, they want to control, take over, dominate.
Those who appear to be moderate may nominally be Muslim, but they are not true Muslims because they have rejected parts of the Koran – the violent, bigoted, hateful parts.
Don’t be fooled by Muslims posturing as “victims” of religious oppression. Islam is not the victim, it is the Bully.
