My reich for a multiculture

Looks like the multicultists are radicalising in germany as well. The most brilliant idea, why don't we tag along imam's when the police is on patrol, after all the muslims youth terrorising the locals don't recognise the police as an authority and who in their right mind would, has to be said, they got a point. But doesn't the government lose the authority to rule when it no longer can make guarenty the safety of those that pay them to do so, they can still prevent us from using self-defence after, and are generaly much more firm when it happens, like a girlfriend you dumped they can become pretty vicious. This is so wrong, police looking for the help of imams to try to govern, well, who's area exactly? Not saying that the imam's aren't trying to do their thing, it is just so incredibly rediculous that the ones that are supposed to protect are asking for protection. Not apeasement but a apleasement, makes me sick. A state witout the monoply on the use of violence ceases to exist as a real state.

GAH2Germany

I wonder how long it will take before Godwin's law comes into effect in this particular topic?

I wonder what exactly Frag is talking about, I have yet to see policemen with an Imam tagging along.

That said, we do have a green party here, but most countries have one, no? :sweatdrop:

This is the story right?

http://www.westfaelische-rundschau.d...=WR&dbserver=1

Sorry, couldn´t find an English article.


To clarify this a bit: The purpose of the imams is to strenghten the moral authority of the police. I think it´s an attempt to teach young muslims that obeying the law is their religious duty.

If it works, fine ...

But you are mistaken if you assume that ...

- the policemen did this because they fear for their lifes (more than usual)

- the imams are given any powers of a policeman

- the police stopped prosecuting crimes committed by muslims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haudegen

This is the story right?

http://www.westfaelische-rundschau.d...=WR&dbserver=1

Sorry, couldn´t find an English article.


To clarify this a bit: The purpose of the imams is to strenghten the moral authority of the police.

---

Yeah that is the problem, they shouldn't need to, and they sure as hell shoudn't be it because that way we could as well privatise protection. Goverment has no claim to authority if their most primal reasons to exist are handled by third party's who can have other interests, it legitimity ceases to be.

whats godwins law?

and besides, what with a number of muslims being extremists
(large ## ?, i guess according to europeans fearing them like nukes)
if you piss them off they're gonna suicide bomb you!!:tnt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

whats godwins law?

and besides, what with a number of muslims being extremists
(large ## ?, i guess according to europeans fearing them like nukes)
if you piss them off they're gonna suicide bomb you!!:tnt:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Quote:

---

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. ”

---

—Mike Godwin <godwin@eff.org>

Why would they attack us they aren't nuts, screw terrorism they don't need it they have multicultists. Just a mild threat to a days comfort is enough to get an audiance with the pope. The multiculture has to work most of all no matter what, truly pious they are.

Fragony, what's your problem here?

Sure it sounds weird, but the old lady who was robbed every week and isn't being robbed anymore will probably appreciate it. And once they have learned to obey police it may not even be necessary anymore. Maybe it doesn't fit your perfect definition of how things should be but then where are all things perfect?
This is an attempt to improve police work, how can you say that's bad after your endless cries that police were ineffective? Should they just beat the young kids instead of talking to them? Yes, that might generate some form of respect, they'd stay far a way when they started throwing the first rocks. :dizzy2:

If it works I'm happy. The whole point is getting muslim religious authority to (finally) back Western values and law more emphatically, and this seems like a good step in that direction to me. Getting the clerics on the side of whichever nation they're in is essential in preventing radicalism and showing that yes, they are a part of Western culture and need to adjust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

If it works I'm happy. The whole point is getting muslim religious authority to (finally) back Western values and law more emphatically, and this seems like a good step in that direction to me. Getting the clerics on the side of whichever nation they're in is essential in preventing radicalism and showing that yes, they are a part of Western culture and need to adjust.

---

I agree, but with one reservation.
The point is to get the wayward extremists to see that Western culture has laws that don't conflict with Islamic law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

I agree, but with one reservation.
The point is to get the wayward extremists to see that Western culture has laws that don't conflict with Islamic law.

---

Not even necessarily extremists, but definitely alienated youths who assert their muslim heritage in opposition to a perceived hostile Western culture. I'm not convinced extremists can be reached and that anything except strong measures work against them, but at least reaching that stage can (and should) be prevented. Western nations have offered plenty of chances, now it's time for community leaders to show that it is not against Islam to accept those chances and offer something in return.

I see Frags is on the ol' Columbian marching powder.

:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. ”

—Mike Godwin <godwin@eff.org>

---

I've just realised that Godwin's law doesn't really explain anything. If a thread went to infinity it would have every kind of conversation in it. So as a thread grows the probability of any statement being made approaches one.

ie
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Rome approaches one. ”

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Spongebob Squarepants approaches one. ”

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Octosquids approaches one. ”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I've just realised that Godwin's law doesn't really explain anything. If a thread went to infinity it would have every kind of conversation in it. So as a thread grows the probability of any statement being made approaches one.

ie
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Rome approaches one. ”

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Spongebob Squarepants approaches one. ”

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Octosquids approaches one. ”

---

Indeed. :yes:

Reminds me of a calculus or statistics theorem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I've just realised that Godwin's law doesn't really explain anything. If a thread went to infinity it would have every kind of conversation in it. So as a thread grows the probability of any statement being made approaches one.

ie
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Rome approaches one. ”

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Spongebob Squarepants approaches one. ”

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Octosquids approaches one. ”

---

Surely though, a thread can reach infinity while discussing just a single issue? You've read enough gun control threads to have that proven. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

If it works I'm happy. The whole point is getting muslim religious authority to (finally) back Western values and law more emphatically, and this seems like a good step in that direction to me. Getting the clerics on the side of whichever nation they're in is essential in preventing radicalism and showing that yes, they are a part of Western culture and need to adjust.

---

It's insane, the law is the law if they don't respect and don't recognise the authority as such something is very very wrong and you have to show musscle not hide behind imam so they don't throw stones. Maybe it will work and but is next? There will be something next because this is a downward spriral, state can't outsource it's responsibilities to religious groups we have seperation of church and state. We have to respect the law because the imam says so? How can we tolerate that? They have to respect the law because it is the law. They should bend to us not the other way around we will keep bending one insanity at the time.

Uhm.... When did we europeans become law-abiding citizens with the utmost respect for the police...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm.... When did we europeans become law-abiding citizens with the utmost respect for the police...?

---

Since when does the police tolerate that? If we start messing they bring the military police and we get clubbed, if they start messing they bring the imam, nothing wrong with that? Law should be colorblind, the same for everyone. All the same rules all the same rights, if they can't respect that they should get the hell out of our countries.

Addition, the rather explicite message is that the imam is a higher authority then the police, absolute madness.

Quote:

---

It's insane, the law is the law if they don't respect and don't recognise the authority as such something is very very wrong

---

Well respect for the law , thats very good .
Now then Fragony , have you had any more run ins with the police lately because you thought the law about bicycles in pedestrianised areas was a stupid law and shouldn't have been applied to you ?

Quote:

---

Addition, the rather explicite message is that the imam is a higher authority then the police, absolute madness.

---

If they were Quakers who would be the higher authority ?

Common Tribes, if they only listen to the police because a higher authority (the imam) tells them to, and we allow the imam to be the higher authority the state loses every legitimacy. This is a dangerous development.

Sieg Heil :shame:

Forget the imam, bring bigger clubs and riot gear and beat them into submission. The law must be respected in a democratic system. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Sieg Heil :shame:

Forget the imam, bring bigger clubs and riot gear and beat them into submission. The law must be respected in a democratic system. :smash:

---

wow...I agree with Panzer....I´ll go lie down now....I must be coming down with something...

more seriously now....a democratic government having to hide behind the pseudo-authority of some religious figure is unacceptable.

these guys don´t respect the police?....I suggest the police employ the proper force to encourage them to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's insane, the law is the law if they don't respect and don't recognise the authority as such something is very very wrong and you have to show musscle not hide behind imam so they don't throw stones. Maybe it will work and but is next? There will be something next because this is a downward spriral, state can't outsource it's responsibilities to religious groups we have seperation of church and state. We have to respect the law because the imam says so? How can we tolerate that? They have to respect the law because it is the law. They should bend to us not the other way around we will keep bending one insanity at the time.

---

It is insane. Large portions of the population have closer ties to their religious authority, the imams, than to the state they're living in. That's damaging and has been shown to be so; using imams in this way to tie them to the state is a step in the direction of placing authority over these youths where currently there is far too little.

You say this implicates that the imams are above the law? I see it more as implicating that even the imams are subject to the law and showing that using faith as any kind of excuse is not tolerated; that faith and Western law certainly aren't mutually exclusive, which is what seems to be common sentiment right now.

And if it doesn't work? It shows clearly to all parties that such youths respect neither law nor faith, and may finally lead to the (majority) law-abiding muslim community to finally realise that they have no reason to tolerate such behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

You say this implicates that the imams are above the law?

---

No, it implicates that they are a higher authority then the police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

I wonder how long it will take before Godwin's law comes into effect in this particular topic?

---

Didn't the very first post already make such a comparison?

Quote:

---

No, it implicates that they are a higher authority then the police.

---

How ?
If they were a higher authority than the police then the police would be joining Iman patrols , the police would be following iman orders and the imans laws ... as the case is the opposite of that then the implication is the opposite of what you claim it to be .

*sigh* they are a higher authority because they don't listen to the police unless the imam tells them to do so. So, the islam comes first for them, the laws of the country second, quite unlike how we, well some of us, like to see it.

Quote:

---

*sigh* they are a higher authority because they don't listen to the police unless the imam tells them to do so. So, the islam comes first for them, the laws of the country second, quite unlike how we, well some of us, like to see it

---

Ah so the Iman is there with the police to explain local laws and Islamic laws to the truculent youths who don't understand either the local laws or Islamic laws .
Hmmmmm .....and you are against this ?