[ExI] What the France!?

painlord2k at libero.it painlord2k at libero.it
Thu Apr 9 13:34:43 UTC 2009

Il 09/04/2009 5.06, Fred C. Moulton ha scritto:

> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 17:40 +0200, painlord2k at libero.it wrote:
>> Who want use force and intimidation to remove people unwanted?
>> There are many lawful ways to make life harder for people you don't
>> want.

> Well first we need to remember that the values that I think most on
> this list want people to hold such as "equal protection under the
> law" and "freedom of expression" would be weakened by the proposals.
>  It would be difficult to urge Saudi Arabia to liberalize their
> society when doing the opposite elsewhere.

Just now, we are saudizing our society, but you don't note it.

>> 1) Complete ban on burkas, niqab and other ways to conceal your
>> face. Five years of jail for anyone doing it.
> Well there goes the Masquerade Ball.  And Halloween.  So you
> advocate anyone going to a Masquerade Ball gets 5 years in jail.  So
> much for individualism and freedom of expression.

Well, until the law force me to go unmasked (here, in Italy), I want the
Muslims do the same. It exactly about "Equal protection under the law".

And we have wonderful Carnivals here.

>> 3) Preaching in mosques must be done in French (or the local
>> language). Five year for anyone preaching in a different language.
> Interesting that "local language" is not defined.  Would it be the
> predominate language in a country, state/province, county/parish,
> city/town, neighborhood or what?  Where I live the closest
> supermarket uses Spanish for announcements over the public address
> system and the signs are in Spanish usually with English below in a
> smaller font.  And just a few miles a way is a market where
> Vietnamese is predominate and in the other direction is a market with
> a lot of Chinese language signs. So this idea of local language is
> poorly defined.  And let us not forget Latin,  would the use of Latin
> be outlawed?  I seem to recall the Catholic Church uses it. Thus we
> see that the proposal is poorly defined and essentially nonsensical.

This is so only because you think he USoA are the world and your way is
the way.
In other countries, the "local language" is the language used in the
official documents.
Italian in Italy, French in France, English in UK, Russian in Russia and
so on. Only the USA I suppose there is no defined standard about what
language it is the standard one.

>> 4) Anyone jailed for terrorism or helping and abetting or
>> advocating violence will have his citizenship revoked and will be
>> expelled after completing his term.

> Do you really mean "advocating violence" as a general category?

Not. In specific terms.
Do you want a discussion in legalese?
When a preacher exhort people to hit girls that don't wear a hijab he is
advocating violence. This simple act put him (as I suppose, by default,
he believe what he preach) in a "state of war" with any girl not wearing
a hijab.
When they say that they will not submit to the rule of kaffirs, they say
that they are not bind to any rule in our regard apart Shaaria.
When they advocate that they must rule themselves and must rule the
others, they are telling that they must become the masters and we must
become the slaves. This put them in a state of war with all free men in
the world. They preach against democracy.
What about when they teach to the parents to hit their children if they
don't pray?
When a preacher tell his audience that "the time is fast approaching
where the table are going to turn and Muslims will be in position of
being uppermost in strength and, when this happen, people will not get
killed unjustly" what I must think?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

This is about a mosque that the government of Mr. Blair said was "moderate".

> Abu Usamah saying of apostates: “If the imam wants to crucify him he
> should crucify him. The person is put up on the wood and he's left
> there to bleed to death for three days.”

> Abu Usamah speaking on the deficiency of women's minds: “Allah has
> created the woman, even if she gets a PhD, deficient. Her intellect
> is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that
> will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal
> the one witness of the man.”[4]

> Abdullah el-Faisal: “You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as
> for the Jews you kill them physically.

> Dr Bilal Philips on marriage with girls before puberty: “The prophet
>  Muhammad practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to
>  puberty. With his practice, he clarified what is permissible, and
> that is why we shouldn't have any issues about an older man marrying
>  a younger woman, which is looked down upon by this society today,
> but we know that Prophet Mohammed practised it, it wasn’t abuse or
> exploitation, it was marriage.

> Abu Usamah saying that homosexuals should be killed by throwing them
> off a cliff, stating “throw [the homosexual] off the mountain.”[6]

My position is well explained in these essays about Islam citing Locke:



By worlds and deeds these Muslims are at war with all free humans, that
the free humans understand it or not. And telling to be Muslims put
people in a state of war against all free humans, that they understand
it or not.

Like to declare themselves Nazis put in a state of war with the Jews.
Or, given the precedents and the words the Jews must wait and see what
will happen really?

A lamb that don't know or don't understand a lion is a walking snack.
But, usually, the lamb will fear and loathe most the guarding dog that 
warn her and protect her than the lion that will eat her.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list