PDA

View Full Version : German View of Islam


Stoney
September 11, 2010, 22:21
The German View of Islam is most thought provoking and well worth the time required to read and consider.

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history; it is the fanatics who march...it is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers..
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Bama Steve
September 11, 2010, 22:44
Score!

Good stuff and right on the money - Thanks, Stoney!

martin35
September 12, 2010, 01:23
Domestication is a process that can be applied to almost every living thing, it is a process normally applied to that which we wish to consume (livestock) or to use for a needed purpose (companions/pets).
As Germans were domesticated to be Nazis and Japaneses were domesticated to be Bushido I and others are domesticated to be what ever a American used to be. Our current administration is dedicated to changing that by eliminating the breed and by the mongrelization of America.
I am confident there will not be a second Obama administration even if it severely hair lips the President, but I fear something very similar dressed in a disguise will find appeal with voters until voting is thought no longer necessary, half of America does not vote now they delegate their rights by not voting, they are domesticated.

offshore44
September 12, 2010, 12:13
Originally posted by martin35
Domestication is a process that can be applied to almost every living thing, it is a process normally applied to that which we wish to consume (livestock) or to use for a needed purpose (companions/pets).
As Germans were domesticated to be Nazis and Japaneses were domesticated to be Bushido I and others are domesticated to be what ever a American used to be. Our current administration is dedicated to changing that by eliminating the breed and by the mongrelization of America.
I am confident there will not be a second Obama administration even if it severely hair lips the President, but I fear something very similar dressed in a disguise will find appeal with voters until voting is thought no longer necessary, half of America does not vote now they delegate their rights by not voting, they are domesticated.

Good points all, in the article. It's that silent (apathetic?) majority thing that gets societies into trouble.

Where does that leave the rest of us "non-domesticated" people? Is the government going to try and cull the herd? Just how and when are they going to do that? Bring it, but pack a lunch, it may take more effort than expected.

JohnnyV1966
September 12, 2010, 12:28
Interesting Observations on the part of Dr. Tanay. If I remember correctly Dr. Tanay worked in Metro Detroit and is also an advocate of gun control.

I share his thoughts about the Muslims.

L Haney
September 12, 2010, 12:45
Thanks, this was timely to an uncanny degree for me. I'm trying to get a grip on this subject, and not base it on fluff and speculation. Which is proving far more difficult that I initially believed. I have more difficulties with human behavior than any other subject. You phuckers are weird, and follow no easily mastered rules. Broad strokes can't even encompass the actions of groups of people. Painting with a mop ain't ever been attractive to me.

Itchingforaninchpattern
September 12, 2010, 18:17
I think Dr. Tanay ls/was the person with the "priapic theory" of gun ownership. That is, one that owns a gun or guns is compensating for sexual inadequacy, though I don't know if he specified inadequacy as being a hardware or software problem.

molotov
September 12, 2010, 20:20
Thanks, this was timely to an uncanny degree for me. I'm trying to get a grip on this subject, and not base it on fluff and speculation. Which is proving far more difficult that I initially believed. I have more difficulties with human behavior than any other subject. You phuckers are weird, and follow no easily mastered rules. Broad strokes can't even encompass the actions of groups of people. Painting with a mop ain't ever been attractive to me.

I too have been kind of following the whole thing trying to decide what to think. More and more though I'm finding their Koran to be the opposite of a publication you'd find about a "religion of peace" and more like a guideline for who to make war with (non muslims).

For example, a couple of Koran quotes:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

"Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth [as a reward for going on Jihad"

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

As the site I picked up some of these verses off of noted; "These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text - as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Qur'an."

I don't doubt that there is a peaceful portion of Islam but they don't speak up. I believe they don't speak up because they don't have the backing of their scriptures (koran) to lend their cause of peace any credibility.

If I were a Koran believing muslim I don't think I could find a counter to the jihad movement within the text of the book. If someone has, they are awfully quiet about it.

It seems pretty clear to me that Islam is more a methodology of how to fight a holy war rather than a traditional "religion". It seems "jihad" or "holy war" is a central tenet to the religion and is inseparable from the everyday practice of the faith.

JM
September 13, 2010, 14:47
Molotov--your post is excellent---Your research uncovers the devious nature of Islam.

molotov
September 13, 2010, 18:02
Molotov--your post is excellent---Your research uncovers the devious nature of Islam.

Thanks JM. Most of the research belongs to someone else, the commentary is mine.

I guess what I was getting at is this: If I wanted a religious ideology to provide support for an all out war, I can think of none finer than Islam. The stringent nature of the faith keeps a cohesiveness amongst them that is hard for the modern watered down multitude of Christian churches to match. Impossible even.

I have often lamented to myself how singular of a movement that radical Islam (and non radical Islam via close association) has become in comparison to sects of my own religion. Sure, they have some nasty disputes amongst themselves, but they seem to splinter into sects whose disagreements are far less reaching than christian ones, especially when there are infidels to conquer. Making Jihad, or "holy war" seems to trump theological disputes these days.

You can't fight a people whose religious leaders are bent on destruction to achieve goals unless you yourself are bent on waging an all out bloody and gruesome conflict on the long term. "War crimes" would more or less become an ugly side effect of eradicating radicals.

Nobody in leadership seems to have the balls nor heart nor is willing to make the huge sacrifices required.

I think eradicating those organizations and people who finance these radicals would be the smartest first step. Of course, they aren't doing that, it would make too much sense.

Peconga
September 14, 2010, 13:59
Actually, this essay was originally published Paul E. Marek in 2007 under the title "Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant" http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6996 Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover.

Dr. Emanel Tanay is often (incorrectly) attributed as the author, since he was responsible for widely distributed Marek's essay as an email message entitled "A Holocaust Survivor's View on Islam". Although Tanay has attempted on a couple different occasions to set the record straight about authorship, the email message with his name on it went "viral" on the Internet which makes it almost impossible to correct. Tanay is a clinical psychologist and a Holocaust survivor of Polish origin, who emigrated to the United States following WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Tanay

While doing the background research on this essay, I thought it was fascinating to observe how the critics on various sites (and there are many) universally focus on the issue of authorship, rather than addressing the central point of the article, to wit, how a fanatical minority can lead a peaceful majority into violence and ruin.

FAL freek
September 15, 2010, 19:54
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

-Edmund Burke