format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
A jihadist is someone who espouses belief in ...That is what the problem reduces to, it does not properly reduce to "well I just don't like your opinion."
"Espousing belief in" is an opinion. Here, you are still attacking people on their ideas, just because you do not like these ideas.
format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
... participates in ...
This is a different matter. If they carry out armed struggle, they are doing something else than just advocating ideas. That behaviour has another status than merely espousing a particular belief. You clearly refuse to distinguish. That is not good, because your point of view justifies the use of force against whoever says things that you do not like. As I said before, your approach will rapidly degenerate into an otherwise useless violence fest.
There are good reasons why outlawing speech is a very strictly controlled activity:
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.
... the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action ...
... his speech "
amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time," and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement...
Forbidden speech is:
[1] Slanderous, while bearing false witness
[2] Blasphemous
[3] Advocating
imminent lawless action
At the same time, it is perfectly allowed under both Divine Law, and relatively consistent man-made law to advocate the violent overthrow of the State. There is simply nothing forbidden to the practice of advocating the use of force to overthrow the State.
format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
... about armed conflict for the purpose of spreading Islam. Spreading Islam in a peaceful manner is well and good ...
You fail to distinguish between
advocating armed conflict for the purpose of spreading Islam versus
effectively engaging in armed conflict for the purpose of spreading Islam. They are absolutely not the same thing. There is nothing wrong with merely advocating this.
If you engage in armed struggle, however, you will
have to, and therefore
must be willing to face the combatants of the opposing side. But then again, that last bit is obviously implied. Anybody engaging in armed conflict should reasonably assume that his adversary will seek to retaliate. Otherwise, it would not really be
armed conflict.
format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
That is what a jihadist is, and please don't forget that.
By failing to distinguish between someone who merely advocates jihadism and someone who effectively engages in it, you are encouraging the other side to do the same. They may very well stop distinguishing between armed anti-jihadist combatants and people who merely support or advocate anti-jihadism. You are effectively making it physically dangerous to pronounce anti-jihadist statements.
format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
Assuming that an armed conflict for the purpose of spreading Islam (and incitement to the same) is very much disallowed in the UK and duly punished by the UK
Attacking the advocates on the opposite side, just guarantees that advocates on your own side are also running serious risks. So, you are simply justifying that the armed jihadists symmetrically attack anti-jihad advocates.
format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
Would that be you? Or can you name some other people? Let's just get it out there, shall we?
Given the fact that Islam is a one-way bet, I am personally oblivious and indifferent to either choice: armed struggle or not. My personal view is that it will not make any difference anyway. Merely peaceful progression of time means that the demographic evolution will make Islam incontrovertible. Therefore, there is no real need for an imminent violent overthrow of the pagan National State. The inevitable will happen anyway. The only thing that the Muslims need to do in order to win, is to stick to existing sexual behaviour and marriage practices as mandated anyway under Divine Law. In a sense, all that the Muslims need to do, is to truly believe, by acting in accordance with their beliefs.
Furthermore, the ball is not even in the Muslim court. The Muslims are utterly divided and have up till now not exhibited any tangible appetite for armed struggle in the UK or other western European countries. I do not believe that this will change in the future.
Since sheer time works in favour of the Muslims, I expect the pagan National State to sooner or later become impatient, and indeed effectively mount a violent attack against the Muslims. There is indeed that sentiment in the pagan population that if the pagan National State does not do anything, it will sooner or later be toast; which is obviously true. However, a vicious attack by the National State on the Muslims would unite the Muslims. If they are united, they will obviously win. The mechanics of warfare pretty much guarantee that outcome.
format_quote Originally Posted by
cooterhein
You just need to wrap your head around the idea that a jihadist is a violent person, OR someone who advocates violence for a particular cause. Do that and you'll be okay.
Well, the amalgamation that you advocate, by ominously using the
OR connector, is a dangerous point of view. We must agree to disagree here. All that you are achieving by doing that, is to justify the use of force against anti-Jihadist advocates.
Furthermore, in line with the analysis made in
Brandenburg versus Ohio, my point of view is that advocacy of a violent overthrow of the National State constitutes perfectly permissible behaviour. Then, there is also the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment clearly implies that people have the right to acquire weapons and create military organizations ("militia") to fight against the National State for their freedom. Therefore, preventing people to advocate the use of force is meaningless, because they are allowed to actually organize themselves to effectively do it. I somehow suspect that the Jihadist interpretation of
freedom would be the
freedom to be governed by Divine Law.
As I said before, I do not believe that armed struggle would be necessary to achieve the goal of
governance by Divine Law. With patience, sheer demographics will achieve it already. But then again, I also expect that the currently failing strategy of the armed jihadists to provoke the British government into retaliating against Muslims in general, will sooner or later succeed.
Therefore, total distrust of the pagan National State remains absolutely necessary. Anybody caught by surprise by what pagan National State will sooner or later be doing, will have trusted and believed that false, pagan god. When that false, pagan god starts demanding flesh and blood, it is only fair that this will be served from its own followers, since it is the singular God himself, our beloved Master, who will enforce Divine Law, and hand over to Satan the flesh, blood, and souls of Satan's followers.