What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists?

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

Donald Trump is trying to be like "Muslims are the bad guys, we need to bring war on them." I.e. Demonize a whole people. Islam is far from demonism. But this is the tactic ...

This is sooo uninteresting!

Our beloved Donald Trump will build a wall between the USA and Mexico and send the bill to Mexico. I want to see him doing that. It is too interesting not to watch it. I want to see the reaction of the Mexicans, and by extension all the Hispanics. Our beloved Donald Trump has said so many things about so many people. Why is it necessary for you to propel the Muslims to the forefront in this matter? Can't you let other people take the main role for a change? The idea is that we watch how our beloved Donald Trump quarrels with the Hispanics, without anybody producing any kind of unnecessary interferences. Seriously, I want everybody to stay out of his hot conflict with the Hispanics. Be a little bit modest and humble, and just accept NOT to be center of attention for a change. Why does everything in the world necessarily have to be about conflict with the Muslims?

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

Look at Choudary, he was able to stay out of prison for 20 years and his speech was very loud and very harmful that whole time.

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. Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech. His speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.

Choudary cannot be punished under American (pagan) provisions. Of course, British paganism is different from the American incarnation of man-made legal inventions. Still, there are good reasons why prosecuting speech that just advocates illegal action at some indefinite future time, as in Choudary's case, is a bad idea. It will quickly make the entire system inconsistent. Imprisoning people or otherwise using force against people for expressing opinions that you do not like, is also a slippery slope. In terms of the Qisas -- an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth -- it would endanger the security of large demographics on both side of the conflict.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

Please tell me what is the difference between the speeches of Bush, Blair and Choudary.

Bush and Blair started a war under false pretenses as heads of state, and Choudary, in the capacity of a non-state dissident, carefully thought about whether he should back Daesh, decided that he would, and several English-born Muslims wound up traveling to Syria in order to fight with Daesh. Some of the communication that's been gleaned from their various interactions confirms that Choudary was directly responsible for their decision to do so. On the strength of this evidence, a direct link from Choudary's speech to their lawless action winds up being just the thing we needed to put him away. And by the way, it's recently come to light that Choudary had been in contact with Daesh well before he came out in support of them, through email and a couple of times through Skype, along with one of his main guys. The other guy who was also arrested.

Oh, right, one other difference between Choudary vs. Frick and Frack. Choudary explicitly, thoughtfully, and intentionally supported a well known terrorist organization, whereas Bush and Blair destabilized a region that allowed terrorism to flourish, they did so unintentionally and while wasting a lot of money and lives, and then they fought the terror problem that they basically created.

Why, do you think Choudary should still be walking about as a free man? Or would you suggest that you're not comfortable with his imprisonment unless Bush and Blair are arrested first? If it's that, I'm pretty sure you know that's not how it works. Choudary is guilty, he goes away because of Choudary. Not because Bush/Blair, not "only if them first," Choudary goes away because of Choudary.

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000

They should make brother anjem the governor of britain and put that *$#% teresa may in prison for false imprisonment, and the queen? Off with her head as the saying goes.

When you do this sort of thing, it vaguely reminds me of when Vladimir Putin says silly things. Like when he's admiring something that he likes and says "Heh, this is great, I could kill someone with this." Or when he jokes about poisoning someone for political reasons. It's a bit unsettling, because it matches his persona in a way that's sort of funny, but at the same time we know he's a shady guy who has definitely killed people himself and he's had people killed. Joking about it is dark anyway, but a little more spooky when we all know he's more than capable of actually doing it.

It's kind of like that with you. Of course I know you're joking, you're talking about dismembering a well known world leader just for effect. But we also know you're a bit of a loose cannon, there's a non-zero chance that you'll be fully radicalized one day, and you might actually enjoy hurting and/or killing people for partly religious reasons that are also informed by a twisted political and social agenda that really is quite toxic.

That's all. Carry on.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

And so history repeats. Who is going to be the next Hitler? Trump?

In shaa' Allah no holocaust. But I do know this:

Donald Trump is trying to be like "Muslims are the bad guys, we need to bring war on them." I.e. Demonize a whole people. Islam is far from demonism. But this is the tactic:

In order to bring a population to do war on a another nation, you use propaganda and try to demonize and make people think that that nation is the fault.

And Allah knows best.

God bless America.

But yeah, Trump is really awful.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



George Bush asked God to bless America as he bombed Iraq, and Tony Blair was his sidekick, they caused far more death than IS, and they have to be the main reason Iraq is destabilised. Two million refugees fled Iraq, many going to Syria, that has to be a major cause of upheaval in Syria.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

Yeah, that's right. Is there a particular conclusion that this leads you to? Am I right in assuming it links up with Choudary at some point?

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

But yeah, Trump is really awful.

The only criticism that I could ever have on our beloved Donald Trump is: Hey, you were going to do the wall with Mexico first!

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000

It's amazing how you think i'm capable of nothing, and capable of everything, at the same time.....
.....a bit like the jews and christians, one crying: impostor, the other crying: master of the universe.
why not be truthful with yourselves for a change????

Quite frankly, I think the truth that you need to know is you might get yourself killed at a very young age. What is the truth that I need to know about myself?

Btw, i am serious when i say that the queen of england merits the death penalty for her crimes against humanity, it is better for her that she repents to God and walks the straight path, that way she may receive grace. What she and hillary did to gaddafi was sick.

Well, Gaddafi was trying to introduce the gold dinar to North Africa and the Middle East, it would have been terrible for the strength of the USD, the Euro, and the GBP, the whole basket of currencies really. So yeah, that is a terrible reason to do what they did.

And "radical".... i prefer to adhere to God and not radicalize from Him, the only ones who assume that people who sincerely try to adhere to God and speak the truth plainly and stand for justice are "radicals" are either unfamiliar with the definition of the term, or have mistakenly/falsely imagined up in their minds something other than God as supreme authority and imagine muttaqeen individuals to be radicalised from such an idol. (A bit like the process of galvanization - better to galvanize with God).

Offensive jihad (and a few other innovations that are likely to come with that) is what makes your thing radical. I thought you would have known that.

The freemasons amongst the humans and jinns are the radicals. Start with royal alpha lodge.

Ah, those Masons. They did have a role in the radical Enlightenment, didn't they? I happen to know some Masons, they're cops. They're not radical, which is not to say Masonic lodges at other times and in other places haven't pushed a radical agenda. They certainly have. And I can't help but think that something comparable in the Islamic world would be a most welcome agent of change.

There's different kinds of radical, you know. It means a couple different things, although not at the exact same time. One meaning, is just that you're advocating fundamental and far-reaching change. It could be any kind of change, I want to see mainstream Islam experience a certain type of radical change and you want to see the UK and the rest of Europe experience a more forceful and violent kind of change. On the other hand, radical can also mean something a little bit different. It could just mean you have potentially violent tendencies in the course of going after what you want, and that's really the one I was getting at. Exhibit A, off with her head, I was actually quite serious about that. Exhibit B- with any kind of luck, it will be the very next thing you say, or perhaps the thing right after that.

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

Well, Gaddafi was trying to introduce the gold dinar to North Africa and the Middle East, it would have been terrible for the strength of the USD, the Euro, and the GBP, the whole basket of currencies really. So yeah, that is a terrible reason to do what they did.

The power of the National State is based on its ability to make you accept their money as payment, and on their ability to figure out what you are doing (to spy on you). With cryptocurrencies, more specifically with bitcoin, we are gradually but surely succeeding where Gaddafi failed. As soon as the next State currency collapses, it will never regain the trust that it has lost. We will have to focus on convincing people never to re-trust it, after they have lost their money in such State currency reset. With the tor and i2p networks, we are gradually but surely preventing the National State from getting any information that we do not want it to have. The only player that matters in this field is the NSA, and they cannot handle our latest elliptic curve cryptography. At the same time, it is utterly impossible for the National State to keep its own critical information secret. It simply has the wrong design for that. This asymmetry will eventually destroy it.

format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady

We're not talking about a redress of grievances, we're talking about murder.

Wiki:
"The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals."

Redress of grievances means to get justice for the injustices you think you are suffering from. If it also has a specific, narrow meaning in British politics, nice, but that's not what was being referred do.

What we're talking about is Abz's suggestion that public blasphemy should be illegal. You said that making it so would be an act of appeasement. If you actually think "appeasement" is in any way a meaningful term beyond being a propaganda buzzword, then please tell us:

1. How does one objectively determine whether a particular action is "appeasement" or "not appeasement"?
2. For what real-world purpose does it actually matter whether the action in question is appeasement or not?