patrick.net

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

Germany allows Sharia Patrols

Just wait till these animals stone someone to death.

Strategist says

Just wait till these animals stone someone to death.

They are already on tightrope. Won't take much to ignite neo-Nazis at this point, which is probably why Merkel is throwing crumb to disenfranchised electorate by banning burqa

.....well, that and re-election, which probably won't happen, since most believe this movement is too little too late. Just reacting at this point to brexit and trump victory

Islam claims freedom of speech and freedom of religion for itself, and then explicitly and violently denies those rights to everyone else.

rando says

Islam claims freedom of speech and freedom of religion for itself, and then explicitly and violently denies those rights to everyone else.

And the Germans see no problem with that. Try calling Mohammad a pedophile with those sharia animals around.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

The men urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to attend mosques and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, music, pornography and prostitution

Obviously Islam is bad, the worst of the religions (and all religions are bad). However, all these fools did was dress up in silly outfits and tried to persuade people to behave a certain way. This is no different from the annoying Hare Krishna that used to occupy airports and preach. As such, it was well in the Muslims' rights of free speech to preach their religious briefs. Now, if we removed such protections for religions and banned religions, then it wouldn't be legal. Perhaps we should do that.

www.youtube.com/embed/FzfXvTuZE-A

rando says

Islam claims freedom of speech and freedom of religion for itself, and then explicitly and violently denies those rights to everyone else.

Yep, Islamist SJWs.
Dan8267 says

Obviously Islam is bad, the worst of the religions (and all religions are bad). However, all these fools did was dress up in silly outfits and tried to persuade people to behave a certain way. This is no different from the annoying Hare Krishna that used to occupy airports and preach. As such, it was well in the Muslims' rights of free speech to preach their religious briefs. Now, if we removed such protections for religions and banned religions, then it wouldn't be legal. Perhaps we should do that.

I think the beef is with their orange vests emblazoned "Sharia Police", and accosting people, they were imitating "real" Police, which can and should be a crime. If they had been neo-nazis with "Anti-Degenerate Police" I think the German Court wouldn't have thought twice about throwing the book at them.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

The men urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to attend mosques and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, music, pornography and prostitution.

I heard a great quote about religion once (on NPR, I admit): "All religions seek a monopoly on pleasure."

Every competing form of pleasure is a threat to the religion, and therefore religions seek to ban them. Islam is just far more extreme than any other religion in its intolerance of competing pleasures, so they ban even harmless pleasures like music.

rando says

Every competing form of pleasure is a threat to the religion, and therefore religions seek to ban them. Islam is just far more extreme than any other religion in its intolerance of competing pleasures, so they ban even harmless pleasures like music.

They have no problems with the pleasures from sex slaves. Oh wait, that's just Islamic.

Germany has legal FKKs, a.k.a. brothels, so fuck Sharia or Puritan laws!

They start by patrolling, then they will intimidate then use force and coerce. Just watch it unfold.

We are renouncing civilization in the name of tolerance.

Dan8267 says

They start by patrolling, then they will intimidate then use force and coerce. Just watch it unfolding.

Hare Krishna may be annoying but I doubt their agenda including instituting theocracy, shutting down free speech, women equality, and reverting to medieval Arab sadism as a guideline for civil code.

"They start by patrolling, then they will intimidate then use force and coerce. Just watch it unfold.
We are renouncing civilization in the name of tolerance."

When they use force and coerce, then they can be arrested.

"Hare Krishna may be annoying but I doubt their agenda including instituting theocracy, shutting down free speech, women equality, and reverting to medieval Arab sadism as a guideline for civil code."

Should the laws be different for groups you don't agree with? One set for peaceful folks, and a different set for folks you deem "non-peaceful'?

joeyjojojunior says

Should the laws be different for groups you don't agree with? One set for peaceful folks, and a different set for folks you deem "non-peaceful'?

Great, than you agree that Muslims can not have more than one wife and reside in the West. If it's forbidden everybody, including Mormons, it must be forbidden Muslims, as well, right?

You wouldn't want two standards of justice. One law for All.

"Great, than you agree that Muslims can not have more than one wife and reside in the West. If it's forbidden everybody, including Mormons, it must be forbidden Muslims, as well, right?"

Of course--if it's the law, it applies to everyone.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

I think the beef is with their orange vests emblazoned "Sharia Police", and accosting people, they were imitating "real" Police, which can and should be a crime.

Agreed, if that is what they were doing. The court seems to think otherwise though and without being familiar with the case and evidence, I can't say either way.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

Great, than you agree that Muslims can not have more than one wife and reside in the West. If it's forbidden everybody, including Mormons, it must be forbidden Muslims, as well, right?

You can have as many "wives" as you want, but only one is legally recognized. There's no law prohibiting you from living with multiple women and having sex with them all. You can even call each your wife as long as only one, the same one, is listed on legal documents. In the west, we call this an open marriage, or at least half open.

Dan8267 says

You can have as many "wives" as you want, but only one is legally recognized. There's no law prohibiting you from living with multiple women and having sex with them all. You can even call each your wife as long as only one, the same one, is listed on legal documents. In the west, we call this an open marriage, or at least half open.

Here's the problem: Many Muslims in the UK are listed as dads of multiple women's (other wives) kids. Who pays for the child support and welfare, since many don't have jobs?

joeyjojojunior says

Should the laws be different for groups you don't agree with? One set for peaceful folks, and a different set for folks you deem "non-peaceful'?

They are not peaceful, or if they are, it is only to the extent that they aren't in sufficient force to win a confrontation.
Just look at the Islam party in Belgium: they already stated that they want to create an Islamic state in Belgium. It is their stated goal.
i.e. Their stated goal is to fundamentally reject all values and institutions that make western civilization possible.
They use the freedom YOU grant them to reject western freedom in general for everyone.
And they reproduce faster than non-Muslims.
And they are a cult. They spread those beliefs. In fact these patrols represent an obvious attempt at proselytizing.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

Here's the problem: Many Muslims in the UK are listed as dads of multiple women's (other wives) kids. Who pays for the child support and welfare, since many don't have jobs?

That's not a problem with polygamy. It's a problem with letting people have children without being financially secure first. The problem occurs with both monogamy and with non-married polygamy. Hell, many African Americans have the exact same circumstances. How many kids don't even know who their father is?

We really need to license parenthood. Yes, such power is ripe for abuse, but it could be done right and if it's not done abuse is rampant in other areas.

You can't prevent people from having children without some sort of severe abuse. Look at China 1 child policy.

"Here's the problem: Many Muslims in the UK are listed as dads of multiple women's (other wives) kids. Who pays for the child support and welfare, since many don't have jobs?"

That's not really a problem unique to Muslims. Jerry Springer has made a career out of it in the US.

Dan8267 says

We really need to license parenthood. Yes, such power is ripe for abuse, but it could be done right and if it's not done abuse is rampant in other areas.

Agreed. And you should pay $10,000 down to have more than one child (whether male or female). And the state should pay for vasectomies and hysterectomies, including as a penalty for having more than one child you can't support.

Obligations are two-way streets, too many are like "Muh Religion!" or "Muh Human Rights!"
joeyjojojunior says

That's not really a problem unique to Muslims. Jerry Springer has made a career out of it in the US.

Even so, should Muslims be legally allowed have more than one wife but not non-Muslims? Yes or No?

"They are not peaceful, or if they are, it is only to the extent that they aren't in sufficient force to win a confrontation."

Many aren't, but you still can't arrest them until they commit a crime. That's a basic right.

"Even so, should Muslims be legally allowed have more than one wife but not non-Muslims? Yes or No?"

I answered that already. Of course not. But a wife and a baby mama aren't the same thing.

Refusal to Assimilate in action

This is the gratitude America gets for sharing our great country with people who have no respect for it. #StandUp #NationalAnthem pic.twitter.com/jlLwVZEYGC

— Steve Hirsch (@Stevenwhirsch99) December 7, 2016

Where are all the children, old, and women refugees if they are fleeing war and disaster? Overwhelmingly young men, including "teens' who are really 5 years older than they claim. Just lose the passport after you cross into Germany and you're all set. "I'm only 16" (Ha, infidel, I am 23, but this will make my application faster and more likely to be approved).

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

And you should pay $10,000 down to have more than one child (whether male or female).

Way more than that. Each child should require a non-returnable prepayment of $304,480. This pays for all socialized costs of children including education costs up to and including college degrees, parks, all safety and protection services, food stamps, basic clothing, day care, and medical care. You should also be 100% debt free.

This would have many benefits.
1. Paying for all the extra services the state provides for children.
2. Eliminating deficits.
3. Reducing other taxes.
4. Eliminating childhood poverty by assuring critical expenses are paid.
5. Discouraging overpopulation.

And, of course, apply this same exact financial criteria for all immigrants, legal or not. I suspect we'd solve many problems at once.

As a side benefit, this would force women to choose good mates that are willing and able to financially support children. Encouraging non-productive people to reproduce is never a good thing. You reap what you sow.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

Overwhelmingly young men, including "teens' who are really 5 years older than they claim.

First clue...

How about mandatory sterilization for all refugees? Bet they'd reconsider settling in a place that offered that sort of bargain.

rando says

Islam claims freedom of speech and freedom of religion for itself, and then explicitly and violently denies those rights to everyone else.

-- Just like modern lefitists.

Heraclitusstudent says

They are not peaceful, or if they are, it is only to the extent that they aren't in sufficient force to win a confrontation.

Just look at the Islam party in Belgium: they already stated that they want to create an Islamic state in Belgium. It is their stated goal.

i.e. Their stated goal is to fundamentally reject all values and institutions that make western civilization possible.

They use the freedom YOU grant them to reject western freedom in general for everyone.

And they reproduce faster than non-Muslims.

And they are a cult. They spread those beliefs. In fact these patrols represent an obvious attempt at proselytizing.

They are using the freedoms granted by democracy, to destroy democracy.
We need to step back and curtail some of the freedoms until the threat is gone.

What's the problem?
america allows retard Ds & Rs to roam freely
& even vote for some of the worst nominees
which is leading to the destruction of the u.s.

700-800 u.s. military bases globally, political parties of PEACE.
How many innocents have been killed by D & R military adventures?
america is FOF (Full Of Fools).

Damn violent Muslims!

HEY YOU says

Damn violent Muslims!

Only part of your comment that actually makes sense.

Germany would definitely not allow private patrols from political parties (think: brownshirt nazis of the 1930s)), so why would they allow religious patrols?

And is it not illegal to claim to be POLICE or POLIZEI?

"And is it not illegal to claim to be POLICE or POLIZEI?"

I agree--that would seem to be against the law.

Anyone who believes in Shariah is by definition rejecting the core European values and institutions.
If immigrants, they should be immediately cast back into the dusty shit holes from whence they crawled.

HEY YOU says

What's the problem?

america allows retard Ds & Rs to roam freely

& even vote for some of the worst nominees

which is leading to the destruction of the u.s.

700-800 u.s. military bases globally, political parties of PEACE.

How many innocents have been killed by D & R military adventures?

america is FOF (Full Of Fools).

Lol, "destruction of the u.s." seems to mean repeated stock market records since Trump's election. If that's "destruction", sounds good!

And those global military bases? Trump wants to reduce their number. Unlike warmonger HIllary.

Dan8267 says

Each child should require a non-returnable prepayment of $304,480. This pays for all socialized costs of children including education costs up to and including college degrees, parks, all safety and protection services, food stamps, basic clothing, day care, and medical care.

You can look at these socialized costs as partial(!) repayment from society to the parents who raise the children, for their efforts and expenses. Or you think the parents should bear the whole burden for an activity that benefits society (as well as them, of course)?

joeyjojojunior says

"They are not peaceful, or if they are, it is only to the extent that they aren't in sufficient force to win a confrontation."

Many aren't, but you still can't arrest them until they commit a crime. That's a basic right.

Right. But you can refuse them to immigrate. Immigration is not a basic right. Problem avoided.