Muslims are starting to become annoying here

[Something completely different]

I thought so, because you cannot prove it! I am certain that you are a antisemite, just like most muslims!

What a strong faith you have young Jedi!

I'm glad you don't accept that all Muslims are against democracy.

Lets just hope you can maybe try to base your accusation that I am an anti-Semite on present evidence and not just take me as an anti-Semite without checking: bigotry as you're probably aware being such an AMAZING BRAIN! xx

It was you who first mentioned"Jews" and it is you who spoke of Israel in a negative way, so I will not be suprised if very soon you will be talking about "appartheit state" and "evil zionist conspiracies"

Anyway, could your dumbass finaly start adressing the actualy arguments I made! Instead of focusing on small pieces where you can fart arround your useless bullshit!

You seem to have absolutly no idea how a debate actualy works!

---

I think you're extending the definition in the direction you want it to go, but only because it serves your specific interests.

No I am not. A sociaty in which various different ideologies are represented yet only one dictates the political decision or several are excluded cannot be pluralist.

By that definition, the United States is not a pluralistic society, and the bulk of its people are anti-pluralistic, as the question of equal rights for women has been put to the vote several times and defeated each time.

It doesnt matter what the people may think of pluralism - fact is that they remain in a pluralist framework. I am pritty certain that woman in the US have equal rights on paper - yet that the reality looks different - this does not mean that the US is not pluralist because the framework has not been shattered through this.

However, I will say a couple things before I bow out of this discussion. Certainly, I acknowledge that I am ignorant about the world, political philosophy, and history, so I grant that I may be amiss in relevant concerns. However, to me, this argument is twofold. First, what is pluralism, and more generally, what is the nature of politics in a world which is de facto pluralistic if not de jure pluralistic. Clausewitz said that war is the conduct of politics through non-political means. If we abandon the means of political discourse, the remaining tool in our arsenal is war. This is what resulted in the death of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. One side or the other abandoned proper social and political discourse to resolve their differences and resorted to the politics of war. The question of integrating Muslims is not just an immigration question, it's a global one. What are you suggesting for the pluralism of our world society? That we deport all Muslims to another planet? Or perhaps we should simply make the middle east a plain of glass, because they threaten our worldview. I say no. I realize it's not as efficient as bombing them or deporting them, but you as a German should know intimately that the efficiency of disposing with a problem population is not in and of itself a virtue.

I clearly pointed out what my views were and you seemed to have overlooked them on purpose.
People who live in a democratic and pluralist sociaty - yet reject it`s values and prefer a violent overthrow of the sociaty they live in shouldnt be allowed to live in that sociaty or should be excluded from participating in such.
As for now, here in Germany, several communist and neo nazi groups which have attempted to overthrow their pluralist sociaty have been banned and their members sentenced to jail time.
European democracies are built on a certain set of values, rejecting these should automaticaly mean that one rejects ones right to participate in that sociaty.
And in the case of immigrants - it is a political reality that people who travel to germany and who then spread antidemocratic sentiment are deported. This has been done with several individuals (especialy from militant communist groups) before and should also be done with radical clerics and salafists.

By using the word muslim you indicate that I am associating antidemocrtatic sentiment with the entire muslim population. Which I am not. But statistics clearly show that amongst the muslim population it is a mayority which reject democratic principles.

My second question has to be, how are you going to implement an immigration policy aimed at reducing the inflow of anti-pluralistic Muslims into your country? What are you going to use as a litmus test for whom to admit and whom to reject? "Are you a Muslim?" "Assuredly not! Insha'Allah!" Are you going to deny immigration from certain countries on the basis of the politics of the majority there? In addition to seeming to run quickly to racial profiling, many times an immigrant from those nations is immigrating to escape from that. Your attitude to that is what? Sucks to be them? Indeed, since Muslim regimes are some of the most oppressive, you may very well see a strong correlation between Muslim hegemony and immigration because of that reason. And what about those who are refugees, say in Darfur, who are fleeing not because of Muslim oppression, but because of other oppression? Do we turn our backs on the people of Darfur because they come from a predominately Muslim nation? Or do we differentiate between the countries composed "mostly of good Muslims" and "mostly of bad Muslims" ? Exactly whom are you targeting here, Germans, and how do we identify them?

I dont have to. Because it is already in place. When arriving here without visa the first thing conducted is a backgroundcheck with the help of the embessy. If found to be a antidemocratic radical you are allowed to live here without citizenship with the obligation to report to the police once a day and not allowed to leave the district in which you live. - that is, if it would be to dangerous to deport you back - because of the possibility of torture or other actions that might be undertaken against you, which would violate your human rights.

If you emigrate to this place and you start showing radical antidemocratic or criminal sentiment or undertake such action, you will be first held accountable in court for the actions you may have taken, and after serving the sentence one is deported back to the country of origin, if that is not possible due to human rights issues - the rules mentioned above apply.

Exactly how is this "send them back to where they came from" policy going to work? Are we going to deport people for being fanatical Muslims? Simply Muslim? For speaking out in favor of Sharia law? What exactly is the list of thought crimes going to include? If they break laws, send them to jail, or worse. But I get the impression you want to attack a much larger group of people, and we don't need additional laws to punish actual law breakers, and if we do, that's a separate matter. And it raises the very real question of why we would want to punish Muslim lawbreakers differently from non-Muslim lawbreakers. And I'm gonna add another Godwin for this one, but it's hardly surprising that this comes from the citizen of a country that has made it a crime to disagree with the majority view of the history of the holocaust and speak one's mind about it. Maybe when Germany becomes truly pluralistic you might have some grounds to bitch.

No, my point was (as I stated in the very beginning) that muslims shouldnt be treated differently, simply because they are muslims. I do not see a difference between a salafist demanding sharia law and organising violence, and a fashist demanding the overthrow of the democracy, a communist organising violence, or foreign terror groups collecting funds. Yet those always find themselves punished acording to the laws of the land, whilest muslims always seem to be excluded from this due to the fact that they are muslims and the authorities fear being seen as racist.
And it is something which has been done here for a very long time, foreign supporters of terror groups have always found themselves in a plane back to their country of origin.