Peace loving majority or Radical minority

Here you can talk about anything not bike related, Beer, Cakes, Music, Bands etc
Post Reply
Founder, Choppers Australia
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Willunga, South Australia

Peace loving majority or Radical minority

Post by Prof » Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:22 am

A German's View on Islam - worth reading 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 Dr. Emanuel Tanya, 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 spectre 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 South East 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.

Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Ipswich

Re: Peace loving majority or Radical minority

Post by steve » Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:40 pm


I thought the article was good and accurate. The big question is how do we solve the problem. If we attack them in the streets we have sunk to their level. If we act like Australians should and let other live their lives and follow their own beliefs we may pay the ultimate price. We can't force them to be Christian as that would be the same as forcing us to change our religious views. We can't put them all in the one group as it is only a percentage that are radical.

We know our politicians won't do anything. Large corporations won't help us and in fact a lot of them are actively paying them money to put the halal symbol on their products. If we boycott buying products with the halal symbol we are limiting our choices and lifestyle.

So back to the original question, what is the solution?


Posts: 1894
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Gawler, Sth Aust

Re: Peace loving majority or Radical minority

Post by Bearcx » Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:49 pm

Is this similar to the 1% syndrome? 99 % of bikers just want to ride, 1% make it a way of life, a culture, a brotherhood. Yet, we are all caught in the grip of the "Guilty by assosciation" rulings of the Govt. So, Ulysses and Vietnam Vet's etc, cannot wear colours or ride in large groups?

The Govt seems to think the blanket effect will silence the outspoken and radical members, but it won't. There will always be those in society who believe it is their right to.....(whatever)....steal, fight, break and enter, without any consequences. I believe, that if national pride and values were higher, then people wouldn't be so laid back and accepting of, lets say, "illegal behaviour" and do something about it. Younger folk have lost their value system, instilled in me by my father/brother/parents as a "way to live and treat others". A lot of youth are all about ME, "it's my choice", "it's my life", "you cant tell me what to do".... While it's true that nobody cannot tell you how to live your own life, to assimilate with society, become a useful member of a community, and settle into a good neighbourhood, everyone must agree on the rules, and bend to suit.

Obviously, this is not an answer to the Islamic fanatic situation, but if more people took an interest in what happens in their own town, maybe these radicals wouldn't settle in so easily, or find it easy to get things started if they knew eyes were upon them.

Just thinking out loud......
The brave may not live long, but, the cautious do not live at all.

Founder, Choppers Australia
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Willunga, South Australia

Re: Peace loving majority or Radical minority

Post by Prof » Wed Nov 25, 2015 8:56 am

My guess is that western governments are purposely letting them in to create division, unrest and fear in the community... after all what better excuse to then pass laws (to protect us) that turn us eventually into a dictatorship where you have no security, no right to say or even think for yourself and you can be pulled out of your home and jailed without trial just because you are suspected of not being a slave to the rulers.

See China and the Soviet bloc for some sobering examples of what we are in for if nothing changes... or Lebanon, Africa etc if it really gets out of hand. There are already places in some of our big cities where whites and police dare not go because they have become Muslim enclaves.

Solution I see is for each of us to support the few politicians who are trying to stem the tide, badger the rest with letters and emails and then en masse vote out the major parties at the next elections.

A couple of people I know who escaped the Soviet Bloc in the 60's have stated without prompting or reservation that once the government takes military style fireams out of the community, they move rapidly with restrictive laws using public safety as their excuse. Even King James did it back in England... no one but the King's men was allowed a longbow (equivalent to AK47 today)... supposedly to protect the public!

I also personally think that we are partly in this situation because the western nations as a whole have rejected their Christian heritage which I believe is the only belief system (religion including atheism) that provides a foundation of individual value and of each person being equal before each other and under the law, of right to life, free speech and property ownership which we have all benefited from and want to retain. Many will disagree on this point, but I believe a thorough study of the world's religions and of history will back this view up pretty well.
Chopit'nrideit... Prof

Founder, Choppers Australia
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Willunga, South Australia

Re: Peace loving majority or Radical minority

Post by Prof » Fri Nov 27, 2015 6:25 pm

A bit more food for thought...

Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 10:21 AM
Subject: Why the Marine Hymn Contains the Verse "To the Shores of Tripoli"

A bit of American history.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago
the United
States had declared war on Islam and Thomas Jefferson led the

At the height of the eighteenth century, Muslim pirates were the terror
of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North

They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant
ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to
barbaric treatment and wrote heart-breaking letters home,
their government and family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan
captors demanded.

These extortionists of the high seas represented the Islamic nations of
Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the
Barbary Coast – and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the
new American Republic.

Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the
protection of Great Britain. When the
U.S. declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the
United States were protected by France. However, once the war was won,
America had to protect its own fleets.

Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy. Beginning in 1784,
seventeen years before he would become president, Thomas Jefferson
became America’s Minister to France. That same year,
the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by
following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the
Barbary States rather than engaging them in war.

In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of
Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000. It was a plain
and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently
opposed to any further payments. Instead, he
proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations
who together could force the Islamic states into peace. A
disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to
Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships
and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility
towards America, a nation with which they had no previous

The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman
Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their
Prophet, that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would
not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their
right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and
to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every
Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to

Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim
nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders,
including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong
and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen
years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for
the safe passage of American ships or the return of American
hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute
amounted to over twenty percent of the United States government annual
revenues in 1800.

Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the
third President of the
United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding
the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year
forthcoming. That changed everything. Jefferson let
the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his
demand. The Pasha responded by cutting
down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the
United States. Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed
suit. Jefferson, until now, had been against America
raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but, having
watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thugery for
long enough,decided that is was finally time to meet force with

He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the
Muslim nations of
the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget.
Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all
vessels and goods of the Pasha
of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of precaution or
hostility as
the state of war would justify”.

When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and
acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the
will and the right
to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to
Tripoli. The war with Tripoli lasted for four more
years, and raged up again in 1815. The
bravery of
the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of
Tripoli” in the
Marine Hymn, and they would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the
leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads
from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy

Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their
prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite

America had a tradition of religious tolerance, the fact that Jefferson,
himself, had co-authored
the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam
was like no other religion the world had ever seen.
A religion based on supremacism, whose holy book not only condoned but
mandated violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to
him. His greatest fear was that someday this
brand of Islam would return and
pose an even greater threat to the United States.

This should bother every American: Muslims have brought about
women only
classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and public
pools; Christians, Jews, and Hindus have been banned from serving on
juries where Muslim defendants are being judged; Piggy banks and Porky
Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because they
offend Islamist sensibilities; ice cream has been discontinued at
certain Burger King locations because the
picture on
the wrapper looks similar to the Arabic script for Allah; public
schools are pulling
pork from their menus; on and on and on and on….

It’s death by a thousand cuts, and most Americans have no idea that this
battle is being waged every day across America. By not fighting back,
by allowing groups to obfuscate what is really happening, and not
insisting that the Islamists adapt to our own culture, the
United States is cutting its own throat with a politically correct
knife, and helping to further the Islamists agenda. Sadly, it appears
that today’s America's leaders would rather be politically
Chopit'nrideit... Prof

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Forum!!!”