Monday, July 12, 2010
Der Dhimmi spielt den starken Mann: De Maizière verbietet Hamas-Spendenverein
Berlin. Bundesinnenminister Thomas de Maizière hat den Verein «Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation» wegen Unterstützung der radikalislamischen Hamas verboten. «Unter dem Deckmantel der humanitären Hilfe unterstütze die IHH seit einem langen Zeitraum im Gaza- Streifen ansässige so genannte Sozialvereine, die der Hamas zuzuordnen sind. Das sagte der CDU- Politiker in Berlin. Der Verein hat seinen Sitz in Frankfurt am Main. Das Verbot wird laut Innenministerium seit dem frühen Morgen in Hamburg, Hessen und Nordrhein-Westfalen vollzogen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
#25 Pamela FFM (11. Jul 2010 14:50) Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Your “moderations” are no longer awaiting a comment of mine.
Nach allen Zensurmaßnahmen von PI gegen mich,(selbst alle meine Hinweise darauf haben sie geplättet), habe ich mich definitiv dazu entschlossen, auf PI nicht mehr zu posten. PI wird’s freuen, was ich ihnen durchaus gönne. Denn aus meiner Sicht ist es Angst, wie bei jeder Zensur, Angst vor der Wahrheit, dass Islamkritik nicht als revival band für mehrfach schon erledigte REPS und Depps funktionieren kann. So wird in letzter Kosequenz der altvergorene braune Geist aus der Flasche siegen und Islamkritik wird zur bloßen Markenüberschrift verkommen, weit entfernt von Vorbildern wie Spencers jihadwatch oder auch jihadwatch Deutschland. Sektierertum ist sich eben selbst das Grundgesetz. So viele Pyrrhus-Siege stehen dieser PI-Mannschaft der ideologischen Säuberungen also noch bevor, man hofft nur, dass ihnen noch ein paar Tricks einfallen werden, wie man die Nutzerzahlen durch Änderung der Zählweise hochkorrigieren kann, damit nicht sichtbar werden wird, das PI in Richtung rechte Splitterpartei, in Richtung Sektierer-Selbstgerechtigkeiten unterwegs ist, wo anderswo in Richtung Wilders-Projekt vorangeschritten wird.
Zum Abschied habe ich mir gedacht, als Geschenk wenn ihr wollt, ein Danäergeschenk natürlich, so gut kennt ihr mich doch wohl jetzt, mal einen meiner Posts auf jihad watch hier einzustellen. Parallel zum vielgeübten Dialog mit dem Islam, wo nicht ein Sterbenswortchen zum Gewaltislam gesagt werden soll, gibt es halt auch eine „Islamkritik“, die ebenso sakrosankt sich unter die Wahrhaftgläubigen einsortiert; die fertigste und dümmste „Politik“ ist eben diejenige, die die Teufel mit dem Belzebub austreibt:
pamela.ffm.germany | February 2, 2010 3:19 AM | Reply
Here once again we can realize what the general use of these words “dialogue with Islam” actually means: not to be active for our own, dealing with this matter of islam by not dealing at all. To be totally uninformed, as a virtue. Not to be aware of the dangerous aspects of that war machine islam, self-intentionally, and if aware in some degrees, because islamic realities are exploding around us day by day and in constant jihad manners only to smile like an idiot for a little “talk with islam” and right in this sence, about nothing, hoping islam will tolerate us. Talking only as hand-shaking in extenso, never-ending dialogue loopings without any landing on the bottom of truth, with closed lips and totally closed eyes over all reality of jihad islam, as constant absolutions for that violent islam, even talking without talking. One washing the hands of the others ‘in innocence’. To do these pretty castrations of our own minds and rigths, and by our self, that islam can accept us the next periods of times or a little bit shorter.
Bishop Santier ,as all these others, uses ‘Dialogue with Islam’ not in an ordinary sense where dialogue means talking about something. Here Dialogue about Burka, perhaps about jihad islam in toto. His understanding of dialogue is: endless talking with the explicite intention for nothing to speak about; talking instead …, instead of the war which islam is fighting against us and we have to answer for not to loose. Talking, only talking without talking, instead of any kind of action that can define us by our own. Dialogue is a simple washing maschine, for the glory jihad stuff, to make it devine, and to promote this Allah war machine with relgious under-standing as “human”, propagate that as dialogue partner shipping which is a total surrender.
Dialogue in this sense is: be obidient, no critics at all, only good messages about islam should be heared, no wisper about the daily news-making Islam, do not disturb the inner circles of that on-going islamic war, submission, imperative submission, unbelievers, otherwise …; Dialogue with islam is nothimg else than Islam: It is forbidden to use human brains and the technics of dialoging about conflicts and about each kind of truth and reality.
Down the heads in the sands and the asses to “heaven”, for penetrations, the holy one, by the prophet, the ultimative one. May be, for Bishop Santier, it is a catholic behaviour to be penetrated. But it isn’t dialogue, not even that kind of pure ‘zoelibat’.
Pamela.Frankfurt germany
pamela.ffm.germany | February 2, 2010 3:19 AM | Reply
Here once again we can realize what the general use of these words “dialogue with Islam” actually means: not to be active for our own, dealing with this matter of islam by not dealing at all. To be totally uninformed, as a virtue. Not to be aware of the dangerous aspects of that war machine islam, self-intentionally, and if aware in some degrees, because islamic realities are exploding around us day by day and in constant jihad manners only to smile like an idiot for a little “talk with islam” and right in this sence, about nothing, hoping islam will tolerate us. Talking only as hand-shaking in extenso, never-ending dialogue loopings without any landing on the bottom of truth, with closed lips and totally closed eyes over all reality of jihad islam, as constant absolutions for that violent islam, even talking without talking. One washing the hands of the others ‘in innocence’. To do these pretty castrations of our own minds and rigths, and by our self, that islam can accept us the next periods of times or a little bit shorter.
Bishop Santier ,as all these others, uses ‘Dialogue with Islam’ not in an ordinary sense where dialogue means talking about something. Here Dialogue about Burka, perhaps about jihad islam in toto. His understanding of dialogue is: endless talking with the explicite intention for nothing to speak about; talking instead …, instead of the war which islam is fighting against us and we have to answer for not to loose. Talking, only talking without talking, instead of any kind of action that can define us by our own. Dialogue is a simple washing maschine, for the glory jihad stuff, to make it devine, and to promote this Allah war machine with relgious under-standing as “human”, propagate that as dialogue partner shipping which is a total surrender.
Dialogue in this sense is: be obidient, no critics at all, only good messages about islam should be heared, no wisper about the daily news-making Islam, do not disturb the inner circles of that on-going islamic war, submission, imperative submission, unbelievers, otherwise …; Dialogue with islam is nothimg else than Islam: It is forbidden to use human brains and the technics of dialoging about conflicts and about each kind of truth and reality.
Down the heads in the sands and the asses to “heaven”, for penetrations, the holy one, by the prophet, the ultimative one. May be, for Bishop Santier, it is a catholic behaviour to be penetrated. But it isn’t dialogue, not even that kind of pure ‘zoelibat’.
Pamela.Frankfurt germany
Post a Comment