Austria passes anti Isalm law

[Osomir]

Nah, the Crusades worked. They expelled the Muslim savage invaders from European Christian lands.

I guess that's why eastern Europe doesn't have a significant Muslim population.

It wasn't perfect, they couldn't save Eastern Europe, North Africa, and many Middle Eastern countries. I guess you would have liked all of Europe to be Muslim lands.

Not at all. I have a respect for religion, but I am an atheist. I'd much prefer the world to be more secular. What I'm against are radicals. This includes ideological radicals such as yourself.

 

[Roudy]

Nah, the Crusades worked. They expelled the Muslim savage invaders from European Christian lands.

I guess that's why eastern Europe doesn't have a significant Muslim population.

It wasn't perfect, they couldn't save Eastern Europe, North Africa, and many Middle Eastern countries. I guess you would have liked all of Europe to be Muslim lands.

Not at all. I have a respect for religion, but I am an atheist. I'd much prefer the world to be more secular. What I'm against are radicals. This includes ideological radicals such as yourself.

And that's why you don't like this law the Austrians passed, that prevents foreign Islamic entities turning their mosques into hotbeds of radical Islam.

You're an Islam apologist.

 

[Osomir]

Nah, the Crusades worked. They expelled the Muslim savage invaders from European Christian lands.

I guess that's why eastern Europe doesn't have a significant Muslim population.

It wasn't perfect, they couldn't save Eastern Europe, North Africa, and many Middle Eastern countries. I guess you would have liked all of Europe to be Muslim lands.

Not at all. I have a respect for religion, but I am an atheist. I'd much prefer the world to be more secular. What I'm against are radicals. This includes ideological radicals such as yourself.

And that's why you don't like this law the Austrians passed, that prevents foreign Islamic entities turning their mosques into hotbeds of radical Islam.

You're an Islam apologist.

I never said that I didn't like it. Once again your poor standards cause your analysis to be deeply flawed.

 

[Roudy]

Nah, the Crusades worked. They expelled the Muslim savage invaders from European Christian lands.

I guess that's why eastern Europe doesn't have a significant Muslim population.

It wasn't perfect, they couldn't save Eastern Europe, North Africa, and many Middle Eastern countries. I guess you would have liked all of Europe to be Muslim lands.

Not at all. I have a respect for religion, but I am an atheist. I'd much prefer the world to be more secular. What I'm against are radicals. This includes ideological radicals such as yourself.

And that's why you don't like this law the Austrians passed, that prevents foreign Islamic entities turning their mosques into hotbeds of radical Islam.

You're an Islam apologist.

I never said that I didn't like it. Once again your poor standards cause your analysis to be deeply flawed.

So is your memory: Here is your quote whining about the law: "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?"

So do you agree or not?

 

[Osomir]

I guess that's why eastern Europe doesn't have a significant Muslim population.

It wasn't perfect, they couldn't save Eastern Europe, North Africa, and many Middle Eastern countries. I guess you would have liked all of Europe to be Muslim lands.

Not at all. I have a respect for religion, but I am an atheist. I'd much prefer the world to be more secular. What I'm against are radicals. This includes ideological radicals such as yourself.

And that's why you don't like this law the Austrians passed, that prevents foreign Islamic entities turning their mosques into hotbeds of radical Islam.

You're an Islam apologist.

I never said that I didn't like it. Once again your poor standards cause your analysis to be deeply flawed.

So is your memory: Here is your quote whining about the law: "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?"

So do you agree or not?

I wasn't responding to the law, I was responding to your comment and interpretation of events. Otherwise I would have quoted the OP and not you. I haven't yet formulated an opinion on the law.

 

[Roudy]

It wasn't perfect, they couldn't save Eastern Europe, North Africa, and many Middle Eastern countries. I guess you would have liked all of Europe to be Muslim lands.

Not at all. I have a respect for religion, but I am an atheist. I'd much prefer the world to be more secular. What I'm against are radicals. This includes ideological radicals such as yourself.

And that's why you don't like this law the Austrians passed, that prevents foreign Islamic entities turning their mosques into hotbeds of radical Islam.

You're an Islam apologist.

I never said that I didn't like it. Once again your poor standards cause your analysis to be deeply flawed.

So is your memory: Here is your quote whining about the law: "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?"

So do you agree or not?

Now your reading comprehension seems to be a bit off. I wasn't responding to the law, I was responding to your comment and interpretation of events. I disagree with it. I haven't yet formulated an opinion on the law.

Nobody gives a shit about your "opinion". If you haven't formulated an opinion, it's pretty obvious what it will be from the "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?" WHINE.

Now get lost.

 

[Osomir]

Not at all. I have a respect for religion, but I am an atheist. I'd much prefer the world to be more secular. What I'm against are radicals. This includes ideological radicals such as yourself.

And that's why you don't like this law the Austrians passed, that prevents foreign Islamic entities turning their mosques into hotbeds of radical Islam.

You're an Islam apologist.

I never said that I didn't like it. Once again your poor standards cause your analysis to be deeply flawed.

So is your memory: Here is your quote whining about the law: "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?"

So do you agree or not?

Now your reading comprehension seems to be a bit off. I wasn't responding to the law, I was responding to your comment and interpretation of events. I disagree with it. I haven't yet formulated an opinion on the law.

Nobody gives a shit about your "opinion". If you haven't formulated an opinion, it's pretty obvious what it will be from the "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?" WHINE.

Now get lost.

I find your need for me to think that way to be rather telling. Setting some standards for yourself might diminish your insecurity.

 

[Roudy]

And that's why you don't like this law the Austrians passed, that prevents foreign Islamic entities turning their mosques into hotbeds of radical Islam.

You're an Islam apologist.

I never said that I didn't like it. Once again your poor standards cause your analysis to be deeply flawed.

So is your memory: Here is your quote whining about the law: "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?"

So do you agree or not?

Now your reading comprehension seems to be a bit off. I wasn't responding to the law, I was responding to your comment and interpretation of events. I disagree with it. I haven't yet formulated an opinion on the law.

Nobody gives a shit about your "opinion". If you haven't formulated an opinion, it's pretty obvious what it will be from the "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?" WHINE.

Now get lost.

I find your need for me to think that way to be rather telling. Setting some standards for yourself might diminish your insecurity.

I don't need you to think a certain way. You are an Islamfacist apologist with no standards who obviously got upset and started whining after reading the article in the OP.

 

[Osomir]

I never said that I didn't like it. Once again your poor standards cause your analysis to be deeply flawed.

So is your memory: Here is your quote whining about the law: "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?"

So do you agree or not?

Now your reading comprehension seems to be a bit off. I wasn't responding to the law, I was responding to your comment and interpretation of events. I disagree with it. I haven't yet formulated an opinion on the law.

Nobody gives a shit about your "opinion". If you haven't formulated an opinion, it's pretty obvious what it will be from the "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?" WHINE.

Now get lost.

I find your need for me to think that way to be rather telling. Setting some standards for yourself might diminish your insecurity.

I don't need you to think a certain way. You are an Islamfacist apologist with no standards who obviously got upset and started whining after reading the article in the OP.

I'm not upset at all; once again I haven't even expressed an opinion on the new law yet. I'm not sure why you feel such a desperate need to categorize me, but it is a bit sad.

 

[Roudy]

So is your memory: Here is your quote whining about the law: "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?"

So do you agree or not?

Now your reading comprehension seems to be a bit off. I wasn't responding to the law, I was responding to your comment and interpretation of events. I disagree with it. I haven't yet formulated an opinion on the law.

Nobody gives a shit about your "opinion". If you haven't formulated an opinion, it's pretty obvious what it will be from the "Why would you be keen to give the enemy what it wants / needs to thrive?" WHINE.

Now get lost.

I find your need for me to think that way to be rather telling. Setting some standards for yourself might diminish your insecurity.

I don't need you to think a certain way. You are an Islamfacist apologist with no standards who obviously got upset and started whining after reading the article in the OP.

I'm not upset at all; once again I haven't even expressed an opinion on the new law yet. I'm not sure why you feel such a desperate need to categorize me, but it is a bit sad.

Ya suuuuuuurre. Ha ha ha.

 

[Osomir]

about time, although a little too mild. They should do something stricter and more comprehensive here.

Pros of the new law: many radical preachers are either funded externally, or are foreign born and may not necessarily speak German; likewise, fundamentalists are more likely to deliver their tirades in a non-Germanic language; eliminating external foreign funding can disrupt the revenue streams that promote Jihadism in the West;

Cons of the new law: It won't do as much to prevent the sending of collections from mosques within Austria oversees to terrorist organizations and seems to largely focus on restricting financial flows into the country instead of out of it. This makes the law seem more tailored to only protecting Austria rather than as an effective means of combating the greater threat of terrorism. Likewise, restricting the language hurts the religious and free speech rights of everyone in the country, but specifically of Muslims. This is especially a potent potential religious infringement given the centrality of Arabic in the recitation of Quranic verse.

Conclusion:

I am fine with the restrictions of financial inflows, and not too thrilled about language restrictions. I don't see the language restrictions as doing anything to help national security or to really diminish the global jihadi threat. I'd rather see a tighter oversight of financial outflows coming of religious organizations, coupled with a stronger focus on who can be charged with a crime for incitement of violence. With those two factors in place there is no security rationale to implement language requirements and it would infringe less on basic religious freedoms.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Hitler was from Austria. Just saying.

 

[Mac1958]

.

But the Crusades, the Crusades!

Hitler, Hitler!

.