Either Islam will be Europeanized, or Europe will be Islamized

I don't know if people in the US are aware of a touching little tradition that has grown up in England since our war dead have been coming home. A rural market town,"Wootton Basset" is on the route taken by the hearses carrying the bodies from the RAF base.People initially spontaneously stopped what they were doing to line the streets and show their respect. This has grown to the hero's families choosing to join them. Also veterans don their medals and attend. Now in silence and dignified respect very many people attend and throw flowers on to the hearses that carry the coffins draped with the union flag.
It will come as no surprise to learn that the UK Muslim community have declared their intention to mount a demonstration in the streets of this quiet country town. they intend to carry coffins to represent the Muslim dead. The Taliban and Terrorists.
Where have we gone wrong? How can a nation who stood alone against the Nazi ambitions for world domination sleep while a far older enemy invades and colonises Europe? What is the point of sending our bravest and best to their deaths in Afghanistan when PC traitors hold the power in the European and national parliaments?
Unless the UK wakes up, within two generations Britons forever ever ever will be slaves. Am I a right wing nut case? Judge the threat for your self by looking at Islam4uk.com

I've read about Anjem Choudhary and his motley band planning a disrespectful march in Wooten Basset.
It would seem that what Choudary wants is for one of his gang to be killed by some outraged Brit.
Well provided that that they receive a good duffing by some outraged ex servicemen then justice will be seen to be done.
I would love to see Choudary on the receiving end;possibly with a bacon rasher stuffed between his broken teeth.
He's been asking for it for years.
I also think that there's many a passive muslim who might also(silently)applaud.

Hellosnackbar
I,m an ex serviceman and agree that wipeing the smug smile off his face with a solid well planted fist is a delightfull fantasy. What would be 100% better would be if a formerly passive Muslim faced up to him and told him what a vile parasite he is. The latter may be a bit far fetched even as a fantasy.

Very interesting PaulW, they actually talked about this on a number of Arabic channels and the local one here in Morocco. It was interesting because they showed then the demonstrators.

The problem is, and the islam4uk website is the perfect example, are "euro-muslims". They are arrogant, radical and dangerous and represent/demand things that are not even asked for in the real Muslim world. Their leaders are mostly criminals over here and their demands would never be tolerated. They are a discussion subject of amazement in cafés across the Middle East and North Africa, with the suprise and amazement being that the governments of Europe tolerate them.

My suprise is that there is not one Muslim group in the UK that are not standing on the roadside in Wootton Basset with their hands in prayer and respect as the bodies drive by.

I will try and find the reference to a piece I read in La Matin, a Moroccan naily national newspaper that I read about two weeks ago about a Moroccan/French dual national (and a Jew), I think his name was Sabiri or the like, whom died in Afghanistan - attached to the UN mission in Kabul and was given a funeral in his home town of Ksar Kabir. Many towns people lined the street, the French and Moroccan authorities were there and a representative of the Mufti of Fez was there as well.

The point I am making is that islam4uk are not representatives of anything like the real world.

Sokhar
You are clearly a reasonable person and It makes a pleasant change to engage with a Muslim who does not rant or preach in response to perceived criticism of Islam or muslims. You expressed surprise that muslims were not represented among the mourners at Wootton Basset. You may have put your finger on the problem.
I do not see any indication that British Muslims make any great effort to fit in. They continue to wear ethnic clothing. They are adept at saying the right things after the latest atrocity but the impression hangs in the air that words are cheap. They seem to have one face for the TV cameras and another for the faithful. I am not just talking about the extremists but also the spokes people for the majority. Almost no Muslims join the armed forces,Many don't bother to learn English. Councils spend millions on interpreters and leaflets in a range of languages. Mosques don't respect the law on registering marriages. I could go on but my point is I see very little europeanization. It also worries me that Muslims exclusively colonise whole areas of urban housing. Muslim children attend faith schools so there is no real interaction with white or other ethnic groups. I can confirm the arrogance you mention. Cultural. religious and gender chauvinism is common among British Muslims. I have lived through the steady erosion of personal freedom and quality of life in the UK as a direct result of Islam. This can only get worse until Muslims are in the majority. Then I genuinely fear the vociferous bullies who direct British Muslims will seek to impose a paranoid and brutal theocracy.

Paul W
As I said, those radicals, particularly in Britain are another and if anythiing unique problem. I have to say that they are also a self-inflicted wound, a political game backfiring. In the eary 70s Britain, along with other former colonial powers tried to re-assert influence in countries by slapping the wrist of those that they targetted. This slap was by accepting political assylum seekers. Thus, real radicals and criminals whom were in trouble all jumped to Britain claiming political opposition and were accepted. Later the Thatcher government expanded on it.

Thus you have had almost 40 years of establishment of radicals whom have embedded themselves and now their children are lawyers, civil servants and local councillors. They also pushed for and to your detriment allowed mass "family migration" which only allowed these radicals to gain an ignorant mass population to support their own power plays within the Muslim community. Thus low-educated Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Egyptians, Somalis and others whom normally would never have a chance to migrate were allowed and of course they were obviously targetted by the same language, same clerics and same rhetoric. Now by sheer numbers they have drowned out the moderates whom have chosen to dissapear by assimilating into the population instead of integrate and lead.

Yes, they are a huge problem, they are a distortion and as I said, they are something different. My country, The Netherlands, is falling similarly but there is more resistance from the local population and politicians and hopefully they will go the right way, but without following a radical route as well. If anything, the enemy of radicalism is always going to be its exact opposite - normality. Normality does not mean weakness. The British government must bite the bullet and basically make an altimatum - "we offer the Muslim of Britain normality, support and respect, but at the price of full integration, patriotism and respect for the standards and norms of this society, that is uniquely British. Be British Muslims, not Muslim British."

Offer the rights, the carrot so to speak and then start wielding the stick to those that do not do so.

I am on this blog for two reasons only Paul, to learn about how people perceive things and to point out only the realities. To deny the arrogance, radicalism and extremism is foolish and only makes things worse. Yes there is a huge dominance of by what is really globally a minority. Yes they are dangerous, very much so. Yes the Muslim world is wrapped up in self-aborbing avoidance to combat it and yes there are those that if they are given half a chance would have the entire world follow some 7th century lifestyle that is in fact an excuse for them to have power over others and has nothing to do with the faith itself. Having said all of that, the reality is that there are only 7 countries that are the backwards sh*t-holes that many in the west things is everywhere. There are another 6 countries that are not that bad but still have chosen to follow hard-line legal Shari'a systems that keep on stopping those countries from progressing in any form. The rest have mostly rejected Shari'a and only suffer the same problems that all developing countries have, and some are excellent places to live and visit. Add to that, as I have said, the form of radicalism that those 7 countries and the "euro-muslim" extremism is the key problems and the horrors that we see, it certainly is not a problem everywhere.

The British example is certainly a perfect example of how things have gone bad and would never be tolerated in Muslim countries, even the hard-liners. I remember the issue about the British police officer whom was very much looking like Osama Bin Laden and was abused because of it and when he was told to take his trousers out of his socks and trim his beard he took the Police to court and won. I showed the article to my police friends both here in Morocco and in Egypt that I work often in. They all laughed and first did not believe me. Police forces in most Muslim countries except possibly Somalia that would not allow abuse of dress-code and as my best friend and a senior police commissioner here says, most Arab police forces their police to shave their beards completley or some trimmed and if you put your pants in your socks they will not let you work - and they all said "gee he looks like Bin Laden".

Solkar
Your explanation helps me to understand the stupidity, brutality and ignorance displayed by the most vocal Muslims in Britain. If I'm honest I must confess that I do tend to think that any non white capable,professional is also non Muslim, especially if they have a pleasant disposition and a sense of humour. I respect and admire your quest to understand perceptions and hope you wont mind answering some questions for me from a Muslim standpoint that may or may not help me revise some of my honestly held but negative perceptions of Islam.
1, "Muslims are ridiculously sensitive,have no sense of humour and are capable of murder for tiny or imagined slights".
Last year Prince Harry was obliged to apologise for referring to one of his platoon as "our Paki". Why is Paki a term of abuse or deemed offensive? If someone calls me a Brit or Limey I don't take offence. We have the Brit awards, what would be offensive about a similar event in Pakistan being called the Paki awards? In British culture "nick names" have always been awarded to mates. Jock or Scotti for Scots, Taff for Welsh, Mick or Paddy for Irish. Trigger for a well endowed chap. Bones for a slim chap, Chalky for a black chap.Yank or Slim for an American.etc The point is its part of friendly banter. Muslims don't seem to get this or do they use being constantly offended for some obscure esoteric reason?
Why do Muslims suppress the natural talent to produce images in art? For example,some time ago the Taliban blew up a world heritage site. This was a number of huge ancient statues of the Buddha calved out of a cliff face. The Taliban foolishly assumed Buddha was regarded as a god or a messenger of god. Another example is Muslims staging a world wide mass protest and riots that resulted in deaths.This was over a cartoon of the prophet with a bomb in his turban, The perception I have formed from this is that they are brainwashed to a terrifying and unstable degree.
My daughter is a talented artist. Is she sinful according to Islam?
2"Muslims have some very strange attitudes to women".
I will not trawl through all the usual stuff about equality, pedophilia,rape, male polygamy etc I will just relate my own observations and hope you will be kind enough to comment. In Malta I have seen Arabs, presumably Libyans, with their eyes standing out on stalks, openly leching at women in swim suits. Disturbing for the women and childish but I honestly don't think they could control themselves. In Britain I have seen Muslim women wearing wet t shirts over swimsuits. This does nothing for modesty, if anything it has the opposite effect and also sets them apart socially. On one occasion I was early for a business meeting in a Muslim household and was having an innocent conversation with the lady of the house. What I assume to be the mother in law turned up. She gave her poor daughter in law an almighty haranguing in a language I don't understand. They then stalked out and returned in full burkas. They watched me from a corner of the room like two giant owls, "spooky". I had to wait 20 minutes in awkward silence for the husband to arrive to conduct my business. Again from my perspective, Mad.
On a similar occasion I was suddenly excluded from a conversation with several traditionally dressed Muslim family members. A serious family debate sparked up, again not in English. The upshot was a heavy curtain was guiltily drawn aside. With sheepish smiles a luxurious well stocked bar was revealed. I was offered a large Malt Whiskey and a seat at the bar with the men. While one of the young women became the bar stewardess. Again, sad that intelligent adults feel compelled to behave like guilty children. Not that I wasn't grateful for the honour and hospitality.
An acquaintance from Pakistan has tried to explain to me that they respect their mothers but not their wives?
I have also herd the argument that women are proven to be inferior to men because men would not be so stupid as to accept a woman's lot?
I would be very interested to know what your angle is on these impressions and your guess for the prospects of peaceful co existence in a future Europe. Islamafied, eurofied or other?

Paul W,

I have no problem answering those points you raise and I think I am in a good position to answer them, having travelled this world constantly for almost 30 years, both professionally and privately. I have seen the worst and best of what man is able to accomplish, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

1, "Muslims are ridiculously sensitive,have no sense of humour and are capable of murder for tiny or imagined slights".

That is a combination of cultural and political immaturity on the nationality of those you see as well as the amount of influence radical and ultra-conservative clerics have on them. The same amount of sensitivity exists with Indians and Hindus and riots can occur there as easily, go to Cambodia and make a joking reference to local culture and you will also find your car burned down. I certainly agree that the radical and ultra-conservatives have no sense of humour and wish to supress it but to say that in generalized terms that Muslims have no sense of humour is basically wrong. I watch Arab comedy on television all the time, some are good and some are pathetic, some though are excellent. The Egyptian actor Adil Imam is particularly good and he has even risked his own life with radicals by making jokes on trying to get work done with public servents whom will argue that they are busy praying too much. Even stand-up comedy has started in the UAE and to suprisingly good results. There is still a long way to go and it will only rise siginficantly at the same time that radicalism declines. As for cultural and political immaturity, that depends on the country and its levels of education and that clerical influence. The Mohammed cartoons, for example was well discussed here, the government informed the Danes that "they were inapropriate because the depiction of the Prophet in any form is considered disrespectful" and that is all. There were no riots or demonstrations here.

2. "Muslims have some very strange attitudes to women".

I see three issues here. The first is the obvious sexism that you see, the arse-watching Arab example. If you come from a society that women are constantly covered then their eyes are going to pop. Add to this that Arabs are certainly culturally very sexist and chauvenistic, that pre-dates Islam. The second issue is that there is certainly confusion of what is Arab culture and what is Islamic or Muslim. Even Arabs like to confuse the two because they assume that what is their culture is also belonging to the religion. Khalij or peninsular Arabs will even consider that other Arabs are inferior. The covering of women head to toe is simply a good example of that particular Arab culture, their inability to allow women to lead in any fashion is also, even though there are examples of it happening. The third issue is what is actually Islamic and what is not. Thus, when using the word Muslim I will assume you are talking about the religion and not the cultures of Arabs and others. Islam says that both men and women are equal under God, that they all have equal levels of respect. They are, though, different in responsibilities as much as they are different biologically. Motherhood is of paramount importance in Islam as is family and thus the maternal role is there. The principles of Islam says nothing about a woman not working, fighting or even leading, but it does say that the importance of the role of motherhood is the most important role of all. Thus, you can glimmer two things from that, the first is how that is interpreted/ignored by culturally sexist Arabs (and others) and secondly why women whom are religoius but not stuck in such an environment can and do work, lead businesses and even governments but do so either before or after having children. Bhutto prayed her 5 prayers, was the president of King's College in the UK before leaving for Pakistan, had a career, stopped, had her children, then restarted and became PM.

Paedophilia is everywhere and a global problem and even today I noted that the PNVD of Dutch pro-paedophilia party may have enough votes to sit the next elections because liberal westerners will allow anything (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/01/p... refers). The only real issue with paedophilia in the Muslim world is the extremists and radicals want the 7th century to come back and use and abuse only the haddiths that they like to justify it, thus they will want the onset of puberty to be the sign of legibility of marriage. Only 7 Muslim countries legally allow it, what happens in rural life is always different. I should also point out that paedophilia and child abuse is rampant in other countries, sex-tourism in South and South East Asia is mostly not in the Muslim sphere and sex-tourists go to jail and are mostly killed in prisons in those Muslim countries. India still takes the cake on child-abuse, child-marriage and domestic violence. FYI, this issue is important to me, I am an active member of Touche Pas Mon Enfant Maroc (Do Not Touch My Child).

A last comment, the burqa is not Islamic, it is purely cultural-tribal and was introduced, there is no evidence to say that the burqa even existed or was used in Mecca and Medina at the time of Mohammed. If you ever get to watch Arab television and you see any series about historic times in Arabia - there is no burqa. The viel is a cultural item that was there at the time and can be claimed to be a modesty tool but most consider it simply a cultural one. The hijab is considered universally by Muslims as a level of modesty item. Though used and abused by sexist males to enforce modesty, the reality still is that given the choice most Muslim women will wear it when they get married as a sign of marriage and modesty. My wife does not (she is Arab Moroccan) but says that at some time in the future she may chose to do so as a sign of piety. I like how you say that some things are rather stupid, like a wet t-shirt over a swim suite. The fact is that I have seen and I get angry and tell them when I see a women talking about modesty and she has a well covering hijab but then she has designer tight fitting jeans that shows her arse clearly. Modesty (which in Islam is supposed to be for both men and women) means to avoid the "sexiness" which is for the home and between the husband and wife. My wife wears appropriately long tops that covers her backside and yet she is very fashion aware and there are enough designer clothes to do so. I have seen trendy and very elegant ladies from the UAE, Bahrain and other Gulf States that are very elegant, fashionable and yet modest - matching hijabs etc.

3. Why do Muslims suppress the natural talent to produce images in art?

Islam does say that idoltry is forbidden and that is all. Many of the haddiths go as far as to say that images of people and animals are forbidden. The idea behind it is that only God must be worshipped and that images can become idols and then they will be worshipped. That is why no drawings or paintings of Mohammed are acceptable in fear that he will become worshipped instead of God. That is the theory and that is why most Islamic art specialised in mosaics and caligraphy - which I have to say is incredible. Now having said all that, what is the reality. For 7th century Arab society, there was a fear of idolog, as paganism was ruling until Islam came, so that is the historical context. Remember also that extremists and radicals of today want that 7th century world to return so the Taliban of course destroyed heritage sites as much as Pope Pious IV cut off all the penisis of statues in Rome for the similarly arcane and illogical reasons. Most of the Muslim world condemned the Buddha destruction in Afghanistan, only the radicals nodded their heads of course. Does Egypt destroy all the contents of their ancient history? Morocco has three ancient roman sites, they are fine, in fact antiquity is rather big in the Muslim World, why are they not defaced? That was the Taliban. The other issue is if all these countries were the same, why is it that there are giant pictures of Ayatollahs in Iran, even in their mosques? That is forbidden in Sunni Islam and why Sunnis cannot pray in Shi'ite Mosques because THEY DO HAVE paintings and drawings of the Prophet. Why is it that there are giant Banners and posters of politcal leaders, remember the images of Saddam Hussein? Egypt, Syria, Lybia all do that. I can understand photo of those Monarchs as they are accepted as Kings, Princes and Sultans but the others? So you get the point, the hypocrisies of it.

" would be very interested to know what your angle is on these impressions and your guess for the prospects of peaceful co existence in a future Europe. Islamafied, eurofied or other?"

So you get my impression and my scorn for radicalism and the explanations of the realities. Co-existance is possible but without the radicals in play, that is simply the bottom line. There is nothing wrong with having a large European Muslim population as long as they are Europeans. They must European-Muslim and not Muslim-European if you see my point. They must have the identity of being European, which means supporting the ideals, goals and identity of those countries to a level of patriotism. The other way around puts the at allegance to other leaders and clerics. I am Dutch, proud, patriotic and it does not conflict with my Islamic faith, I have no followings to other nations or politically motivated clerics - and that is the KEY ISSUE. Europe must produce its own Islamic clergy and support it. Only when that happens and they are followed whom in turn push for the uniquely European identity that incorporates respect for what is a European identity - then you will have the potential of co-existance, full integration and in fact a strong supporting patriotic population. At present you have an immigrant base with loyalities that are either to foreign cultures or worse - foreign clerics. Even second and third generation British Muslims are loyal to some cleric in Egypt, Saudi or Pakistan whom in that country is a political radical. That is the failure.

Something has to be done, it has to be instigated by the government with a strong loyal local Muslim base. Simply put, as I said previous, "we offer you respect, normality, support in your faith and recognition of your rights" but then comes the slam "but it means you are one of us (Brit, Dutch, French, whatever) and you must be one of us, from the core of you heart and you must respect the national ideals and standards". If they accept they are welcome, if they do not , they are to be kicked out, ignored and their institutions shut down. Ask yourself, why is there an Egyptian, Syrian, Pakistani, Moroccan, Turkish identity (etc) and they are good faithful and patriotic and Muslim, but in the West these bastards remain Paki, Maghrebi, etc and consider their Muslim as an excuse to be different? That is why we Muslims living in the Muslim world consider euro-Muslims a sick and dangerous joke.

Solkhar
When I found this site I was hoping to find like minded infidels and a few barking mad imams that I could bait to vent my outrage at islam4uk and their plans for Wooten Basset . Instead I find a very down to earth and reasonable Muslim who is far to pragmatic to bite. If only all Muslims were like you, there would be a chance for peace in the world. Unfortunately, as you know, not all Muslims are like you. Please allow me to point out how even a moderate Muslim such as yourself can unwittingly proliferate the fear that your religion spreads. Alarm bells ring in my mind at your innocent remark that your wife may choose to wear the hi jab at some time in the future, as a symbol of her piety. Please understand that to many non Muslims, including myself, the hi jab is not interpreted as a nice, positive, feminine symbol. On the contrary It says, back off, I,m committed to extreme views and I'm the property of a possible honour killer. This is because of 9/11,7/7 shoe bombers, knicker bombers, soda bottle bombers, tourist killers in Egypt, Brain washers in Pakistan. executed homosexuals. executed bigamists Men who kill or kidnap their own female family members for honour issues.Forced marriages etc. etc. When a moderate Muslim such as yourself sees an orthodox Jew, in full black rig, I'm sure you have similar negative associations. You point out that Hindus sometimes riot, I agree, so do all peoples if they are angry enough. This is quite different from the multitude of Muslims who need very little excuse to violently overreact and seem to waste their lives with a chip on their shoulder. I accept that a very much larger multitude of Muslims are relaxed and less volatile and that educational geopolitical and cultural factors apply. The fact remains that no other ideology, allegiance or organisation can muster as many fanatically animated protesters across the world as Islam.
I understand you are a Police officer and as such I expect you have a dispassionate and analytical mind.You will no doubt base your conclusions on material evidence and established facts. Forgive me, but how can such a man be blind to so many evils that are manifested through Islam? As it says somewhere in the bible "You should judge a tree by its fruits". I,m agnostic. That's entirely my business but there are Muslims who would be convinced it was their sacred duty to kill me. May I point out that you take the view that informing the Danish Government that making images of the Prophet is, "inappropriate and disrespectful" and you see this as a reasonable and moderate thing to do. Please consider for a moment,what right have you got to be offended by anything a non Muslim draws? I can understand imposing religious taboos on the faithful but by what possible right do you impose a taboo on a non believer?Can you not see that to a non believer this is intimidation and bullying?I do not feel intimidated by any other religion.I see secular teenagers wearing stars of David, christian and Hindu symbols as cheap fashion jewelry or even tattoos, with no significance to them or objection from Jews, Christians or Hindus. Statues of fat laughing buddhas are very popular as garden ornaments with no significance to the garden owner or objection from buddhists. Why cant Muslims just live and let live? If you want disrespectful jokes about the Christian religion ask a Catholic priest while he,s having a beer.It all adds to the irony and fun of the jokes.Jews are famous for brilliant, sharply observed one liners that ridicule themselves and their religion. This Muslim demand to make their taboos universally respected is not even reciprocated. My mother is a christian. She helps to look after our village hall that is owned by the church. It was hired to Muslims for a social event. The Muslims saw fit to turn a large crucifix and a pair of smaller ones, that have hung there for well over two hundred years, to face the wall. They did not even have the decency to turn them back at the end of the night. My mother was shocked and horrified, the act looked so deliberately blasphemous that she thought devil worshipers or vandals had broken in.When the organiser was asked for an explanation he said the Church should have been more sensitive, if they are going to hire to multi faiths they should remove the crucifixes from the hall. The "secular" registry office in our nearest town had a 14th century stain glass window depicting Saint George slaying a dragon. This was a huge beautiful arched window that bathed the hall with multicoloured light from behind the old oak table used for civil ceremonies. This has now been removed following Muslim objections on the grounds that Saint George was a crusader, he was also shown with the red cross on his chest and on his spear that was adopted as England's flag. This was also seen as an insult to Islam. Now a plain sheet of smoked glass has been put in its place in the Medieval building. However the Muslims are still unhappy that 14Th century statues on the outside of the building depict Christian monks and demons. I know much of the above complaints are cultural not Islam.So what, to the victim the difference is irrelevant. Christianity, Judaism Atheism and any other moral authority confront evil Islam excuses it.Can you understand why I fear for a future of division and violence at least in the UK?

The poignancy of your words,Paul,lies in the fact that your experiences are universal in the Western world.

Superlative, Paul.

'What have they contributed?'

Exactly, let's hope this opinion is shared by the majority of Labour MPs.

If you were to visit any UK city with a large pop of muslims, go to the office where housing and other benefits are given out, the VAST majority of heads will be covered in hijabs. I have seen this myself. Lately, more Arabs from France have arrived and they too know the system.

One major drawback for the begging class of muslim is that although they are getting freebies today, at the same time they are schooling their young in uselessness. In my area, all the shelf-stackers are young muslim men: frustrated, poorly- paid and lethargic but possibly lethal too.

Containment is the best approach. This is what defeated the Reds in the end. Bear with their appalling agenda, beat them back over lines crossed and watch them age and wither.

We live in a world of scientific wonder; illiterate muslims do not share this on the whole but the younger generation do and will gradually become more rational, the women first. As long as we beat them back over lines crossed, use technology to counter their murderous antics (watch for the niqabis squealing about full body scanners at airports..) and squash their faces into the facts about their mythical ideology, we will win the day.

It's vital to spread findings such as those emerging from the new German 'Inarah Institute for Research on Early Islamic History'. Muhammad and Ali likely never existed but were honorific titles for Jesus..very important we examine for ourselves these and other theories to demolish islam with research.
http://www.iheu.org/node/3331

The more I think about it, the more I think that the smartest thing to do would be for all American troops to withdraw from Iraq and go to Afghanistan. That would kick off the war between shia and sunni and leave the US with a couple front row seats....in the ships in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. While they wait for the killing to stop in Iraq, they could clean out Afghanistan and Pakistan. And hey, it's a proven fact that killing other muzlems is what muzlems do best....they been known to have very limited success against any other opponents, especially ones that are "armed", their preferred tactic being surprise attack against unarmed and helpless targets rather than armed and dangerous ones. Wimps!

Tonto, no matter what America could possibly do, Shia and Sunni will be at each
other throats forever.
This rift is causing trouble across the Middle East and Pakistan, where several
clashes between those two strains of the islamic virus are fighting each other for
sheer supremacy.

CASE FOR AMERICAN WITHDRAWAL :
The gargantuan amount of money spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan could've
made a difference in the current economic crisis, I really do not know, but I
deem quite plausible to be the case.

As soon as America leaves the region, the infighting will resume.

A TRILLION DOLLARS would've been WASTED in this case, almost
Brazil's GDP.

I have often examined the question of: "What could possibly be more worthless than a militant muslim?" I've come up empty every time except when considering the possibility that 2 of them would fit the bill. We (The US and several assorted allies) have been in there spending blood and effort for several years now, and the worthless bastages haven't indicated to any substantial degree that they have "got it" or really have a hankering for it. I think there might be a distinct possibility that all concerned could spent their time and effort in more rewarding enterprises. The question still remains as to what to do with the residual mooks still running around posturing and screaming "allah akbar" and acting how they really knew how to be bad asses. From what I hear, most don't have a clue.
I do have a solution dreamed up. It involves carpet bombing a major city, with no concern for civilian casualties or collateral damage,and the importation of swine to root out and clean up any remaining "gobbets". Then the issuance of a general warning that any further attacks on anything US or allied will bring a similar circumstance to a city in any country deemed supportive of militant muzleem causes. No questions, no reparation, no apology and no concern about anything ....even a body count. Just 100% assurance that any attack by anyone will bring the total destruction of a major city belonging to any supporting entities.

"Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behaviour of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions."

"The Intolerable Acts were seen as a collective punishment of Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party."

"During WWII, in 1942, the Germans destroyed the village of Lidice Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic) killing 340 inhabitants as collective punishment or reprisal for that year's assassination of Reinhard Heydrich by commandos nearby the village (the village of Ležáky was also destroyed in retribution). In the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane 642 of its inhabitants — men, women, and children — were slaughtered by the German Waffen-SS in 1944.[3] In the Dutch village of Putten[4] and the Italian villages of Sant'Anna di Stazzema[5] and Marzabotto,[6] as well as in the Soviet village of Kortelisy[7] (in what is now Ukraine), large scale reprisal killings were carried out by the Germans."

Supporting carpet bombing entire towns, themselves mostly victims themselves of the Taliban would put you in the same leauge as the above - not to mention as the Taliban themselves - and there would not many on this planet who would disagree with that.

Solkhar
(currently in Tunis - wow, my Moroccan mobile connections works here, albeit very, very sloooooowly)

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that I don't really care. I view what I said as "just punishment", a "visual aid to deterence" and "tough luck" in any collateral damage. That's assuming that it's a "given" that the action will be repeated with increasing severity for any and all retalliation. At some point in time, one side or the other, will cease it's participation....in my senario, I plan that it will be the other side. Note, I have no qualms at all about completely wiping the other side from the planet. If it becomes necessary to make Mao, Adolf, Gengis, Attilla, or mohammmad, each or collectively, look like a "softie", so be it.

Look at the picture. See the difference?

The West needs to get rid of the radicalism,

no ISLAM needs to get rid of it
but it will not happen
anyone who tries to do so is branded apostate, enemy and gets fatwas on their heads

solkar you lie and lie some more about ISLAM I told you on the other site- Gates of Itijhad are closed.
You know it so quit making excuses
no one will reform ISLAM-- as the people below stated it is in retrograde


Yes not all Muslims are terrorists but the fact remains itis the younger born in EU and USA and UK generations who are most radical and the rest of MUSLIMS are going to pay for it unless THEY fix it. Because not all of us are willing to roll over and let ISLAM keep encroaching on OUR LANDS, OUR LAWS, OUR PEOPLE

Where will apostates run to when HERE turns into THERE?
we have been overly generous allowing ISLAM to flourish in spite of the fact that ISLAMS goal is our demise

the fact you would convert to such a murderous cult is proof you have no conscience- a faith that would destroy your country and family if it could- and proof that the converts to ISLAM under our noses are even more dangerous than indigenous Middle East ones- continually selling it to us, infecting people's minds with lies- you are proof that so called moderate Muslims are equally sick as the ones you call radicals.
1.5 billion MUSLIMS if 10 % are radicals that makes 1.5 MIllion TERRORIST MURDERERS

"You have all the right to communicate your views,..., as an individual and not as part of a collective."

So you say that 5,00 people have the right to think as individuals but not to coalesce and plan together. You are an enabler of despots. This is the thinking that is destroying the youth of Iran and mowed down the freedom lovers of Tianamen square. You do not love liberty or men's freedom. This is surrender. Reconsider. When you take another man's freedom you steal what does not belong to you. You cannot decapitate my thoughts, bite off their fingers or hound them to death. Thoughts have a way of turning up again and again. Islam will be sifted through to the very last atom. Only what deserves to endure, if anything, will endure.

I am not talking about politics and opinons, I am talking about hate and bigotry. So, under your definition, if 5,000 people believe that all Jews must die and blacks are devils, you think they have the right to publically promote, enter politics and push that line with impunity and to not allow it means that it is some form of human-rights violation.

You have also jumped to conclusions that I support despotism, do not support the youth and middle-class that demonstrated in Iran recently or support China in Tianamen Square. That is simply rediculous. Was the politics of those Iranians demonstrating advocating hate? Was that the case with that democratic movement in China? No, so what is your point?

I love the concept of freedom of choice, speech and political movement. Those countries that have it and allow it to mature should be damned proud! But they are not about bigotry, hate, discrimination on religous faith, which should not be allowed.

What I have noticed is that you jump to the extreme conclussion each time - if I say I do not like hate, then you say I do not support freedom of speech. If I say I do not like bigotry, you assume I am something else completely different. I do not like the radical far-right, so you assume I am a libertard or a communist. All jumping to extreme conclusions and all wrong.

Thus, I go back to what I said. The collective, coordinated dissemination of "hate", under the definition that you yourself have stated, is evil and should not be allowed or accepted. Wilders does that and his party in fact should be banned. It would be, under the structure and platform that it has, in most western countries, except that The Netherlands never bothered to change a 130 year old law. That was my point. I am not against freedom of speech at all, I applaud it. I am not against freedoms of expression, I applaud it. I have nothing against the rights of individuals to dislike, hate, loath or have the worst of views, it is none of my business. BUT, again and again I repeat, if it is collective, coordinated promotion of hate, it comes into another category and that should be banned.

You have been talking about apples and I am talking about organges and you have condemned what I said based on the wrong issue.

Have you seen "Fitna" Solkhar?
I have, and what I saw was a melded sequence of Muslim madness with no commentary.
I must say that at first I was a little dissapointed;but then I got it.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!
By merely cobbling together easily available video footage his case was made.
No verbal disparagement; therefore no libel.
The final sound of pages being ripped out of a telephone directory was theatrical allegory.

I don't claim any knowlege of Dutch jurisprudence;but common sense dictates that there is no case.;otherwise why are proceedings so glacially slow?
Furthermore from what you've said in prievious posts on Muslim encroachment it would appear that
Geert deserves your vote!

Curiously this impending "case"only" promotes Wilders' program; insofar as it appears that win or lose Wilders will be seen by many as a victim of Liberal mendacity.
Ironic that this "shaheed"aspect is usually a Muslim tactic!
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
.

I have watched Fitna and have the transcripts as well. It is a clevery played out propoganda ploy. Emotive images with carefully selected quotes out of context to suite the argument of the producer. Simply put, it would be just as easy to show a film with images of US and Allied Western airstrikes, images of the holocaust, quites from the worst radical evangalists, the KKK and more and then super empose selected portions of the Bible and say how much Christianity is murderous and a Crusading bigoted world. You would think that stupid and out of context and you would be right, and similarly is that the case of Fitna. The only difference is that Wilders chose to do that because of the existance of current radicalism and it helps his political career. Another way of putting it is simple, if the Qur'an had intellectual property rights, Wilders Fitna would have been banned, Wilders would have been sued, punished and out of poltis already.

As for Dutch Jurisprudence, charges like the one against Wilders is for the appeals court and thus joins a long queue, taht is why it is so agonizingly slow.

My views are on 'radical Muslim encroachment' and if Wilder's did not base his logic on bigotry and hatred there would be some sililarities, those that are the genuine concerns of the Dutch population.

In most cases, I would agree with you that giving any air-time or attention to Wilders is a mistake, but in this case, it will take him out of politics nationally and EU wide for good and I know that the Dutch population will forget him quick enough. He will, if found guilty, will end up joining the small but sick group of Spencer, Fitzgerald, Geller (and Wilders), doing the "hate-road show".

Perhaps you might enlighten us as to what Wilders is actually charged with Solkhar?
Is it a criminal or is it a civil action (delict).
Logic dictates that the delay is of a political manouvering nature.
When does the next Dutch election take place?
If (Allah forbid)he is found guilty does he have the right of further appeal?
A lot seems to hang on this action;and an exoneration would be a major blow for the ummah.
The weeping and gnashing of teeth that ensue will get me dancing;and a few here I suspect!

The indictment reads: "Group insult of Muslims, incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims due to their religion and incitement to hatred and discrimination against non-western immigrants and / or Moroccans due to their race." Then there is a list of the examples that have been compiled by the prosecutors office which is pages long and I will not insult John by filling up the blog with it. Ironically you can go to that hate-site jihad-watch which posted the entire charges in English ..... http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/geert-wilders... along with the obvious agenda-based BS.

It is in fact in the Criminal Tribunal Division and is a criminal offence under Dutch Law.

Elections, there are munipal elections in March 2010, the next national ones are destined around April 2011 as the term is for 4 years and the last election was 2007. So I do not there is any reason for that, the courts and the prosecutors office is, if anything, fearcely independant and would rather collapse a government if they tried to interfere in its indpeendance.

If Wilders is not found guilty, it will be because the law says so, meaning in fact that the law is insufficient. In such an event, be sure there will be a uniting of the three main parties, CDA, Socialists and Liberals to pass new hate laws. All three parties have recently confirmed that they will have nothing to do with Wilders. Only the other far-right party has its links and they often regret it.

Pretty thin stuff Solkhar according to you being verbally beastly to Muslims is a criminal offense.
and every contributor on this site is ergo a criminal(under Dutch law);and likely to be arrested if travelling to Holland .
If this is so then any Muslim who refers to a non Muslim as a Kafir would suffer the same problem.
Arrest every Muslim in Holland I say!
Now if Wilders was inciting fellow Dutchmen to attack and kill Muslims then perhaps ;but telling everybody that he thinks they're shit is another matter.

If what you say is true then there is a Monty Pythonesque aspect to this:
Nobody expects the Spamish Inquisition!!

U.S. and Allied airstrikes were acts of just war against totalitarian evil.

"Radical" evangelists aren't radical; find us a video of a Christian evangelist calling for murder and brandishing swords or assault weapons.

The KKK was evil and thus anti-Christian; you need to admit the same for Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law.

Both Judaism and Christianity, guided by science and reason, have reformed their understanding of the Bible and no longer advocate Theocracy, killing of adulterers, killing of apostates, etc. Islam has not reformed in similar manner in regards to the Koran and Hadiths.

Wilders, Spencer, Fitzgerald, Geller, etc. are courageous defenders of sacred human liberty, and haters of evil.

Apples and oranges. I have always condemned totalitarian Shari'a law and consider it of zero value from the start. My arguments with you is that your generalization and incorrect assumptions about its influence throughout the Muslim world, not the subject of what is right or wrong - except of course differing opinons about hate-laws.

I continue also to say that the Qur'an does not require "reform", it is impossible to change the words of a Holy Book, it thus becomes 'tampered with", but certainly there is a huge and critical need to review haddiths, and it simply take them for historic writings of "man" with all the good or bad intentions.

Wilders is an narcisist and failed poliitician who chose to go radical to support his deep psychological requirement to be "popular". That is my personal view which I am confident most people whom have met or dealt with the man will agee. I have done both. Robert Spencer is a "wannabe-academic", since academia reject him, he has chosen to run "hate-for-profit" as a method of income gaining, which ironically has only one benefit - he milks money of the far-right with similar agendas. Fitzgerald is a Doctor who is not really anymore a doctor and considering that I am married to one, I know full well that those whom spend so much time on "other jobs" obviously has given up their real profession which requires constant concentration (if not annoyingly time-consuming dedication). Gellar, as hellosnackbar has correctly pointed out, is just a "rat-bag" whom is only after one thing - having her name said by as many people as possible. None defend anything except their own egos and pockets and the last thing they are interested in is liberties, all of whom would easily destroy those of their targets given the first chance.

Judaism and Christianity reformed by using God-given human reason to better understand and interpret their Holy Books, rendering their reformed religions compatible with reason and science.

Nothing is wrong with Wilders, Spencer, Gellar and Fitzgerald because they are not liars. You lied about Geert Wilders; stating he discriminates against people because of their race or sex, which he does not. You have no credibility despite your self-inflating verbosity; which is simply reflects a form of mental constipation complicated by diarrhea of the mouth (keyboard).

Apples are not oranges. The values of un-reformed Totalitarian Islam are in conflict with reformed Judeo-Christian values.

Last time to attempt this. The ability to label any point of view you wish to destroy "hate" is the prerogative of despots. You insist that coordinated hate must be abolished. For the Muslim there are none so hateful as those who espouse liberty. Therefore Muslims attempt to seek out those who desire liberty, prevent their associations and wipe them out. Who is the hater here? The impermissible action is the arrest and torture and i imprisonment of those brave haters who hate tyranny and will risk death to oppose it; those intrepid haters of Islam who are now Christians, Jews atheists, musicians, artists, etc who are no longer willing to bow the knee to Islam in any way shape or form. These haters have the inalienable right to coalesce and to speak hatred. You say they do not because you oppose coordinated "hatred". What you are really endorsing is the dominant schema of hatreds of those who possess the monopoly on violence. This is why it is not name calling but accurate to call you an enabler of despots.

In this country you can lawfully discriminate on the basis of race if you are renting out an apartment in the building in which you live. If it is a vast complex you may not. But if you are under a certain number of apartments you certainly may and this is right. Why? Because YOU live there. You have the liberty to live with whomever you please in your own home and the law can have nothing to say about it, nor should they. The same with your private club. If I want to gather with homeschooling Christian mothers to accomplish something you are certainly not invited. You can argue this is hate. Anyone can argue anything is hate. It is the deed involved that will determine the role of government IF ANY. I know it is foreign to you to understand that there are spheres in which the government must keep out, but it is essential to a free people to express themselves without the interference of government.

Ignoring your rediculous statements of what you think "Muslims are", especially after I pointed out that the existance of hate-groups, I see contradictions in your statements, or more accurately, statements that confirm and explain my points.

You said, for example that in a larger appartment complex you may not discriminate, that is an example that a line has been drawn.

What you can do in your own home is obvious, that is not collective, questioning why you mentioned it.

You raised the fear that anyone can claim what is hate. The answer to that is simple, it is called constitutions, laws and standards. You have a law in your country that says murder is a heneous criminal offense, why? That is a standard that has been set, based on historic morals and principles.

I am not sure why, but you have constantly assumed some all or none vision of what I say. Collective hate has to be defined in the laws and then enacted. Clear points of what is and what is not accepted, like how you may chose who you like and discriminate how you like for your own residences but when it becomes investment properties as a business income, you cannot.

You have already in your country discrimination laws, it is simply an extension of that at the level of collective politics.

Condescending comments like "what is foreign to me" relfects on your inabilities, not mine, just as much as your all or nothing assumptions about my point. I am a supporter of liberty as much as you, That we disagree on allowing the creation of chaos does not equate to supporting despotism.

"Ignoring your rediculous statements of what you think "Muslims are", especially after I pointed out that the existance of hate-groups, I see contradict ions in your statements, or more accurately, statements that confirm and explain my points"

Please realize that this is a winding sentence which makes no sense and is impossible to respond to. If you see a contradiction in my response it would help to point it out rather than merely assert it and conclude that it proves your point. Contradictions are not known to prove much.

"Condescending comments like "what is foreign to me" relfects on your inabilities, not mine, just as much as your all or nothing assumptions about my point. "
Again, you communicate nothing and use many words to do it.

Let's clarify. This began with your assertion that a group of persons have no right to gather and express hate.You called it a crime. I point out that it is an individual's inalienable right to speak hatred and to gather and persuade others to his point of view. I made stern distinctions between deeds and thoughts.You desire to make crimes of the heart punishable by government; thought crimes give you no worries. I pointed out that it is the province of government to address deeds not thoughts. You asserted that there is no right to persuade when it comes to hate. I pointed out that this is nonsense and one man's hate is another man's liberty .Here you understanding broke down.
Let us put it to rest. You hold very closely to the frame work of despotism and are incensed to find you are not the freedom lover you thought. Your last remark about order is classic. Tyrannical power always claims that the suppression of liberty is necessary for order. Do not exert yourself any farther. These things take time.

Bronwyn: "You desire to make crimes of the heart punishable by government; thought crimes give you no worries."

“Power is power over human beings, over the body; but above all over the mind... There will be no thought as we understand it now; orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think; orthodoxy is unconsciousness... We are not content with negative obedience... we do not destroy the heretic... we convert him; we capture his inner mind... we bring him over to our side... We shall crush you down to the point from which there is no coming back...Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling; everything will be dead inside you... You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.” George Orwell, 1984

Thanks and I got the quotes. I look forward to learning them.
Bron

I should add one more thing before someone else jumps in.

Yes there is a lot of collective, coordinated political hate amongst Muslim groups and communities and I believe that is equally digusting and should be illegal. I hope that the day comes when they are and I do see some countries now starting to also ban them but by far no way near enough or effectively. My work in TPFS allows me to travel and work with North African and ME authorities and chose to not work with the Palestinian authority or Syrian Government because of that very reason.

Like a lot of Muslims you wrongly equate "hate" with opposition!
I don't hate Muslims I just see them as backward idiots who are trying to gain credence and in fluence in civilised countries where they don't belong.
When I worked in Amsterdam two of my Dutch colleagues went down with serum hepatitis(there was no vaccine in those days).
Unsurprisingly I suddenly found my list packed out with semiliterate simpletons from North Africa.
I complained about the disproportionate loading ;but took a stand when I demanded a blood picture
from these characters.
After several accusations of racism(the predictable knee jerk reaction from bedwetting liberals).
I posed the question as to whether an exposure to a blood born disease was an occupational hazard that I must accept as my moral duty?
There was consternation(blood screening was very expensive in those days);but I hinted that this dilemma might be a subject for national debate.
As a result Igot my way and 6 months later another Dutch colleague went down.
Some of my colleagues were seriously pissed off at an"uitlander" like me could be such a nonconformist pain in the arse;to the point where they stuck a sign on my operatory door that said
"niet voeren"(don't feed).I had a good laugh at that; and left it there!
BTW as far as
Pamela Geller is concerned I'm appalled that she has allied herself with overtly fascist organisations like the Vlaams Belang and the BNP.
Commanding people to accept that you're right and they're wrong is as

SR points out totalitarian in concept.

Of course, hellosnackbar, all of our discussions are our own opinions, some of us have strong ones and we all have our rights to believe what we want.

When I talk about banning hate, I am talking about a predefined, legally-set limit of what is promoting hate in a collective, coordinated way, which by denfinition means organised publications by political and other collective movements. It has to be well defined by legal professionals and judged as such by professionals in the court. Thus, for my part, so many groups say within Muslim countries for my part deserve banning and blocking. Some western countries and Muslim countries have such laws, they are tryign their best and all need to be worked on, to avoid that very issue you are all concerned about - genuine freedoms of liberties. I do not deny that at all.

I undersand fully your comments about North African nursing staff. My wife is a medical doctor, trained in both France and in the US, a specialist in here field. She is North African and the biggest critique of bad training. Government trained nurses here are excellent, many years ago to push numbers they allowed for private schooling and a proliferation of so-called institutes and the result is sad. Add to that, the best nurses here are all "poached" (I think that is the word in English) by western nations to fill in gaps. My wife is always offered work and I am rather proud of her patriotism and desire to work in her own country, not to mention I like it here.

Ironiclaly I here many stories of worries about these rediculous radical Muslims in the West, particularly in the UK whom are in the "medical profession" and refuse to do hygenic necessities because it somehow breaches their religous principles. I show my wife and we have a big laugh because over here in the real Muslim World, if a nurse refuses to wear the uniform given, roll-up her sleeves to wash and be clean or have a change the format of her hijab to avoid problems - they are sacked as being incompetant!

As you know, I had my goal-bladder moved and had to have my right-kidney cleaned out as the stones growing there were stuck in the wall of the kidney. That was my first hospitalization for 20 years and the last one was in bad conditions in Jakarta. I already had knowledge of how dedicated and good the staff were at the hospital she works at, but I found nothing lacking that I would not have expected say back in Rotterdam, my city. Having said that, I can afford private health care and I have also been to public basic hospitals. The staff are good, work hard but simply lack resources........ oh, those nurses from the new system, most are employed as babysitters for rich families because no hospital or clinic of value woud touch them.

Cheers

Making hatred illegal requires totalitarian government power, and even that power cannot eradicate hatred. All laws making hatred illegal are totalitarian laws because they violate man's unalienable right to freedom of speech.

You are such a nut - why in the hell don't you work on making murder illegal in Islamic Nations? Rhetorical question. That would require effort, courage and wisdom; and possibly self-sacrifice.

Constant juvenile name-calling only identifies the maximum potential capacity of the individual. Murder is, of course, illegal in Muslim countries. As for the rest of your opinion and your irrelevant comment about freedom of speech, I refer to the answer that I gave below. I think this point has reached its limit, it is impossible to respond to repetitiveness.

Perhaps I missed something. What was irrelevant about Storm Rider's comment pertaining to free speech? Isn't he agreeing with the old idea "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"? It seems that way to me. We have seen videos on this site of Muslims in America and Britain publicly espousing hatred and violence, and they are allowed to do so. Free speech at work. How many Islamic countries would countenance such a thing?

I have already said that there are many hate-based organisations that do just that in the West as well, of course throughout the Muslim World. I also pointed out the example that in The Netherlands, a Muslim group made a holocaust-denial cartoon and it was banned. That ban, I support completely, but as some have pointed out, Fitna and the Mohammed Cartoons were not banned and only slight variations in the laws made the difference. The appeals court has now reviewed that decision and have declared that Fitna is in fact a breach of the law and will be part of the case against Wilders next month.

As for your question about how many countries, I would say it is about 50/50. Some countries have very strict laws against hate, some are hypocritical such as hate against religion is in fact written as hate against the Abrahamic Faiths - meaning that you can write BS and push and encourage hate and violence against Hindus and Buddhists but if you say against a Jew or Christian you can be charged.

Morocco, Tunisia, Malaysia, Jordan and Qatar have strict and fair laws of against hate, but the last three have very clever and devious organisations mostly semi-religous that actually educate radical clerics into saying hate but carefully to "almost cross" the law.. Most certainly there is a very long way to go, let alone winning the battle against radicalism, before Muslim countries have consistant and working fair system that puts the correct limits and controls on what is and what is not collective, coordinated hate.

There is no such thing as fair laws against hate. All "hate laws" are totalitarian, and hateful of sacred human liberty, i.e.: freedom of speech. Totalitarian "hate laws" are used against good people who hate evil and speak out against tyranny.

We need laws against murder, not laws against hate; and besides hatred of evil is good.

"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil." Proverbs

Thank you for your reply, but you have not answered my question - the whole purpose of my post: what was irrelevant about Storm Rider's comment pertaining to free speech?

Some years ago, the Holocaust denier, David Irving, was to visit Australia to espouse his views in a series of lectures. Some Jews (remember I am an ardent admirer of the Jews) of powerful influence put pressure on the Australian Government to cancel his visa, so he was refused entry. While I despise Irving, I was outraged that such action was taken against him. It was a blatant denial of free speech and a blow against Democracy. What were the Jews afraid of? That Irving might have a point? That his words might cause others to think similarly? As for the first question, let him speak freely so that we might have the reality of the Holocaust further revealed, if such is necessary. To the second question I would reply: yes, there might be those who, upon listening to him, would rally to his cause, but that's free speech at work.

I am astonished that you believe 50% of Islamic states would allow me to mount my soap box to spout hatred for Islam, Mohammed and Allah. I don't.

solkhar: "Murder is, of course, illegal in Muslim countries."

"A top Muslim cleric in Iran, Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hassani said on Wednesday that women in Iran who do not wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf, should die." “Women who do not respect the hijab and their husbands deserve to die,” said Hassani, who leads Friday prayers in the city of Urumieh, in Iranian Azerbaijan.

http://infidelsarecool.com/2007/12/19/top-musli...

"The leader of the religious Adhaalath party scholars’ council has said he advocates the death penalty for those who convert from Islam to another religion, as well as amputation of hands for certain types of theft. In an interview with Minivan News, Sheikh Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari emphasised the need for “advice” and correct legal procedures before the death penalty is implemented, but said Shari’ah law ultimately requires the killing of those who leave Islam..."

"If the individual concerned fails to return to Islam, he said, “correct legal procedures” must then be followed."

"he says, apostasy is one of three offences that must be punished by death..."

http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/05/15/muslims-s...

solkhar is a liar; an enemy propagandist for totalitarian Islam. He should be banned from this blog.

LMAO!

This is such a wank.

The implications of someone who calls others liar and then puts the above, or like on another thread that Shari'a always trumps Secular Law in all Muslim countries, is huge. Is he drunk, on dope, or simply his raw bigotry is showing? As Larry the Cable Guy says, "this guy has just done a Redneck Blow-Job", meaning that he got pleasure from something but everyone else knows that he woke up in the barn.

The basis of Murder is illegal in Muslim countries sticks. I could be a wanker like S_R and point out that murder means the unlawful killing or that we are talking about generalization of all countries, but I do not debase myself to the levels of a wanking liar, to stoop to that person's base levels.

The examples given from Iran is a cleric spouting his 7th century extremist bullshit, does he write and push the laws of Iran? No, of course, not. Strike one, S_R did not bother to lift the bat on that one.

The second example from the Maldivian Adhaalath Party is even funnier. Is that party in power? No, it is the minority of a coalition. Are they dictating the laws of the Maldives, no, Bari is the Islamic Affiars Minister which was the price for gaining the MAP votes, but he has not changed death penality laws. So all we have is again, a radical's rantings on the way he wants the laws. So, strike two, he swung and to some it might look like a mighty swing but, wooosh, the catcher has the ball in his gloves.

The third attempt was ....... a no show, realizing that he has said nothing and in fact he has simply made it up .... he woke up and realised what form of Rednekc Blowjob he did, he simply told the umpire he has given up. Strike three, he is out.

I repeat for the more intelligent people on this blog whom are not caught up in strange and hate-filled agendas. Murder, like all over the world, is a crime in Muslim Countries.

solkhar: "Murder is, of course, illegal in Muslim countries."

Homosexual activity is illicit under Sharia; however, the prescribed penalties differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. For example, these countries may allow the death penalty for sodomy though not for other homosexual activities: Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

This is murder by the Islamic State.

"In Islamic law (sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#...

This is murder by the Islamic State.

BTW, your gutter references to sex acts is disgusting. You speak like a pig.

solkhar: "Murder is, of course, illegal in Muslim countries."

Homosexuals are hung by the neck until dead in Iran; that is murder by Islamic State.

Women in Islamic countries are put to death for adultery; that is murder by Islamic State.

Murder is a HOBBY in the Islamic World. It's a society used to violence
since its get-go in the 7th century.

Mohammad ordered the MASSACRE of the Jewish Tribes that lived
in the Arab Peninsula...it must've been a grisly sight to behold.

Since this and other bloody events, muslims grew accostumed
to RAPE, TORTURE, BEHEAD non-muslims in their path.
Women are their greatest victims.They aren't respected
as HUMAN BEINGS.

Muslim women became two-legged FACTORIES of
suicide-bombers, ruffians and scoundrels of the lowest
ilk.

Murder - unlawful killing. So if you wish to be scholarly and technical about it, if the state considers something a crime by law then it is not unlawful thus what you described is not "illegal".

Now having said that, the vast majority of Muslim countries do not do the things that you are saying, rather making your argument not sound. Which is was what the point is making.

Seriously, I am not after arguments with you or anyone else and I apologize if I have fallen for the kneejerk retaliation for baseless personal attack, which is certainly beneath my standards. My point though is I have low tolerance for errors and incorrect statements and I point them out. When I point out such things that does not mean I support them, in many cases I will defend the reality even though I am disgusted by it. Do not forget that please.

A last comment, and Beejj is pointing out something correct I am sure, my posts are often long-winded and I have been criticized for that by others outside the blogosphere, my excuse is that English is not my first or even second language and my work mostly is in Arabic or French.

solkar: "Murder - unlawful killing... if the state considers something a crime by law then it is not unlawful thus what you described is not "illegal"."

Hanging homosexuals, killing people who leave Islam, killing people for adultery; and it is all "legal;" no it is legalized murder. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China, Communist Cambodia ...... murdered over a hundred million innocent civilians during the twentieth century - and it was all "legal" - but those governments were themselves criminal governments. Islamic governments who "legally" murder their citizens are no different from Nazi Germany and Communist governments; they are criminal governments, and they (like you) call murder "not illegal." You, solkhar, are a totalitarian apologist and propagandist for evil; your soul at present belongs to the devil.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5911p_famine-...

http://theblackbook.wordpress.com/2006/11/22/ex...

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and (criminal) government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Thomas Jefferson

"You, solkhar, are a totalitarian apologist and propagandist for evil; your soul at present belongs to the devil."

I repeat what I said, which I am sure was simple and easily understood: "the vast majority of Muslim countries do not do the things that you are saying, rather making your argument not sound. Which is was what the point is making."

Add to that "When I point out such things that does not mean I support them, in many cases I will defend the reality even though I am disgusted by it. Do not forget that please."

My points were clear, adding two quotes from Thomas Jefferson does not change it.

Our sacred unalienable right to life (also liberty and private property - pursuit of happiness) trumps secular law or "religious" law. Sharia law is not sacred (not from God) when it destroys sacred human rights which are from God.

You spend much time and make much effort to explain totalitarian Sharia law which destroys sacred human rights; thus you are intelligently insane - your intelligence is wasted.

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth... Those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is; in general the greater the understanding the greater the delusion; the more intelligent the less sane." George Orwell, 1984

1. Sharia Law is from God and is therefore in every instance sacred
2. Sharia Law destroys sacred human rights

The vast majority of Muslim countries operate under Totalitarian Sharia Law either overtly or in the background. Even so-called "secular" Egypt oppresses its Coptic Christians because it is legal to do so under their Sharia-contaminated Constitution.

"Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Principles of Islamic law (Shari'a) are the principal source of legislation."

http://www.egypt.gov.eg/english/laws/Constituti...

You said: "Murder - unlawful killing... if the state considers something a crime by law then it is not unlawful thus what you described is not "illegal." Yes, your point is clear; when government commits murder under law then it is "not illegal;" but it is legalized murder by criminal government.
You are a propagandist for Islamo-Nazism, so Thomas Jefferson's warnings are relevant here and now because human life and liberty are threatened by the evil of Totalitarian Islam just as those unalienable sacred human rights were threatened here in 1776.

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and (criminal) government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Thomas Jefferson

I do not wish to be offensive, Solkhar, but please think more carefully before you write. It might help if you were to read your messages prior to posting them. You see, your sentences are all too often distressingly garbled and not easy to comprehend. Perhaps this is why you sometimes claim that people do not read your posts. I am not referring to typographical errors, to which we are all prone.

Storm Rider's mention of the Iranian cleric's murderous utterance resulted in your feeble attempt to lambaste him, saying that said cleric does not push nor write the laws of that country. Are you suggesting that this cleric is out of touch with those who indeed call the shots (oops!) in Iran? Do you remember a bloke called Khomeini? Do you remember another bloke called Salman Rushdie? I would hesitate before calling SR a wanking liar, and I suggest that, far from "stooping to his base level", you should strive to emulate his considered scholarship.

I agree that my postings are a bit long-winded and if anything I will try and make them more short. My problem is that I am not a native English speaker and think in either Dutch or French. Most Dutch are secondary angla-phone, I attended a French-Dutch international school in my youth.

As for that Iranian Clerics' utterance, that is "beside the point", I repeat, that guy does not write the laws - which was the topic. Giving individual examples of cases or even one or two countries still does justify the generalized comments of S_R.

I find not much in S_R's comments to be scholarly. Scholars do not generalize, grossly simplify and fall to pettiness. My personalized retorts to S_R are in response to his own base accussations. I regret making my remarks, simply for falling to that baseness. I have worked to hard and earned enough respect in my life and field of work to have stooped so low and I am angry at myself. There are too many such talk on these threads and I will stop participating in those that flow that way.

My convalesence period is almost over and I will return to full-time work and my postings will become less frequent, on the 22nd I have to be in Tunis for a TPFS meeting.

" My convalesence period is almost over and I will return to full-time work and my postings will become less frequent "

Is this a PROMISE ?

No, Solkhar, the topic was Storm Rider's raising the matter of the Iranian cleric's espousal of something that fills Jews and Christians with revulsion. Atheists, too. Especially atheists! Your response that this loonie does not write the Law is neither here nor there. IS HE BREAKING ISLAMIC LAW, OR APPLYING IT? If he is breaking it, have steps been taken to admonish him or to punish him, thus serving as a warning to others of his cloth to desist from behaviour that brings Islam into disrepute? I am unable, off the top of my head, to list instances of a similar vile nature, but this site has listed many, the ones that most vividly stick in my mind being the Kuwaiti cleric who advocated the use of anthrax on American soil, and the Saudi religious boffin who suggested that the burka should be modified because a woman needs only a single eye to see the world. Clearly, the Iranian dude has no shortage of bedfellows.

Try to view matters from the infidel's point of view. These religious wallahs are influential, let it be agreed, their effects being most telling, I would suggest, in the minds of the innocent young. The rotten apple in the barrel springs to mind. As I stated in a different context on this site quite some time ago, one Stalin goes a long way. When we infidels see Islamic spiritual leaders advocating outrage and murder; when we witness the unchecked burgeoning of Islam in our countries; when we see our own leaders turn a blind eye to the looming catastrophe, we react. We recognise the fact that the vast majority of Muslims do not have the power to cause mayhem, but we also recognise that they have the potential for mischief. We acknowledge Islam's rapid growth, but we know the reason for this is not an influx of converts, but a prodigious birthrate. Given that such is happening in countries which are not Islamic while the birthrate of the indigenous peoples has and is falling, we envisage a day, not far distant, when Muslims will form the majority and thus assume leadership. Will this be a bad thing? We believe so. We will see the gradual extinction of our values, beliefs, freedoms and lifestyles. If, to-day, a Muslim attempted to forcibly convert me I would laugh and tell him to go and pee in his pocket, but I foresee a time when I would not be able to be so sanguine, a time when there might be legions of religious police to keep a sharp eye on things. Such is foreign to me and to other infidels. Kafkaesque. We abhor the very thought, but if we know our history we are forced to admit there have been precedents, so we must remain vigilant and be prepared to defend what we love and value. I sometimes muse upon the reality of the growth of Islamic influence in infidel countries, particularly with respect to the free hand it is given, and wonder why it is happening. Perhaps I am a simple-minded bloke, but the only reason that springs to mind is OIL. Perhaps the leaders of such countries tolerate Islam's growth out of fear of repercussions from the oil states, should they take remedial action. I cannot think of any other reason. What happens once the oil has been exhausted, or if some clever chap suddenly comes forth with a miraculous new, cheap energy source? I suspect the lot of "foreign-based" Muslims will change dramatically.

I wish you a speedy and complete recovery and look forward to more of your contributions.

You would be suprised about how much I am in agreement with some of your comments.

I fully understand and appreciate the realities of the genuine concerns and fears of westerners. I saddly feel it more than others, probably because I am both European as well as a Muslim and because I see both sides of the story and the realities on both sides.

If anything, I have been constantly warning Eurpeans in particular that there is a new breed of radical Muslim which is being called Euro-Musilms. I have talked about them a few times, they are more radical than most radicals in the real Muslim world and some of them are even considered criminals and terrorists over here. They are making life not only miserable for non-Muslims but for the majority of quiet and well integrated Muslims as well as destroying the image of Islam. It is the image that they are pushing, plus the media and agenda-haters whom are also skewering this image.

Yes, all these horrible things are being said by disgusting people whom want a 7th century life, but they are not the representative of all Muslim countries. Like the error, which you have also viewed above, that oil-money is an issue - the reality on the ground is something other than what I see in many if not most posts. Oh, most Muslims countries do not have oil and the end of "oil" has no bearing on radicalism or terrorism - neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan - for example, have oil money.

I cannot stress enough that there is a huge and justified danger from Euro-Muslims and they have had 30 plus years to establish themselves, purposely put their children into legal practices to defend them later on, or in local assemblies to ensure laws are understood and challenged. They have expertise in "milking the laws" and the liberal laws that Europeans are so in love with. They certainly will out-breed Europeans and the solution for my part is to ensure that you creat European Muslims, integrated, patriotic and with that European identity. If not, you will have the opposite, Muslim Euroepeans not integrated, patriotic to some radical ideology and an identity that belongs in hell.

A last comment, the subject above with S_R was his response to my saying that "murder is illegal in Muslim countries" and his giving examples of the behaviours of individual clerics whom we all know to be radical or even the examples of one or two countries, does not change what I said. I am sticking to the point formally - I have a strong objection to generalizations and exagerations for a good reason, why? Because if you start your conversation on incorrect information, then the entire subject is screwed. It may seem pigheaded by I gained that concept from my first teacher at Erasumus Uni in Rotterdam on my first day in Political Theory.

Thanks about the health wishes, I am doing fine. The gall-bladder removal was easy, the kidney work is really hard to recover from, but I am over the worst of it. I fly out next Tuesday morning for three days of updates and report hearings.

solkhar: "Murder is, of course, illegal in Muslim countries."

I gave more than the examples of individual Muslim clerics; I also included these references to murder by the Islamic State – Criminal Government. Notice that there is more than “one or two countries”:

“Homosexual activity is illicit under Sharia; however, the prescribed penalties differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. For example, these countries may allow the death penalty for sodomy though not for other homosexual activities: Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

"In Islamic law (Sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#...

The Constitution of Egypt (a so-called “secular” Islamic nation) directly incorporates Islamic Sharia as "the principal source of legislation;" it says “the” no “a” – thus State-sponsored murder and other State crimes can take place in Egypt under Islamic Sharia Law which trumps their secular law.

"Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Principles of Islamic law (Shari'a) are the principal source of legislation."

http://www.egypt.gov.eg/english/laws/Constituti...

Pakistan is supposed to be a "Secular" Muslim nation; but this is not true either - State-sponsored murder and other State crimes can take place in Pakistan under Islamic Sharia Law which trumps their secular law.

"If any law or provision of law is held by the (Shariat) Court to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam,
(a) the President in the case of a law with respect to a matter in the Federal Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List, or the Governor in the case of a law with respect to a matter not enumerated in either of those Lists, shall take steps to amend the law so as to bring such law or provision into conformity with the Injunctions of Islam; and (b) such law or provision shall, to the extent to which it is held to be so repugnant, cease to have effect on the day on which the decision of the Court takes effect."

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/...

"From principles is derived probability, but truth or certainty is obtained only from facts."
Nathaniel Hawthorne

You gave 11 examples not 57 and thus your argument that both "shari'a trumps secular law in all Muslim countries" is an over exageration. I actually count 19 countries.

My ENTIRE POINT is that you are generalizing and thus not based on facts and like the above quote - it shows a lack of truth. There is a quote from Voltaire that I think is perfect "without accuracy in debate, that debate is only gossip".

I would add one more thing, if you were correct, all the Muslim countries would be the same as the 11 you have given, which is not the case. Also, before you start name calling again, saying I support totalitarianism or am an appeasist, I am not saying I support these things, I have in fact showed my complete abhorance for non-Secular legal systems, but I will not support illigocal debate based on generalizations, which as Voltair correctly called "gossip".

I guess we'll just have to look at the other 38 Muslim countries (I'll try to fit that into my schedule). BTW, you said "Murder is, of course, illegal in Muslim countries." That is a false statement. As I've shown, murder is legalized in at least 11 (and possibly 19) Muslim countries under Sharia law. It appears that although you have read and quoted Voltaire; you have not followed his maxim, and have yourself engaged in gossip.

Maybe it is a language thing, but I considered that I have quoted Voltaire's words exactly, accuracy. Those 19 countries have laws and thus what they do is bad laws and not murder. I am not defending them, personally I would consider them as murderous and disgusting, but nevertheless, we are obliged to get the facts accurate, until such time as a new regime is in place to reek justice on the old, it is not murder. I was taught in University the concept of not eroding one's standards, dignity, morals and self-respect to chane anothers (my translation from Dutch of Erasmus's most famous lesson to students of law).

I still stand by my argument, but I do get your point your driving at.

You think primarily in relation to law; I think primarily in relation to sacred individual human rights. The ordinary man thinks of himself, his friends and family, and the world around him, in terms of human rights, not law. Murder, whether by an individual or by government, is the destruction of human life which occurs outside the requirement for self-defense or defense of sacred human liberty. When you look at murder primarily in legal terms you begin walking down the path to tyranny. It is a gentle slope; soft under foot, and the directions are either missing or wrong. Sacred individual human rights trump the law, and are the very purpose of law.

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson

This is your best, Beejj.

I could go a bit further, S_R is not only spouting the usual agenda-based lies that imply that people are allowed to murder others for not following 7th century habits, but he is also making some form of statement that those small few of radicalised ultra-hardline countries that do follow backward and hideous laws are both common place and justify the word murder. I think, morally those that are executed by the state for backwards laws are murder, but that had nothing to do with the subject that was being discussed.

Though I deteste going down to the level of low-lifes, simply put the arrogant wanker has simply showed his true colors, and to think for a moment I thought he had a capacity for logical discussion.

I came to this blog for logical discussions and to simply point out errors illogical rubbish.and showing realities that are perhaps some are unaware. My only regret is to fall in the trap of some whom are not interested at all in that, I have time and time again fallen for it.

I will continue to make my comments and respond only to the more morally superior posterS.

Solkhar, you are priceless. Your final sentence is a classic. That a Muslim might think himself the arbiter of morals has made me smile so broadly that I'll have to suck lemons to rid myself of it.

The real truth of the matter is that islam will either be secularized or it is doomed. Look at history. The Califate failed...and failed miserably many times in islamic history. They have glossed over their many failures as well as any soviet Pravda writer could have, but the "Islamic State" and the "Golden Age of Islam" is a myth. The very word "assassin" came from the Golden Age of Islam. That whole time was filled with war, murder, assassinations, betrayals and the whole gammit of political turmoil. The big schism of the sunni and shia came in that era. The jihadis want to return to that time....not ever been taught what that time was really like. However, no religious government has ever survived or even been viable for very long...take a good look at Iran. The "black robes" now rule with killing dissidents in the streets of their cities....like China and the former USSR did.

Solkhar: Negative actions results in strenthening the arguments and propoganda that the west simply wants to destroy Islam and continue raping the wealth of the developing world.

One can say that Islam simply wants to destroy the West and continue raping the wealth of the developed world and no one's the wiser.

A sagacious observation Bob!
The latter point being an evidence based truism!

Thanks Bob, you have proven my point to no end!

It sucks being you, solkhar. :P

Dutch politician, Geert Wilders has proposed a tax on women who wear a headscarf, calling it a
"rag-head-tax". GO GEERT! YOU ROCK!! Not a bad idea for the U. S. if we only had a politician with some guts.

how about taxing those wierd guys in London who wear big black hats and funny curly hair. They freak me out... and obviously don't want to intigrate.. apparently they have their own law courts as well...tax the bastards!

I really hate people being able to wear what they want!

Mr.Horse:

" I really hate people being able to wear what they want "

You have the right to do so.

But...
Remember that Jews were living in in the British Islands
for at least 800 years...they were expelled in 1290...
There were two Jewish Prime Ministers and I hardly
would call them "bastards".


There are others Jews who don't wear " big black hats and funny curly hair "
such as former T.REX's Marc Bolan, Amy Winehouse, Mark Knopfler ( Dire Straits), Rachel
Weisz, Daniel Jacob Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Peter Sellers, Charles Chaplin...

You ENVY us.
You are a representative of sheer MEDIOCRITY and NOTHINGNESS.

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/04/07/video-gee...

Geert Wilders is a hero who has willingly put his life in danger in the cause of freedom of speech. Why is his view considered hate speech while Muslim rantings to kill infidels are not prosecuted?

Solkhar seems to be suffering from diarrhea of the key board.

Any Dutch Muslim who has said that "infidels" must be killed has or will be charged, that is the law there. A Muslim whom produced a holocaust denial cartoon was charged and the cartoon banned. But somehow Wilders thinks that similarly hateful items are allowed because he is a white-Christian does not stick.

As for Wilders putting his life in danger, he provoked some maniacs and the maniacs want him dead, that says a lot about the maniacs but that does not automatically make Wilders a saint. Both Rosevelt and Churchill considered Stalin a hero for waging war against Hitler.

Wilders, if anything, is enjoying pushing that he is a victim and in danger and is milking it.

Speaking freely about the evils of Islamic Sharia Law and mass-murdering Islamic Jihad is only a provocation of evil, a provocation which is the duty of good courageous men. Winston Churchill provoked Hitler the maniac, and Hitler wanted him dead. Provoking evil with free speech is good; submission to evil in silence is evil.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do (or say) nothing.” Edmund Burke

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

Notice how solkhar provides no quotations or links in his accusations about Geert Wilders supposed immorality.

Now I am in a bad mood, I wrote a response and then my laptop screwed it up. Now you get a short version.

I can give lots of quotes, in Dutch if you like, I think John will not appreciate that and only one other reader will probably understand it. The funny thing is Christine's comment, considering most of the comments and support for Wilders is just emotional rantings without the feintest knowledge of the history, facts and reality of Wilders, his party and his benefit to The Netherlands.

Wilders said that he is not after conflict but real debate, and yet he does not debate at all. Rather than my putting in quotes and references, how about you all go and search Wilders and Debate on the net and see what you get. You will find that he has only made speeches, attended "set-up" meetings, not real debates and has refused a great many debates and challenges. He basically attends the "tweedekamer" or parliament, to make a speech or two and then he leaves the house. Again, rather than my giving references, go to the official parliamentary site and check the attendance record of Wilders. He has the lowest of all.

Now, going on the "help yourself" theme - I recommend it since most of you quote agenda-sites and not academic ones or official websites, go see the actual Wilder's PVV site. It is in English as well as in Dutch. Go try and find a scratch of information about the formation and structure of the political party itself. You will not find anything! Why? Because, Dutch law is probably the worst when it comes to what constitutes a political party. Simply put, the PVV could only exist as a Dutch party as most constitions of EU nations, would never allow such a bastardisation of the word "party" or in fact "freedom" which I find personally insulting. Only in Holland can you have a party that is a dictatorship with an unelected leadership and no internal debate or even questioning of party platform. Add to that, you would expect that candidates come from the rank and file membership......em..... think again! All the candidates were selected by Wilders and his cronies and he even advertises for them in the newspapers, all of the new EU parliamentarians were new members from outside. So much for freedom of speech and democratic values!

So we have it, clear public records of Wilders, whom runs a dictatorship without freedoms of speech whom makes absurd speeches in parliament about freedom of speech no matter what or other claims and then leaves to avoid actual debate. When he was first banned from the UK, the Quilliam Foundation, the anti-extremist/terrorist foundation that supports and actively helps the UK authorities fight the spread of radicalism and extremism pushed hard and lobbied the UK government to let Wilders in, saying that he should be allowed but on the condition that he is debated. They offered to debate him. He, like he always does, refuses, not because of security grounds (that can be fixed and his safety guarenteed in a multitude of ways) but because he simply DOES NOT DEBATE. Here is what the Quilliam Foundation, respected in all quarters, said:

"Quilliam’s directors have announced that they wish to challenge Geert Wilders, the controversial far-right Dutch MP, to a public debate on Islam when he comes to the UK on Friday following a court ruling which overturned a Home Office decision to ban him from the country.

Quilliam believes that although many of Wilders’ public statements on Islam and Muslims are bigoted, ill-informed and offensive to people of all faiths, this is not an adequate reason to prevent him from coming to the UK given that he has not directly incited violence. Instead Quilliam believes that Wilders’ ideas, like those of non-violent Islamist extremists, should be challenged through debate and argument."

The absolute hypocrisy of Wilders, on the subject of "freedom of speech at all costs" is incredible. Apart from there being none within his own party, there was the Holocaust Denial Incident that gripped Dutch media for about 2 weeks. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088643.html )

There was a debate on the subject of holocaust denial and allowing it or making it a crime like in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland. Slovakia. The argument was that no matter what the disgusting concept such a denial is, freedom of speech demands that it be allowed. The entire country waited for the obvious support that Wilders "must give", it did not happen. Why did he not say it. Has it something to do with perhaps his 40 plus visits to his "next best home to The Netherlands" that Wilders calls the State of Israel? Obviously! If he supported that so called freedom of speech, the doors to that country and whatever support he gets from it would be shut forever. FYI, criminilizing denial was defeated in parliament with Wilders being conspicously absent.

"Far-right politician Geert Wilders has yet to weigh in on the debate about Holocaust denial. But his presence looms large. Wilders wants Muslims in the Netherlands to accept Dutch values, including accepting the horrors of the Holocaust." http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/holocaust-den.... So that tells us that he demands that the holocaust be accepted!

The bottom line and this shows the hypocrisy of it all, is that most people do consider holocaust denial to be close to criminal but then will not consider the hate of Wilders to be anything but freedom of speech. The reality is that both issues has nothing to do about freedom of speech at all, but the freedom for us all to be free from collective, coordinated hate. From the horrors of collective bigotry, incitement of xenophobia and later holocausts and ethnic cleansing. H. Brinkman, Parlement & Politiek.

Interestingly, the World Jewish Congress website in August of this year asked the question, why was the Danish Mohammed cartoon considered fine in the Netherlands and not prosecuted but a holocaust denial cartoon was. http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/news/globaln....

Fortunately, the Fitna film does constitute criminality and follows the same law that banned the holocaust denial. Wilders should be found guilty and banned from politics altogether.

A last comment is that the hype about Wilders is just that, propoganda pushed by the far-right in every community to support their bigotted and xenophobic BS. The best BS is that Wilders if running in an election would be made PM. That is just wet dream.

He cannot and will never be. All this hype is based on the small number of seats that the PVV carefully choses to run for, that have bad social conditions and strong far-right sentiment. Thus he wins well and so his statistical support looks high and he and agenda freaks try and make it look important. Wilders simply has not contested the national elections in every seat because he knows then the population will simply reject him. The Dutch do not mind voting in radicals in local elections and councils for local issues but never will accept a single-platform radical party for national elections, historically they have rejected anything other than strong-economic and beaurocratic leadership. Something that Wildres is incapable. The other side of the impossibility of Wilders being a PM is another seemingly absured Dutch law. The constitution of The Netherlands says that the King or Queen has the right to ask whom they want to form a government, not the largest party. Thus if by some miracle PM does every get a majority, King Beatrix has already said she would never ask any radical party to form a government and would be willing to force the "Dutch people to endless elections" until one was reached (het dagblaad).

Wilders simply loves to look the leader and wants to be a saviour, even if he has to make up the threats.

solkhar Pontificates about how Geert Wilders is a Dictator and ignores the increasingly Dictatorial nature of the increasingly Marxist European Union.

“It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan…. If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB .. not yet .. but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes .. two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes.” Vladimir Bukovksy

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

I've said it before and I repeat why don't you get into American politics SR?
You sound like W F Buckley;a man I've admired for 40 years!
Your observations on the EEU are exactly my own!
A new evil empire rears its ugly head!
The doctrinaire cloud cuckoo land that one must believe in;or else!

I have not ignored the increasingly left-sidedness of European politics at all, it has nothing to do with the nasty, dictator-in-making (to coin your phrase) called Geert Wilders.

Your own inbuilt hatred for marxism is obvious from all your writings and your putting it into every single item that you have written. Its relevance is questionable but that is your business, I simply ignore it.

Storm Rider, I applaud your tenacity in trying to argue with Solkhar. Your stamina, too - much of this commodity is required to read through his interminable and turgid posts, overflowing with empty "philosophy", his modus operandi being that his inventions might be screened in the fog of verbiage. Sadly, you are wasting your time because he will invariably claim either that you fail to see his point, or that your words prove his point. He probably believes such is the case. Fascinating it is that he refers to Wilders as a dictator (or a would-be one). I think he needs to define the word "dictator" and then demonstrate how Wilders fits the bill. As for this right and left tommyrot, by using such empty journalese he is merely resorting to the name-calling he claims to despise: doing nothing more than hanging a label in lieu of debating the Wilders agenda. Poor guy: Islam must be so difficult to defend in a world that evolved from the Iron Age so long ago.

Your own failure to actually read posts is already proven. I have explained it well enough.

He has proven his own dictatorial style in action - go look at the party he has founded and runs. Go to the site, it is in English as well, and look at the party structure. You cannot in fact because they hide it. What do they hide? They hide that the party, as only The Netherlands allows it, to have a political party with no membership controls, no voting in it's leadership or involvement in it's policies. In fact Wilders is the leader only with no chance of taking it away from him. Add to that, to be a candidate of the party, you need to have Wilders' approval and he so far choses outsiders and advertises in newspapers for candidates, he does not chose from his own members whom are in reality only subscribers and figures to justify the existance of his party.

I would call that a dictatorship.

Thomas Jefferson no doubt had the frustration of debating with pig-headed British Royalists/Elitists during the beginnings of our American Revolution; a revolution which it isn't finished.

At some point debate ends and the real fight begins.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson

“As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.” Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was neither a Dutch nor a 21st century European politician.

So solkhar, you want me to choose between Thomas Jefferson and yourself - no brainer.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?” Thomas Jefferson


“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.” Thomas Jefferson

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” Thomas Jefferson

“Government big enough to supply everything you need (for elite government and the proletariat class) is big enough to take everything you have (from entrepreneurs and the middle class) ... ” Thomas Jefferson

“The two enemies of the people are criminals (anarchy = “Right”) and government (criminal Marxist or Fascist government = “Left”), so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Thomas Jefferson

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.” Thomas Jefferson

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect..." Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"And where else will this degenerate son of science [Hume], this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" Thomas Jefferson

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." Thomas Jefferson

"A nation ceases to be republican...when the will of the majority ceases to be the law." Thomas Jefferson

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/i...

Proved my point, it is great you like TJ but relevancy to the topic is something else.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson has relevance today, particularly in regards to Islam and Marxism (both forms of elite minority rule) - and he will remain relevant as long as humans live on earth.

That's the problem with them pseudo-intellectual, nerdy European politicians: no sense of respect for our Founding Fathers of America.

Bob, the Europeans are all ENVIOUS of what America did accomplish
in "just" 200 years.
From a backward colony to a world leading power... it was a bitter pill to swallow,
specially for the frenchmen, who actively helped the fledgling American Army
against the British during the American Revolution, which strongly
influenced the French Revolution, ultimately shaping the world as we know it.


I daresay that the American Founding Fathers are the original authors of this
marvellous oddity called DEMOCRACY.

Without Jefferson, Franklin and others, my country would still be living under
SLAVERY and MONARCHY.
The degree of American influence on Brazil was immense and I just
can thank God for this.


America SAVED Europe TWICE from becoming part of the German
territory.The Europeans can brag about how cultured and sophisticated they think they are thanks
to the American G.I's, sailors, marines, rangers, airmen's BLOOD.

Without America, Europe would be called DEUTSCH EUROPA or
just GROSSDEUTSCHLAND.

And I wouldn't even be here writing this post.

every cloud....

Um, I think the word DEMOCRACY comes from the Greek DEMOKRATIA. I wonder why ........

Etymologically yes, the term Democracy comes from the Greek, but there wasn't
any Democracy as we know it in old Greece, where SLAVERY was common.

Modern Democracy is an American experiment, followed closely by European
nations.

I seem to remember slavery was pretty common in America as well.

I thought France was a democracy before america.

France is a Socialist country; political power in France comes down from the top. The French Revolution was a Socialist Revolution and was a precursor to the Communist Revolution.

The French were active slave owners and slave traders long before the United States became a nation.

“As the French empire in North America grew, the French also began to build a smaller but more profitable empire in the West Indies. Settlement along the South American coast in what is today French Guiana began in 1624, and a colony was founded on Saint Kitts in 1625 ...The Compagnie des eacute;les de l'Amérique founded colonies in Guadeloupe and Martinique in 1635, and a colony was later founded on Saint Lucia by (1650). The food-producing plantations of these colonies were built and sustained through slavery, with the supply of slaves dependent on the African slave trade.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_North_Africa

“In the 18th century, France carried on two types of trade with its New World colonies. One was the direct trade by which France sent wheat, wine, metal objects, and building materials to the New World in exchange for sugar, and, to a lesser degree, cotton, cocoa, tobacco, rocou, and coffee. The other was the triangular slave trade, which the French referred to as the "circuit" trade. French ships loaded with trade goods sailed to Africa, where the goods were exchanged for slaves. The slaves were then taken to France's New World colonies, where they were exchanged for sugar and other plantation products.”

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1587

“The Du Bois Institute dataset lists 4,033 slaving voyages by French-registered ships destined for the Americas that sailed between 1669 and 1864. It excludes a large number of voyages whose final destination lay in the Indian Ocean.”

http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justt...

“In the history of the Atlantic slave trade, the French turned four times as many Africans into slaves as the Americans did, they used them far more brutally, and French slavers not only got a head-start on Americans, they continued the slave trade--legally--until 1830, long after the rest of Europe had given it up. And they kept at it clandestinely until after the U.S. Civil War. France officially abolished slavery in its colonies only 14 years before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, and then only under pressure from slave uprisings.”

• Slaver voyages: France, 4,200; British North America/United States, 1,500.
• Slaves transported: France 1,250,000, British North America/United States, 300,000.
• Slaves delivered to: French West Indies: 1,600,000, British North America/United States, 500,000.*

http://vernondent.blogspot.com/2005/05/french-s...

Yes it does seem the history of the whole world is written in blood.... every country has a nasty past somewhere... I guess that is because we are all human

unless you were born in a moslem country of course then you are simply a locust (according to jewhawk of course)

Yes. Muslims behave like LOCUSTS, indeed.


" every country has a nasty past somewhere "

Muslims have not only a nasty past, but the present and will have a nasty future.

Nothing good could ever come from this PLAGUE, but STUPIDITY, BEHEADINGS, TERRORISM, MISERY and HONOR KILLINGS.

Muslims are a true DISGRACE for this planet, a real environmental DISASTER.

What country are you from?

Wales

But Thomas Jefferson was a man of reason and common sense!
Probably one of the most talented politicians that ever drew breath!
The fact that he no longer exists is irrelevant;his example is timeless!

... I'd better get a slave then!

Nobody's perfect!

I am sure Thomas Jefferson was a great person, a great leader, thinker and statesman. Having said that, and unlike the pathetic and imature rantings that say otherwise, I respect the signficant and important history and creation of the United States of America.

Now, the point I still make is this, the constant references to only American statesmen to justify freedoms, liberty etc, is not only nauseatingly repitition but makes the value sink. Add to that, though important and signficant the creation of the US is, it is still an American history and not a European history. The concepts of liberty and freedom of expression, opinion existed before and after the creation of the US, from different sources and for different reasons.

What I find irretating, is the emotive arguments that avoid the real issues, not the right to freedom of speech, which I find very important, but the existance of "coordinated, collective hate". So when Wilders claims he is defending freedom of speech, he is in fact side-tracking and avoiding the real issue, that of his condemnable hate.

It is rather tiring, in fact, when you come accross classic school yard rhetoric. You dislike hate, so you are automatically branded as against freedom of speech. You dislike expansionary zionism and thus you are branded anti-Semetic, you say you dislike the far-right so you are branded a libertard, etc, etc. All of it both tiring and pathetic. It is almost as annoying as discussing something with an "americachauvenist" - someone whom thinks because it is American it is obviously the "only way".

The concept of God-given human liberty (and private property honestly earned), existed before the American Revolution, but not the reality; our Founding Fathers made it a reality.

Your Founding Fathers, with all there great wisdom, did not considered either blacks, native indians or women to be "human" in their declaration, as they were not given the same liberities and it was many generations later that matured to understand what actually is "human" to give them.

Reality bites - both ways.

Slavery in the New World was not an American enterprise; it was European: French, British, Welsh, Dutch, Spanish, etc. etc. Our Founding Fathers were born into a world of European-developed slavery; and the Muslim world was an essential ingredient in the enterprise as they were already culling African slaves - and selling for profit to the Europeans.

“Slavery was practiced in Africa before the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade. Slavery and the slave trade were an integral part of African societies and states which supplied the Arab world with enslaved people for centuries before the arrival of the Europeans… The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes; across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)... Four million enslaved people exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million across the Atlantic Ocean.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

LMAO! So it was not an American invention, thus why for goodness sake did they not chuck out slavery with the British in the revolution? Why did it take so-much longer? Why did, like slavery, they also allow discrimation against native Americans and even women's rights? Was "all man created equal" purely masculine?

I am not having a dig at US history, the founding fathers or there fantastic and wonderful ideals - which I honestly do think they are. I am having a go at you because of your persistantly discussing American ideals and American history as if it is one hundred per cent relevant to the issues of Europe, conflict with Muslims and in fact anyplace else in the world. It is not.

Man as in Man, the species, you buffoon.

So let me see, only you have the right to sarcasm?

The United States is the only nation on earth which fought a Civil War to liberate its own slaves; a self-evident truth which escapes your elevated mind and your not-so-elevated quotient of morality. You keep overlooking the fact that the Muslim world still practices slavery, and the worst enslavers in history were the Soviet Union and Communist China, each of which murdered or enslaved nearly their whole populations. Again, your sense of morality is dysfunctional - moral vertigo.

“We (in the Soviet Union) are slaves there from birth. We are born slaves. I'm not young anymore, and I myself was born a slave; this is even more true for those who are younger. We are slaves, but we are striving for freedom. You, however, were born free. If so, then why do you help our slave owners?... When they bury us in the ground alive - I compared the forthcoming European agreement with a mass grave for all the countries of East Europe - as you know, this is a very unpleasant sensation: your mouth gets filled with earth while you're still alive - please do not send them shovels… The Soviet economy has an extremely low level of efficiency. What is done here by a few people, by a few machines, in our country takes tremendous crowds of workers and enormous masses of materials. Therefore the Soviet economy cannot deal with every problem at once: war, space (which is part of the war effort), heavy industry, light industry; and at the same time the necessity to feed and clothe its own population. The forces of the entire Soviet economy are concentrated on war, where you won't be helping them. But everything which is lacking, everything which is needed to fill the gaps, everything which is necessary to feed the people, or for other types of industry, they get from you. So indirectly you are helping them to rearm. You're helping the Soviet police state.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

http://www.alor.org/Library/LegacyofTerror.htm

“But how to understand a teaching which in its ideal version includes both an appeal to freedom and a program for the establishment of slavery? Or how to reconcile the impassioned condemnation of the old order and quite justified indignation at the suffering of the poor and the oppressed with the fact that the same teachings envisage no less suffering for these oppressed masses as the lot of whole generations prior to the triumph of social justice? Thus Marx foresees fifteen, perhaps even fifty years of civil war for the proletariat, and Mao Tse-tung is ready to accept the loss of half of humanity in a nuclear war for the sake of establishing a socialist structure in the world. A call for sacrifices on this scale might sound convincing on the lips of a religious leader appealing to a truth beyond this world. But not from convinced atheists. It would seem that socialism lacks that feature which, in mathematics, for example, is considered the minimal condition for the existence of a concept: a definition free of contradictions.” Igor Shafarevich

“The revolutionaries who drew up the "Conspiracy of Equals" understood equality in such a way that they alone formed the government, while others were to obey implicitly--and those who did not were to be exiled to certain islands for forced labor. In the most popular work of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto, one of the first measures of the new socialist system to be proposed is the introduction of compulsory labor.” Igor Shafarevich

http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevi...

Your still basing your assessements on generalisations like "the Muslim world still practices slavery,". There are very few cases of slavery, but yet the entire world suffers slavery in many forms, black Africa and central America with child-soldiers, the sex-slavery issue that is feeding the west, child-exploitation in sweat-shops or as domestic servants in developing countries both Muslim and non-Muslim.

My morality is fine, good vs evil, the ten commandments, the reality of the world and the need for partaking in change via constructive engagement first before anything else. All but the last is as much Muslim as anything else, the last fits in, but I learnt that from my work.

I have a good understanding of soviet history, I am not sure what the point of all that is though. Do not think I am saying the west or America are the slavers, that the rest do not, I am fully aware of history, in fact compared to some on this blog, my knowledge is way better, particularily colonialization and post colonial independance that I studed post grad.

My whole point, that I continue to say, is that I will have a go at anyone who tries to use thin-skinned reasoning, pushing over-simplified reasonings and very narrow logic for what is in reality very complex issues.

I am not interested in arguments with you at all, I disagree with the line you take for some points completely and partially at others. I am not interested in name-calling or branding. What is sad is that in many aspects we agree, and emotions seem to have hidden that. I hate radicalism and extremism in all its forms, for that is the enemy of progress and normality. Be it 7th century totalitarian ideology, the extreme left or right of political ideology and anything that collectivises hate.

You said in anothe thread, or perhaps this one , that collective coordinated hate was justified against national socialism and I disagree, it was the defence of the liberities and collective coordinated hate of national socialism that was the result - a big difference. If it was based on the same level of hate, then it would have failed - two negatives do not make a positive.

I think the discussions have gone way of the thread, and I would rather discuss that.

Hatred of totalitarian political ideologies (Fascist, Marxist, Sharia) is hatred of evil. Hatred of evil is good; it is not a negative, so your statement that two negatives do not make a positive does not apply here.

At some point all complex issues are reducible to simple truths; just as all differentiated mathematical formulas can be integrated. Your mind appears capable of recognizing many streams of thought; you can see all the dots, but you cannot or will not connect the dots in a way which corresponds to the truth - to reality. You are metaphorically capable of differential calculus but not integral calculus. You are not able or you refuse to reduce complex data into simpler truth.

I'm sick of your references to complexity; as if you are some self-appointed intellectual.

"If you state a moral case to a plowman and a professor, the farmer will decide it as well, and often better, because he has not been led astray by any artificial rules." Thomas Jefferson

solkhar refers to Geert Wilders as one on the "far right." Well, I have news for you; the "far right" is anarchy, whereas Marxism and Fascism are both far left. Geert Wilders is an advocate of free speech and ordered human liberty which of course is in the middle.

All European nations are "Left" in their political ideology and systems of political power - either Fascist or Marxist. Political Islam is Islamo-Fascist and also on the Left as is Euro-Fascism. The United States was conceived in ordered human liberty through the middle ground of a Constitutional Republic under the moral umbrella of The Declaration of Independence - not the Marxist/Fascist Left and not anarchy on the Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ

Wilders is of the extreme-far-right and yes, is if allowed to grow would be the cause of anarchy. The resto f whaty ou said is basically an irrelevant waste of key-strokes and you consistant refering to the US declaration of independance in regards to Dutch politicis is rather laughable.

No, the far right is anarchy its self; the far left (Marxist or Fascist) uses anarchy as a tool to gain power.

The American Declaration of Independence is a declaration of universal human rights - not just American human rights. All people are created equal before law and with unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property honestly earned through labor (pursuit of happiness). All law must equally secure those unalienable individual human rights. All law must derive through the informed consent of the governed. The American Revolution is the only revolution in history which established justice based on the unaliebable rights of the individual.

Like all Marxists &/or Islamists, you are no doubt preparing for the American Revolution to be snuffed out; but I believe it will explode outward. The American Revolution will become a worldwide universal revolution - join it or perish.

Sorry but your repetitious babble is showing, repeating yourself does not make it any more valuable or relevant. Your understanding of Islam or the term Islamist is poor as is your judgement to call me one.

Your arrogance to think that the American Revolution is to conquer the world puts you, if anything, in the books of a power-hungry usurper, something that I am absolutely sure Thomas Jefferson would have detested. Thomas Jefferson, with all due respect authorised payments of ransom to Barbery Pirates whilst being the US Embassador - called then Consul - to France, rather in the face of his "standards". At the same time, he and Adams later on ensured the best of relations with the Sultan of Morocco, with the below treaty:

"To all Persons to whom these Presents shall come or be made known- Whereas the United States of America in Congress assembled by their Commission bearing date the twelvth day of May One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty four thought proper to constitute John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson their Ministers Plenipotentiary, giving to them or a Majority of them full Powers to confer, treat & negotiate with the Ambassador, Minister or Commissioner of His Majesty the Emperor of Morocco concerning a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, to make & receive propositions for such Treaty and to conclude and sign the same, transmitting it to the United States in Congress assembled for their final Ratification, And by one other (commission bearing date the Eleventh day of March One thousand Seven hundred & Eighty five did further empower the said Ministers Plenipotentiary or a majority of them, by writing under the* hands and Seals to appoint such Agent in the said Business as they might think proper with Authority under the directions and Instructions of the said Ministers to commence & prosecute the said Negotiations & Conferences for the said Treaty provided that the said Treaty should be signed by the said Ministers: And Whereas, We the said John Adams & Thomas Jefferson two of the said Ministers Plenipotentiary (the said Benjamin Franklin being absent) by writing under the Hand and Seal of the said John Adams at London October the fifth, One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty five, & of the said Thomas Jefferson at Paris October the Eleventh of the same Year, did appoint Thomas Barclay, Agent in the Business aforesaid, giving him the Powers therein, which by the said second Commission we were authorized to give, and the said Thomas Barclay in pursuance thereof, hath arranged Articles for a Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of Morocco, which Articles written in the Arabic Language, confirmed by His said Majesty the Emperor of Morocco & seal'd with His Royal Seal, being translated into the Language of the said United States of America, together with the Attestations thereto annexed are in the following Words, To Wit.

In the name of Almighty God,

This is a Treaty of Peace and Friendship established between us and the United States of America, which is confirmed, and which we have ordered to be written in this Book and sealed with our Royal Seal at our Court of Morocco on the twenty fifth day of the blessed Month of Shaban, in the Year One thousand two hundred, trusting in God it will remain permanent. "

....

According to you that would have been impossible under TJ.

Thomas Jefferson waged war against the Pirate Sultan of Morocco.

"Long before Jefferson had ever been elected President, he abhorred the idea of paying homage to the Barbary states. On many occasions he had petitioned Congress and President Adams to take military action against the Barbary powers, each time to no avail. Eventually, as an envoy to France Jefferson abdicated his position on the Barbary Pirates and gave in to the pressure of Congress... After Jefferson became President, he felt he finally had an opportunity to deal with the problem of piracy in the Mediterranean... Congress and President Adams had failed to act judiciously to solve the problem of the pirates. Adams had succeeded in keeping the United States out of an anti-piracy confederacy with other American countries. Congress had also been slow to offer acceptable amounts of money for tributes to the Barbary states. In fact, Congress had authorized a mere $80,000 for the appeasement of the Barbary powers. This was only a fraction of what it would have cost the United States to secure peace in the region. All of these previous efforts had failed, and their failures were threatening a rather large part of the United States' international trade: one sixth of American exports of wheat and flour went through the Mediterranean... Jefferson wanted what he always had, war. It appears that Jefferson, in dealing with the Barbary pirates had decided that it would be cheaper and more beneficial to fight a war than continually to pay homage... Jefferson wanted what he always had, war. It appears that Jefferson, in dealing with the Barbary pirates had decided that it would be cheaper and more beneficial to fight a war than continually to pay homage. President Jefferson had made his entire presidency one that stressed reduced budgets and spending, and the discharge of the public debt. Continuing to pay large ransoms and other gratuities would not achieve this goal; fighting a short decisive war might. Jefferson saw this as an opportunity to advance the goals of his administration, and decided, therefore, to deploy the navy... Congress did authorize the appropriate measures of allowing the navy and the President to capture and make prizes of Tripolitan vessels. The authorization led to a war effort the lasted for four years."

http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%...

"When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States... As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean... The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli... The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers... In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jeffers...

The American Revolution freed us from British Monarchy - totalitarian rule. The principles of the American Revolution can free the whole world, not enslave the whole world - the latter is a project now reserved for Islam and Marx.

solkhar: "Fortunately, the Fitna film does constitute criminality and follows the same law that banned the holocaust denial. Wilders should be found guilty and banned from politics altogether."

You are a totalitarian bastard. Freedom of speech, unless it is a call for murder or yelling "fire" in a theater, etc., is a sacred God-given unalienable right - a universal individual human right; so any law which bans free speech is tyrannical law, and any individual, such as yourself, who would enact or support such tyrannical law is an enemy of the American Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights - an enemy of the United States of America.

Go to Hell solkhar.

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson

Your constant confusion of what is freedom of speech and "collective coordinated dissemination of hate" is rather sad, rather like the pathetic name-calling that you have started. Add to that your constant use/abuse of US political quotes to somehow justify your views in a world that is not American or related to that subject is equally sad - no, I would say irrelevant.

If I hate you it is ultimately none of your business. That is what you fail to realize. If I hate you, you have no fault to find with me. It is entirely my affair. fF I try to kill you, harass your children refuse to allow you to work or live without molesting you, even if I slander you publicly, all of these things are actionable and I will see you in court. But my hating of you is my own affair.Keep out of it.

As soon as you make my feelings toward you a crime you declare yourself to be able to read my thoughts and the true judge of my soul. Stick to your own soul and I will stick to mine. I loathe Islam. None of your business. You may not police my thoughts. The effrontery of attempting to do so is breath taking. You put yourself in the position of God and you are not qualified to occupy that position.

How true... I am trying to start a branch of the kkk. I hate blacks and jews..... but as you say that is none of their bussines.... they can't police my thoughs..... or put themselves in the position of god.

My racist anti semitic hate is purely my business... I couldn't agree with you more!

Quite. Your entitlement to be racist and antisemitic is beyond question. Try to act on these emotions and we will nail you. Whoever it is you choose to loathe has nothing to do with me and certainly it is not the province of government.
The first excuse of any tyrant is that he is against hate. That gives them permission to diagnose your soul and tell you what is in it and what should be there. In the western world we stick to punishing DEEDS.

I suspect that none of us care if Muslims hate us, except to be shocked at their lack of taste. What we do care about is their deeds.

I think you have forgotten that classical American political theories are based on the assumption that man is evil. Given the opportunity to override some else's freedoms, he will. You can attribute this to man in a state of nature or original sin, but man is not to be trusted to legislate against hate. He will deviously seek to enforce his own schema of hatreds and call it righteous.What is worse, he will seek to dominate those whose hatreds differ from his own. Unlawful discrimination based on race, religion, age sex, these relate to deeds. Here we are on firm ground. Hate everyone or no one as you please. Just mind you own soul.It is similar to minding your own business.

"Unlawful discrimination based on race, religion, age sex, these relate to deeds. "

Mmmmm, thus you have just explained elements of the political platform of Geert Wilder's party.

Artful Dodger.

It is just to discriminate against Political Islam because it is the totalitarian enemy of sacred human liberty, but it is not just to discriminate based on race, age or sex; all indiviudals should be equal before law unless they are the political or violent enemies of human liberty. Prove to me that Geert Wilders believes in discrimination against people based on their race, age or sex. Give me the exact quotes with linked references, or give me a link to video where he says it. Your Pontificating opinion is beside the point - give us the quotes and the links.

You have told lies here before - once a liar, always a liar. Liars should be banned from this site.

"Liars should be banned from this site." You mean people such as those who claim there are two Talibans?

As if I for you will spend my valuable time looking up links. I have much better things to do.

Wilder's main quotes that are on his own website and in every main item on him comes back down to two factors.

He says "I do not hate Muslims but I hate the Qur'an which is evil". That is a tactic to not have him kicked out of parliament but just hit the grey area. Anyone with half-a-brain knows that they two are the same - if there is no Qur'an then there are no Muslims. He has demanded that the Qur'an be banned from The Netherlands, thus he has demanded that there be no Muslims in The Netherlands. That is pure textbook bigotry and as Bronwyn correctly states - "Unlawful discrimination based on religion, these relate to deeds. ".

Add to that, and you can go to the multiple sites to see Wilders' 10 point platform, that Muslim immigration should be halted, which is again discrimination because of religion.

Liar, liar, pants on fire ..... school yard language.

The deeds of Muslims coupled with their political manifesto, the Koran, require the rational conclusion that Islam is an aggressive, fascist political movement to destroy the state of any country in which it finds itself. Therefore the deeds of this group need not to be tolerated, but the cancer of their presence in law abiding countries removed. Those Muslims awaiting to come into the Netherlands and into any freedom loving country, should not be permitted entrance at all, if they adhere to Islam. This discrimination is just because at that point they are not citizens and we are entitled to judge their allegiances as too problematic for admittance into countries where liberty is loved.

You must notice that no religion has a free ride. It is only unlawful discrimination that is offensive.However, the beliefs of most of the religions on this earth do not threaten the existence of others. The beliefs of Islam do. There is the difference and it makes a difference, solkhar.

solkar: "Add to that, and you can go to the multiple sites to see Wilders' 10 point platform, that Muslim immigration should be halted, which is again discrimination because of religion."

No that is rational discrimination based on totalitarian political ideology, i.e.: Islamic Sharia Law.

You are both a liar and a lazy coward - a real intellectual. You said that Geert Wilders believes in discrimination against people based on their race, age or sex; i.e.: that these groups of people should not be equal before the law. You can't back up your lies because they are lies; only truth can be backed up by research, video evidence and exact quotations - you won't do it because you can't do it; so you should be banned from this blog.

There is evil in the Koran and Hadiths. Inequality of non-Muslims and women before under Sharia Law is evil. Totalitarian political power under Sharia Law is evil. Murder authorized by Sharia Law is evil - so Geert Wilders is right - he speaks the truth.

I dislike "having the truths I've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools". So cease from quoting me at all.Thanks.

"The first excuse of any tyrant is that he is against hate. That gives them permission to diagnose your soul and tell you what is in it and what should be there."

Truthfully and beautifully stated, Bronwyn. George Orwell said essentially the same thing in his book 1984. When written the book was a dystopian (utopia gone bad) picture of the future; now it is a reflection on current events.

"The individual is only a cell... power is collective. The individual only has power in so far that he ceases to be an individual... If he can make complete utter submission; if he can escape from his identity; if he cam merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all powerful and immortal... Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death; the Party is immortal... You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do, and will turn against us; but we create human nature..." George Orwell, 1984

"We are not content with negative obedience... we do not destroy the heretic...we convert him; we capture his inner mind... we bring him over to our side... We shall crush you down to the point from which there is no coming back... Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling; everything will be dead inside you... You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves." George Orwell, 1984

I am using your posts to fill in essential holes in my understanding. Thank you.

Bronwyn, I believe Orwell can be understood today by substituting specific totalitarian political ideologies for the word "Party."

"The individual is only a cell... power is collective. The individual only has power in so far that he ceases to be an individual... If he can make complete utter submission; if he can escape from his identity; if he cam merge himself in the Sharia Party so that he is the Sharia Party, then he is all powerful and immortal... Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death; the Sharia Party is immortal... You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do, and will turn against us; but we create human nature..." George Orwell, 1984

"The individual is only a cell... power is collective. The individual only has power in so far that he ceases to be an individual... If he can make complete utter submission; if he can escape from his identity; if he cam merge himself in the Fascist Party so that he is the Fascist Party, then he is all powerful and immortal... Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death; the Fascist Party is immortal... You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do, and will turn against us; but we create human nature..." George Orwell, 1984

"The individual is only a cell... power is collective. The individual only has power in so far that he ceases to be an individual... If he can make complete utter submission; if he can escape from his identity; if he cam merge himself in the Marxist Party so that he is the Marxist Party, then he is all powerful and immortal... Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death; the Marxist Party is immortal... You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do, and will turn against us; but we create human nature..." George Orwell, 1984

Again Bronwyn you have shown your incapacity to respect posters by actually reading what they said. Your incapacity to do so means that you miss out on words like "COLLECTIVE COORDINATED HATE".

That means, since it has to be spelled out that:

Yes, if you hate me, it is none of my business and if you hate me, I have no business in making anything about it. BUT, and this is were I must put it in the first few lines so you do not glaze over - IF YOU PUSH hate to others by incitement, it is illegal and I HAVE EVERY RIGHT to object!

Thus, I do not give a rat's arse about your opinions Bronwyn at all, you can naively hate something based in incorrect facts, personal bigotry and local xenophobia as much as you like, you can even sit on it and twirl around for all I care. But since this is a blog of discussion, I have the same right as you to express my opinions on the writtings of others and I certainly can express my right to object to collective coordinated hate which is a crime in most countries.

It is not illegal to convince others to hate you. It is my right. You may disdain me, perhaps you should, but you may not limit my right to persuade my fellows. Your only defense against my poisonous views is more speech. If I seek to act on hatreds to deprive you of your liberty we have quite another matter. But you are not referring to that. You actually believe that I do not have a right to communicate what you so conveniently call hatred and this is precisely where you are wrong.
I pass over your other reference to rats' asses etc.. I do not think that they strengthened your argument, but they are your own cultural style.

Crazyhorse has it right.

It is in most countries, western as well, to coordinate and organize collective hate and that is all I am talking about. For that reason, Wilder's party is border-line and Fitna is illegal and the court system, the appeals court and prosecutors office all think so.

The end result of "coordinated, collective organized hate" is discrimination and insitement to violence, which you correctly said results in the loss of liberties.

You have all the right to communicate your views, privately, even in a public forum, as an individual and not as part of a collective.

As for language style, since most on this blog do not bother to be polite, I simply join in.

Crazy horse has it right? I am a vet, and I have attended cockroaches of greater intelligence than Crazy Horse.

Coordinated, collective organized hate is an apt description of the just and moral attitude of Americans toward Nazi Germany during World War II. The same hatred of evil is good when it comes to totalitarian Political Islam.

"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil." Proverbs

Freedom of speech is a self-evident truth and requires no explanation because all men and women are created with the self-evident unalienable right to liberty. I am not confused about freedom of speech because I am made in the image of God - I was born free - all people are born free.

I hate evil, and suppression of free speech is evil.

I'm not surprised that you don't like Geert Wilders or the American Founding Fathers or the American Revolution - or the individual's God-given self-evident right to free speech.

all men are created with the unalienable right to liberty?

fascinating... when did black people get the right to vote in your lovely free country?

when did they get the right to sit on a bus with a white person?... how long ago was that?

when did they get the right to go to "white" schools?

oh and out of interest when was the last recorded lynching of a black in america?

Yes your country is a great example of freedom and equality... we all admire it no end.

Yes, all men are created with the unalienable right to liberty.

Could it be true that slavery in Wales dates back to pre-Norman times; 700 years prior to the American Revolution?

When did Black Africans get the right to have their Welsh shackles removed?

When did they get the right not to sit on slave ships built at Cardiff, Newport and Swansea?

Did Black African slaves receive any education during their transport to the New World on Welsh-built or Welsh-captained slave ships?

Oh, and out of interest, what percentage of Welsh GDP was related to the slave trade in the eighteenth century?

Yes, your country is a great example of freedom and equality; and we all admire it to no end.

“The British transatlantic slave trade, which flourished from the mid-seventeenth century until the early nineteenth century, was a major conduit for the enforced migration of Africans to the Americas. Between 1660 and 1807 over three million Africans were dispatched to the Americas in British vessels.”

http://www.pickeringchatto.com/major_works/the_...

I love this, Storm Rider. The thought of the poor old Welsh having slaves is hilarious. God, we were oppressed for centuries. If Longshanks was the Hammer of the Scots, he was the Sledgehammer of the Welsh. To all intents and purposes, Wales was part of England all that time. No government, or anything resembling it. To this day there is no shortage of deep resentment amongst the Welsh towards the English. Welsh GDP? No such thing, old fellow, unless it means Godawful Depressing Poverty. Love your posts, SR: they are quite brilliant.

Still no answer on this one... how strage

What is your nationality crazyhorse; or is that ananda?

what does it matter?
sorry about the name change... i was told ananda was taken, so i chose crazyhorse and then found my post as ananda had actually appeared... weird

but if my nationality is of any importance I am Welsh

Slavery in the North America was not an "American" enterprise; it was European: French, British, Dutch, Spanish, etc. etc. Our Founding Fathers were born into a world of European-developed slavery; and the Muslim world was an essential ingredient in the enterprise as they were already culling African slaves and selling for profit to the Europeans.

“A new exhibition exploring the Welsh involvement in the slave trade, ‘Everywhere in Chains: Wales and Slavery’, has opened at the National Waterfront Museum in Swansea to mark the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807. The show, which lasts until November 4 2007, examines the contribution that the Welsh made to the ‘triangular trade’. By supplying materials such as iron, woollen cloth and, specifically, copper, Wales found itself in an important place on the Slave Trade map. By 1800 Swansea was the centre of the industry in copper – the material used to make much of the currency as well as the shackles that took the enslaved to the plantations.”

http://www.culture24.org.uk/places+to+go/wales/...

"While the slave trade is mainly associated with the ports of Bristol, London and Liverpool, it must be remembered that the Welsh industrial revolution and profits from the slave trade went hand in hand… Welsh planters, agents and sea captains were directly involved, and ships used in the trade were built at Cardiff, Newport and Swansea,"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_...

“Like the commerce of early Saxon England, however, that of pre-Norman Wales seems to have dealt considerably in the export of slaves.”

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2856369

crazyhorse = ananda

What country are you from?

Your capacity to assume what you think I believe or know is as bad as your capacity to see the difference between "freedom of speech" and "collective, coordinated hate". Both pitifully missing.

I have all the respect possible for the reasons, causes and creation of the American Revolution and the importance of it. But I am not niave to assume that what is good and great about it suits the rest of the world. These very reasons and causes have little or negligable correspondence to the rest of the world, that have different histories and events. Though the ideals of inalienable rights is certainly a goal for us all, to avoid the realities, the priorities and the needs of the world are different for each and every situation that exists. Your own reference to God-given is a clear symbol that you have based what you think is important from the faith that you have, and that is a key important factor to most people on this planet and that is also the key to the variations in it.

Tell a society that is poor, without strong economy, immature political structures (mostly imposed on it) and a large population that have varying views and interests whom are willing to actively push for their own agenda - and then provide them with those very freedoms to do as they see and you have invited anarchy. The priorities for such a state is first stability and feeding itself and gradually provided things improve the increase in liberties. I am not a communist, a liberal nor do I have preferences for any system - I am a realist whom seeks and appreciates states that try and do their best under the unique circumstances and other factors that they are in. I am not stupid enough to think that one system solves all of them.

Just war in defense of sacred life and liberty is "collective, coordinated hate;" hatred and destruction of evil.

That was a confession that you really are not serious.

No, it is a confession that I am serious. I hate evil; so I hate Political and Military Islam, but I do not hate the purely religious practice of Islamic worship. Unfortunately today's ordinary Muslim worshiper has assumed the same tragic position as the ordinary German citizen of the 1930's and 40's.

This world is headed for disaster; and you are a part of the process; you are a totalitarian-minded enemy of the American Revolution - an enemy of sacred human liberty.

I don't know if Geert Wilders believes Holocaust Denial should be criminalized; but based on his love of human liberty and freedom of speech, I would not be surprised if he rightly opposes belief in Holocaust Denial, but supports the right of people to speak its lies - as long as such speech does not call for violence.

Speaking lies should be mocked and countered with truth, but not outlawed. Lies should rightly be considered a sin but not a crime.

You have no business inventing or inferring Geert Wilders beliefs on this subject.

As mentioned above, he is reported to have demanded that all accept the existance of the holocaust and thus he has shot himself in the foot over his so-called love for freedom of speech "no matter what". Just like his quoting that he abhores the lack of freedom to women but when it comes to political expediency, only he supported a vote run by the Calvanist fundamenatalist party that has a platform of "no women in public office" and "criminalizign homosexuality". This is the freedom loving Wilders.....

You also put a grey line between "freedom of speech" but condemning speaking lies. Let the court see if Wilder's hate is considered lies, not from some outsiders whom no nothing about the issue.

I condemn the "coordinated spreading of hate" which is hate-crime. The denial of the holocaust is for my part such a crime if said by a party or other collective and just should be pittied and laughed at by an individual. Wilders pushes hate and lies as a political party and as an individual representing a community - and thus should be treated the same - double standards should not exist within the legal structure of society.

As for my having "no business", first I do not invent - so far you have, I do not infer, I report what has happened and most of all, I have more business than you have ten-fold. For a start I am Dutch, and thus we are talking about the politics of my country, not yours and second he is targetting me and my faith, not yours! In the next item you calleld me a "bastard", which for someone who knows nothing about me I find pittyful and pathetic, that you try and tell me what my rights and what I have no businesses doing , when you are in fact not involved, simply an example of an imature loudmouth.

No, solkar; I don't believe you without proof. Give me a direct link to where Geert Wilders is quoted or videotaped advocating that Holocaust denial should be illegal in Holland.

I'll back down if necessary on this point, but you have the burden of proof.

Here in Brazil Holocaust Denial IS a crime.
Brazilian society is very liberal, but it doesn't accept that freedom of expression should be used and abused as a valid
permission to deny what can't be denied .

In Amsterdan after visiting Anne Frank's house, it's very hard to believe that it was all part of a " ZIONIST HOAX ".
The fact remains that 5,700,000 Jews and 280,000 Christians with Jewish ancestry were SLAUGHTERED after being :

A) HUMILIATED IN PUBLIC;

B) PROHIBITED FROM WORKING;

C) PROHIBITED FROM MARRYING "ARYANS" ( Whatever that really means is beyond my knowledge.
Maybe they were talking about the "blond" HIMMLER , GOEBBELS and HITLER, all DARK HAIRED and EYED.)

After doing that to the Jews, the World Community REWARDED Germany with the 1936 Summer Olympic Games !!!


I will never forget.
I will never forgive.

Period.

LOL, you obviously have a problem with reading texts. I gave one reference to it already and you simply ignore it. http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/holocaust-den... or from radion national netherlands, quoting the following:

"Far-right politician Geert Wilders has yet to weigh in on the debate about Holocaust denial. But his presence looms large. Wilders wants Muslims in the Netherlands to accept Dutch values, including accepting the horrors of the Holocaust." - John Tyler reports.

Exactly the same was stated from "Nederlands Dagblad" - "Geert Wilders zei laatste September in Maastricht dat Moslims hier Nederlandse waarden moeten goedkeuren en de verschrikkingen van de Holocaust goedkeuren." Basic translation for you - Wilders said last September in Maastricht that Muslims must have Dutch values and accept the horrors of holocaust disbelief. Source http:www.nd.nl/artikelen/2009/juni/02/holocaust

I will not waste my time translating more items, these two are enough.

My point here is that I am not the only one who sees double-standards and careful avoding of stating politically incorrect policies and alliances. Those things are carefully avoided by him and thus neither in the MSM do not bother and certainly it will never be shown in politically agended blogs and websites that you are reading. Talking about Wilders to a Dutchman whom sees both sides of the fence and then coming out with "I know better than you" - let alone rediculously calling someone "a liar" or "a bastard" simply does not stick and if anything embarasses yourself.

I read your link the first time. You've only provided a reference to opinions regarding Geert Wilders, not a video or article quoting Geert Wilders on the subject of criminalizing Holocaust denial.

The quote that you provided is an example of your attempt to escape truth; not an attempt to find truth:

"Far-right politician Geert Wilders has yet to weigh in on the debate about Holocaust denial."

You are not a truth teller or a truth seeker; that is not an embarrassment, that is immoral.

I can give you eight (8 for you) more such articles, but you ignored that the second article directly reports his words in Maastricht the previous September. That you cannot read Dutch is no excuse either. Most of Wilders stuff is in that language.

Thus, what I provided is far better than in fact the hearsay that you have been providing on what you consider to be anything Muslim or Islamic. Most of the arguments given by posters is put on less such credibility, even though thousands if not millions of words written, comes back from such garbage. WIlders, Spencer, Fitzgerald and Gellar being the masters of such.

Wilders did shove his foot deep down his throat by demanding one thing that flies in the face of his so-called love for freedom of speech "no matter what" and you have fallen for it - hyped by your own apparent anti-Islam agenda. Also, pointed out a few times and completely un-read by you, the issue is not freedom of speech which I also support as the ultimate right of mankind, it is the and for you I will capitalize it "COLLECTIVE AND COORDINATED HATE" that Wilders is disquising under that banner of freedom of speech.

Wilders and support for him is immoral and the legal system will catch up to him.

I read all your linked articles; none of them provide a quotation or video of Geert Wilders stating he wants Holocause denial criminalized in Holland.

You are a liar.

I do have an anti-Islam agenda because I have an anti-tyranny and anti-evil agenda. Islamic Sharia Law is totalitarian tyranny, and it is evil. Murdering and torturing Islamic Jihad is evil, and its purpose is to secure Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law.

Geert Wilders has not debated a rhetorical opponent yet from the Quilliam Foundation, but I have no doubt that he will engage in debates with Muslims. Here you can watch and listen to Geert Wilders as he answers questions and debates with a Danish Journalist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-akx0O7sUfA

Yes that shows the organised set-up that the Wilders' camp demands, all questions and subjects are pre-approved.

He will nto debate Quilliam or any other group in an open format. What you have never seen is how he did debate and was eaten alive when he was first joining politics. He knowingly accepted the radical line as most failed "wannabe" public leaders do and once you cross a line you have to continue to feed the monster you created. In his case he knows he must avoid open debate because that will destroy his image and he constantly fights in all aspects of issues in Holland that head towards normality - the enemy of radicalism. Normality proves the propoganda that radicals claim - be it radical extremist Muslims or radical pretend-nationalists like Wilders.

"He knowingly accepted the radical line as most failed "wannabe" public leaders do and once you cross a line you have to continue to feed the monster you created."

"Normality proves the propoganda that radicals claim"
"radical pretend-nationalists like Wilders"

Solkhar, you must try to write with more clarity. Sentences are supposed to communicate thoughts and yours do not make sense.

I want you to know that when Wilders appeared at Columbia University here and in other American universities he took question from the audience. Many were students who were radical Muslims and plants of CAIR. He had no trouble demolishing their arguments with his well- reasoned and calm defense of liberty, of the culture of the West and of freedom.Your statements that he scripts all of his public encounters to avoid criticism is a lie. Why you reduce yourself to this is beyond me. Why not simply say that you are incensed that he has criticized Islam?

You have said that Fitna is criminal. You feel that he ought not to have criticized the murderous insanity of Islam as he did. You want him in prison for daring to speak these truths. This is why you do not belong in the west and did well to retire in a culture more congenial to tyranny.
You believe that criticism of what you call religion can be criminal because religion has some sort of exception to liberty.These are not Western ideas and our experience teaches us that an exception to freedom of speech is license to tyranny. I write that Islam has no holiness. I have reasoned arguments and abundant examples to establish this. You may not agree. But the fact that i insult your religion does not give you any extra rights against my words. If I begin to bite off your fingers like a mad dog, the law will deal with me on the basis of my actions, and this is right.
You make many sweeping statements and do not back them up . You do not deal with the murder of Theo von Gogh. No, the Netherlands is not on an inevitable ride toward normalcy and peace.THe enemy is Islam. Before Islam this enemy did not exist in the Netherlands. If the people of the Netherlands want freedom, they will have to fight for it now. They will have to throw off Quislings like you from their government. They will have to deport those Muslims who commit crimes. And most of their crimes are committed by Muslims, particularly rapes. There is no arguing with the statistics. They are present in the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, France. The preponderance of crime, particularly rape, has come from the Muslims. They do not love the West, nor liberty and need to be shipped out

.I believe that the time will come when the armies of European nations will have to be called to violently put down Muslim populations and ship them out at gunpoint. I would rather they take this action than suffer the murders and atrocities that Islam has brought to the shores of Europe. Yesterday in Austria a Palestinian Muslim seeking asylum bit off the finger of a rabbi as he was lighting a public display of Hannukah lights. I think of the Koran which urges it followers to bight off the finger tips and bite the necks of unbelievers. The Koran which says that the strongest of all infidels and the most hateful to Allah are the Jews. Inspired by the hateful Koran this man struck. He is no isolated case.

If Europe wish to maintain a western culture she must fight. and take action against Muslims who are loyal to Islam. There should be no more new mosques. Those mosques which preach jihad should be shut down as any organization which preaches the violent overthrow of the existing democratic government must be overthrown. No new Muslims should be allowed to immigrate. Islam is as incompatible with peace, happiness and goodness as it is with liberty.

That Wilders debated at that Univeristy in the United States is great news, I was unware and I hope more such occassions will happen. Eventually the truths, agendas and hate comes out. It still changes no such opinion.

As for Fitna being criminal, well the Dutch Prosecutors Office and Supreme Courts both think so.

As for not wanting him to tell the truth, that is your opinion, I certainly want him to tell the truth, that he makes this propoganda up to create hate and fear and thus make himself look like some form of saviour and hero. Either way, the majority of Dutch see through his lies and that is the point. As for I do not deserve to live there, I should point out that I am the Dutch national, not you, and at present, you do not merit the right to do so, thus making your argument embarassing.

The rest of your posting is just emotive rantings that appear to be simply repetitive and based on little or no facts.

Theo van Gogh? He was murdered by a madman/fanatic and it is sad in every aspect. Why should I mention it, does it have any value in any of these arguments? No, none.

why then does the female somalian MP who wrote the Theo van Gogh film have 24 hour police protection? Why does Gert have to have 24 hour police protection?

If any action that critisizes Islam results in needing 24 hour police protection... how can anyone have any critical debate in Holland?

If making a film like fitna is a criminal offence then god help the netherlands.

If he had said christianity was a nazistic faith would he be in court?
If he had said buddhists are really fascists... would he be in court... would he need 24 hour police protection?
if not, why not?

I fear holland has lost it's way on this one, and many of the dutch i have spoken to are pretty sick of the special treatment Islam gets.

Two years ago the the Dutch Toursit board advised gay men not to hold hands in public during the gay olympics because so many are getting beaten up.

Who is doing the beating up? Dutch people? angry dutch christians?... no the people doing the assaulting are moroccan moslem youths. Because as you are well aware in their culture being gay is an abomonation.

The islamic culture is not compatable with the liberal dutch values that you should be proud of.
Holland I fear may be lost.
wat jammer!

Theo von Gogh was killed by a sane but evil Muslim acting on Muslim beliefs whose origin are in the the Koran.What is more, this murderer is representative of the allegiance of legions of Muslims who occupy the Netherlands and Europe. Your simple minded assertion that an exponent of one of the largest and most active movements of political aggression in Europe has nothing to do with Netherlands is desperate on your part. The murderer is quite sane, Islamic. and therefore willing to destroy. Theo von Gogh begged for his life.
I did not say you do not deserve to live in the Netherlands though I don't believe you do. I said that tyranny is far better suited to your natural tastes and I rejoice that Netherlands is rid of you. The fact that you were born there is a testimony to their generosity,. You lived under liberties you did not respect and perhaps should never have enjoyed.
The statistics painstakingly assembled of the criminal tendencies of the Muslim populations of Europe are unassailable. They are consistent throughout the continent. You made no remark on these.Wilders is on sure ground and his growing popularity could make him prime minister. I hope for the sake of Netherlands that he arrives at this position quickly.

If you are not up to substantiating your remarks, OK; but your tendency to call what you cannot refute emotional is getting a little tiresome.

Bronwyn, with all due respect - which at the moment none is due - you are talking out of your arse.

You have shown in the above statement that you are an agenda-based bigot whom wishes to push hate and bigotry.

You foolishly are trying to push that agenda about The Netherlands to a national of that country, who has even represented that nation. You have also tried to "pull the other one" about a Muslim of that country and who actually knows something about both the Muslims of that - no MY country as well as Islam in general. Your words simply are pathetic.

Theo van Gogh, was murdered, by a nutjob that represents what The Netherlands does not stand for. The attacker is a criminal and a murderer and that is all. Reading more into it can only be done as a reflection of the dangers of radicalism and non-Dutch morality.

That the attacker represents Islam or typical Muslims in The Netherlands is not only grossly stupid and ignorant but no sane-person could and would say it other than another nutjob. Even that complete fool Wilders does not say that he represents the Muslims of Holland.

Your using Theo van Gogh as an example is like pointing out any other individual incident in any place and saying that it represents the entire story - it does not stick well in intelligent circles.

Your BS about "statistics painstakinlgy assembled" is trash - prove it! You will find that statistics on Muslim populatiions will certainly reflect "immigrant communties" from anywere. The ghettos of Paris with large Algerian populations are very dangerous, I have been there, but they are as dangerous as the ghettos of Hispanics in LA or New York if not less due to the non-existance of free and easy hand-guns.

Your remarks are not substantiated and if anything simply reflect ......... what has become typically your dribble. Get real.

I have commented on the dangers of radical Muslims in almost all my posts, I have had acknowledgement from them even by John. He may not agree with my views and my take but at least he has pointed out my detesting backwards, dangerous, murderous extremism and my desire to rid the world of them. He has also seen - as you would if you read my actual posts - that I have also condemned the existance of the Euro-Muslim a bread of radicals that are even not accepted in the real and existing Muslim World.

Get real Bronwyn, your embarassing yourself no end.

Human liberty with freedom of speech is revolutionary, not radical. The American Revolution was revolutionary; the Marxist and Islamist Revolutions are radical. By defending freedom of speech Geert Wilders has taken a revolutionary stand against the radicalism of Marxist and Islamist tyranny.

solkhar,
You keep saying that Geert Wilders is a Dictator on the make and an enemy of free speech, yet he publically defends free speech which is the enemy of all Dictators. Fascist Dictators gain power through lies and violence, not through defending free speech and through free elections in a democratic form of government, of which Geert Wilders is a part. Geert Wilders has not written a Mein Kampf; but he courageously speaks out for freedom of speech, despite Fatwas and death threats from Muslims.

Geert Wilders speaks the truth; you don't. Geert Wilders is not a Dictator on the make; saying so makes you are a liar. Certainly if I'm allowed to choose between Geert Wilders and solkhar; I choose Geert Wilders.

Again, you have obviously not given me the respect of reading what I actually said. Yes he is a dictator in the making, that is clear from his current actions over how he runs his own party and his lies about freedom of speech. You have yourself said that dictators lie and push violence, and so has Wilders started his lies and setting up the hatred that will become violence if he is allowed to continue. I have quoted (and given reference) to how he said he demands the"...accepting the horrors of the Holocaust." which is against his freedom of speech "no matter what". He crossed a line and yes was wrongly threatened and since then has made capital of such threats, he in fact loves it!

You are so quick to call someone a liar, without knowing anything about the subject - which on Wilders you have proven to no nothing. I have seen, watched and even have been there wth Wilders from the start, you obviously have not and know nothing except what you see in the agenda-based blogosphere. His so called defending freedoms is a hypocrosy of the highest order and is an insult to the average Dutchman whom knows what freedom is and how it was given through real struggles. His party is an abuse of an old politicaly Freedom Party name. He is dispised for his curruption of the political system and use/abuse of the liberal laws in Holland that somehow tolerate him and allow the creation of a party that no other country would allow.

"The Labour party (PvdA) will 'never' take part in a cabinet with Geert Wilders' anti-Islam party PVV, party leader Wouter Bos told the Labour congress in Apeldoorn on Saturday.

'Wilders' Netherlands is not our Netherlands,' Bos said in a speech to party members, which received a long ovation from his audience, the NRC reports."

....

"Alexander Pechtold, leader of the Liberal democratic party D66, has been voted Politician of the Year by members of the parliamentary press corps.

Integration minister Eberhard van der Laan was second and Paul Tang, the Labour MP who leaked the budget to reporters, was third.

Pechtold took the title for the 'wise way in which he conducts the political debate. He does it in a clear way, with humour and originality and makes politics fun.'

New talent of the year was left wing green MP Jolande Sap.

Labour leader Wouter Bos took the title last year.

Last week, MPs themselves named Liberal leader Mark Rutte as their politician of the year. "

Source Dutchnews.

All of the above are the accepted and real politicians in Holland, all of them correctly dispising Wilders.

Despising Geert Wilders is not a badge of honor, but a fault. Despite your lies about Geert Wilders he is a courageous defender of free speech in the face of Totalitarian Islam and Totalitarian Marxism. BTW, hatred of evil is good; hatred of good (free speech) is evil.

Right, SR. Solkhar doesn't seem to think it necessary to provide backup for many of his claims.

Which shoe will you eat first?

Geert Wilders is a courageous defender of sacred human liberty - freedom of speech.

http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/04/07/video-gee...

Geert Wilders also voted with the ultra-fundamentalist Christian party that has as part of its platform to ban women from working and voting. Geert rocks ....LOL

Solkhar wrote about muslim integration in Western countries 'The majority of Muslims in the west are in fact already reasonably well integrated, law abiding and simply part of the nations they are in - you do not hear about them, see them or know that they are there - simply because they are already integrated'
There was a news article on the BBC web site yesterday and yes I know that this is just one person and on in the grand scheme of things is very small but it still completely pisses me off when people talk about 'integration'. The crime is vile and nothing more really needs to be said about that. What gets my back up is the line from the article 'Throughout the trial Mangera, who appeared in court with an interpreter, had denied all the charges and said it never happened'. The crime happened 28 years ago and the muzzy paedophile still doesn't know the language of his adoptive country.WTF.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershi...

" Solkhar wrote about muslim integration in Western countries "

I wouldn't use the word "integration", for " infiltration" is much
more accurate to describe what the muslims really intend to do.


By the way, muslims don't even bother to disguise their plans
of conquest.
They are absolutely sure that their path is clear, for Europeans
will not resist, because they aren't willing to be called "racists",
"xenophobes" and "islamophobes".

Are the muslims wrong ?

Nope.

They'll prevail and bring Europe to its moral and cultural demise.

Hey JewHawk. I know this is one day late but Happy Hanukkah. I'm glad you have the freedom to worship and celebrate (or not) according to the faith of your choice.

Thank you, Freedomlvr !

Yes, here in Brazil Jews are 100 % free to worship and celebrate within our faith.

Judaism in Brazil is interesting reading actually.

"Anti-semitism in Brazil is found primarily in southern Brazil where there are large German communities. Anti-semitism in Brazil has never been as virulent as one finds it in Argentina, where it predates the founding of Nazism. There is one German Brazilian Nazi type who runs a book publishing house called Editora Revisão (Revision Publishing House). It publishes books that deny the Holocaust. The Jewish community of Porto Alegre has sued this man under a Brazilian law that forbids denying historical facts. He lost and had to spend two years in jail.

The Brazilian Justice Department in recent years has confiscated anti-semitic literature, including the book published by Editora Revisão. There are those who see an increased number of anti-semitic acts in Brazil, which in the past has been a land of tolerance, and are warning that the community should stay alert about them and take action when necessary. There have appeared a number of marginal neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups, as well as skinheads. They are all worth watching.

I ought to mention that during WWII, and thereafter, Latin American countries, including Brazil, weren't eager to accept Jewish refugees. Many Jews turned to the Vatican for help and were issued papers stating that they were Christians. That opened the immigration doors to numbers of them. Whether they chose to remain "Christians" or returned to Judaism, or whether the whole thing was a sham, isn't clear. I assume someone has looked into it. "

"ANTISEMITIC AND RACIST GROUPS

A number of very small fascist/neo-Nazi parties are active in Brazil. Both Ação Integralista Brasileira (Brazilian Integralist Action – AIB), which also uses other names, and Cruzada de Renovação Nacional, are fascist organizations which have been active since the 1930s. The Partido Nacionalista Revolucionário Brasileiro (PNRB) operates, under leader Armando Zanine, Jr., in Rio de Janeiro, while Partido Brasileiro Nacional Socialista is based in São Paulo. Partido Nacional Socialista is a clandestine organization operating in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul, where a number of neo-Nazi groups are active.

Two separatist racist groups emerged in 2004, both in southern Brazil. O Sul é o Meu País (The South Is My Country), located in Santa Catarina, aspires to build a separate homeland in the south of Brazil, including possibly the state of São Paulo. A key condition for setting up this state would be the expulsion of all Nordestinos (poor migrants from the north east) as well as Jews. They seek validation for their demands in the works of Holocaust denier Siegfried Ellwanger (see below) and of the neo-Nazi National Alliance (see US). Republica do Pampa Gaúcho, located in Rio Grande do Sul, call for the creation of a republic of the ‘Gaúcho Pampa’ in the states of southern Brazil. They have adopted a flag that reproduces the symbol of the Third Reich together with the Cruzeiro do Sul (constellation of stars in the Brazilian flag). In his book Vai Nascer um Novo País: a República do Pampa Gaúcho (A New Land Will Be Born: The Republic of the Gaúcho Pampa), Irton Marx, leader of the group, described, in 1990, the creation of “a land in the south of Brazil without blacks and Jews.”

More than 30 carecas (roughly, skinhead) groups are active in Brazil, mainly in the cities of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Like their counterparts in Europe, many of them are neo-Nazi, antisemitic and xenophobic, and almost all are homophobic "


I also found this one.....

"In his book "Prostitution and Prejudice: the Jewish Fight against White Slavery - 1870-1939", Edward J. Bristow quotes my father after he had visited several cemeteries where Jewish prostitutes were buried. My father reported that their average age was about 20 years. My father surreptitiously copied the wording of many tombstones. According to my dad, a typical tombstones might be inscribed in Yiddish or Portuguese: "Ruchelle, beloved daughter of Shmuel and Hanna O…, of (the name of the village in Eastern Europe), 1900-1920".

One unfortunate result of Jewish-controlled white slavery was that anti-semites in Europe used the information to paint all Jews as unworthy, as criminals, and deserving of expulsion from their country. Fortunately, Jewish communities that had been initially timid in dealing with this issue eventually rallied and worked throughout the world to stamp out this blemish, finally succeeding. So much so that today many Jews have not heard of this shameful episode in Jewish history.

By 1960, the Jewish prostitutes of Latin America had all but disappeared. Most had died, as did their associates and associations. "

Infiltration rather than integration;your best bonmot to dateJH.

The vast majority of Muslims world-wide are good people.

In 1944, the vast majority of Germans and Japanese were good people. In 1864, the vast majority of southerners in the Confederate States of America were good people.

The fact that a majority of people are good does not matter regarding the causes of warfare.

Good people (And countries) can make big mistakes. One major problem that I have with 'political Islam' is that it is NOT a government. Yet it wields the power of a nation-state like a government. This is a major cause of much of the warfare that is so common throughout the Islamic world. How else can these individuals field their own personal armies? That has to stop, and history had demonstrated time and again that only warfare is decisive enough to end issues of this type.

" The vast majority of Muslims world-wide are good people. "

I will be blunt...this assessment is detached from the reality.

I do consider even muslim children as ISLAMIC FOOT SOLDIERS
dedicated to destroy my way of life and my culture,therefore they
are my ENEMIES.

Period.

When you are in a corn field and see millions of hungry locusts
devouring it, you won't be able to distinguish the good, noble and
innocent among them.

Muslims are nothing short of a PLAGUE.
ALL OF THEM.

I find that last comment very interesting. "A plague.. all of them" Exactly the words joseph Goebbels used to describe the jews.

To justify genocide the first propaganda tactic generally used is to de-humanize the people you want to kill.

Thus jew became "rats", not human beings. They were charactarised as a plague.

Suddenly they are not human beings... so we can kill them... all of them.. a plague, a cancer... simply rats.

It seems ironic that a jew is using that de humanising language to describe millions of individual people and families with their own lives, hopes and dreams and babies.

Perhaps history can teach us nothing

Suddenly every moslem is not a person... he is a locust.

Just as every jew was not a person... simply a rat.

You are a very sad person jewhawk... I think your life is totally devoid of love, empathy or understanding... I feel sorry for you.

People like you sent my relatives to Auschwitz, Ananda. You can't lecture me on ANYTHING.

Muslims are LOCUSTS, RATS and they certainly behave like a CANCER.


" totally devoid of love, empathy or understanding "

That's why the world rewarded Nazi Germany with the Olympic Games after the 1935 Nuremberg Laws...
Because they were loving, full of empathy and understanding.

That's why the ship "St. Louis" was BARRED from every western port only to come back with its
Jewish passengers to Nazi Germany...
The Jews were treated with love, empathy and understanding...

Sure.

I feel sorry for your only couple of neurons that are overheated and underfed.

your just very silly
saying:Muslims are LOCUSTS, RATS and they certainly behave like a CANCER.

is the same as saying Jews are LOCUSTS, RATS and they certainly behave like a CANCER.

buddhists are LOCUSTS, RATS and they certainly behave like a CANCER.

it's lamentable nonsense.

Its the sort of thinking that created the holocaust. Same thinking, different victim.

Until you can understand that every one is an individual then you will continue with your holocaust inducing arguments.

ironic and sad.

" buddhists are LOCUSTS, RATS and they certainly behave like a CANCER. "

They aren't. Muslims are.



"is the same as saying Jews are LOCUSTS, RATS and they certainly behave like a CANCER "


Jews can't be compared to Muslims. We gave scientific and cultural contribution to the world.
Muslims gave TERRORISM. Your rationale is moronic.


" it's lamentable "

That's what your father said when you were born.


Did you say you were welsh ?
I bet you were spawned at the Colwyn Bay's ZOO !!!

When you said:
Jews can't be compared to Muslims. We gave scientific and cultural contribution to the world.
Muslims gave TERRORISM. Your rationale is moronic.

You are not thinking sensibly. Muslims gave the world mathematics and sciences. Get your facts correct.
Islam is a religion of peace not war. Jihad isnt warfare, it has the meaning to 'strive for your religion'; if you check hadith you will see that it is said that 'jihad can even be done by the use of a pen'.

There is more than a grain of truth in what you write. Islam once shone brightly in the world of mathematics, science and medicine, but it was all so very long ago, wasn't it? Can you come forth with a reason for why the well ran dry so many centuries ago?

Alas, you blot your copy book by claiming that Islam is a religion of peace. Don't be obtuse. Don't lie. Face reality. So Jihad means "to strive for your religion", does it? Hmm ..... strive. Interesting choice of word. Judging by the daily deeds of your peace-loving brethren it clearly embraces everything from indoctrination of infants to cold-blooded murder of unbelievers and apostates. I like the "can even be done"! That opens a can of worms for discussion, doesn't it?

Yes, the Islamic world did shine brightly and then fell back into a backward ultra-conservative world. The reasons are thousands, but the most significant was the embracing of gun-powder of the Europeans combined with the strength of the European Agricultural climate and sea-faring. That resulted in military dominance which in turn along with the economics resulted in the industrial revolution which ensured western dominance over the rest of the world. A nation to aquire enlightenment requires peace and prosperity enough to allow it to flurish. Thus the Islamic world became dominated by western nations and empires that at first was still very religious (that ensured suppression of any collective Islamic studies AND reform movements), secondly simply stole the resources of those conquered lands, thirdly supressed nationalism and lastly ensured that the people remain or become poor, desperate and thus radicalised.

That is the simple truth that history proves and cannot be glossed over or hiden.

It certainly does not say that the blame is with the west, as real history does not blame it just records, and it certainly ALSO DOES NOT say that the countries and nations of that Islamic world had no part or blame in the matter. Further back, Al Andalous was the best shining example of science, modernity and philosphy and had a life far better than any society in Europe at all, with only Japan and some parts of China living as good or superior. They became lazy, presumed their supperiority would stay and thus stopped advancing and left themselves open to be attacked and destroyed by a far inferior and frankly vulgar Castillian kingdom - simply put, they brought it upon themselves.

More recently, the Ottomans fell for the same problem that all despotic large empires do, being overexstended with no local support base and thus crumbelled and brought down many socieities with them.

At the time of modern post colonial independance, most western governments ensured that there was a "friendly" created leading class to take over and it is them that require the greatest "blame" for the current state of the Muslim world, not shrugging-off the western political dominance. Only a few did not and incidently most of them being monarchs. They all either chose or forced to "take sides" in the cold-war which had the effect of corrupting nations with money and more political corruption - on both sides, still no real excuse.

The last thirty years, with the end of the cold-war and more significantl the Iranian Revolution has allowed the rise of ultra-conservatism, radicalism and the melding of those two with militancy - thus creating what we have, 7 ultra-conservatism hard line states of which five of those nations basically are at war or in conflict. Most nations are still suffering the side-effects of post-colonialism poverty - their riches are still "owned" by the former colonialists and are all told that "that is all in the past and they must fend for themselves". The combination of that, the radicalism and one other more than often 'not talked about" factor is why the world, let alone the Muslim world is as it is right now.

That last factor is the far-right religious conservatism and the former western religous interference. Like the radical Muslims like the push their faith, supress others, it was the case for the western world when religioun dominated from the time of the Crusades and onwards. Demonizing the "opposition" in this case Islam, just like both religios authorities did so against Jews from the first point onwards. Thus, during the times of the Crusades, the enemy was Islam and thus literature, pressure on political leaders, Kings and generals were all to have nothing to do if not despise the Muslims Certainly the return was done, but to a lesser extent (maybe until only now!). It continued with the Catholic Castillian taking over of Al Andalus - it certainly was not a reconquesta as they like to explain it - with history books all but erasing 800 years of what was until then the most advanced civilization in western Europe. History books were not changed until - would you believe - the 1970s! After the reformations and loss of influence of theocratical powers in Europe, the same was taken over by still very devout Christian conservatism under the banner of superiority. The British Empire was the perfect example, considering amongst their commerical endeavours, the desire to bring "Christian civilization" to the barbaric non-Christian world and certainly from the pulpit of every Church and through schoolings that message was pushed and pushed. That attitude followed over the Atlantic into the hearts of the new north American mindset that still exists to a point today. The power of the internet and the media today has not really eliminated such divisions, I think it has just given it new ways of dissemination. Quite certainly the most agressive, culturally arrogant and "doctrinal" politics has come out the most recent and with it an unashamably Christian-right banner behind it.

For the Muslim World, with its inherent backwardness, its some-what installed corruption, plagued by a ultra-conservatism and radicalism that has grown instead of being swept-away has to deal with this suttle overtone of western-Christian-arrogance from some quaters - makes for not an easy fix - and certainly no easy or simple answer. The western bloggosphere certainly fails miserably in grasping any of this - it is so polarized and stuck with its own varying agendas that any such values, ideals or solutions it comes with harpers on anal-retentive at best.

My view, of course.

Greetings Solkhar
You really do enjoy entering the lions den don't you. Firstly History, as I suspect you already know, is not a science. It is an interpretation of selected facts, lies, propaganda or spin that has become accepted as fact. It is also subject to the interests and prejudices of the individual historian. You assert that Europeans gained the advantage because they,"embraced gunpowder". May I remind you that at the first siege of Malta the Islamic cannons were so numerous that a steady rumble of gunfire could be herd 80 miles away on Sicily throughout the duration. I would also like to point out that if it wasn't for the biggest empire of them all, Islam would by now no longer exist. There would be no Arabs, Jews, Blacks, Asians or any other Non Aryans. Hitlers plans for "Anglo Saxon" Britain was to sterilise the men and use the women as breeding stock for the SS. What horrors do you think would have been in store for races held to be sub human by the Germans? In my opinion European ascendancy was because it struggled free from the shackles of religion, and superstition. Arabs could have had a far more impressive industrial revolution after all they had seas of oil to go at. They occupy a central geographic possition to take advantage of trade routes. The reason this did not occur is Islam. Every thing in a muslems life has to be subject to the maintenance of the religous delusion. Of course thats only my view.

Greetings, oh you mean a den of self-inflated meer-cats?

Yes history as the saying goes was often "written by the victor" - such as the now revised and repaired history of southern Iberia.

The Arabs and Ottomans did not embrace gunpowder as the Europeans had and considered it only a seige tool at most - muskateers and later riflemen never came into the picture other than an elite Janisarie Turkish force.

What was Hitler's ultimate goal will always be a debate but most historians and psychologists think that as Stalin, simply would become more paranoic eliminating anything that appeared as an opposition. The complete idiots on this blog think that the Arab world supported Hitler for the anti-Jewish tirade of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they certainly sided with the enemy of their enemies - the British, French and Zionist designs on the holy land. They, as you seem to understand, would have quickly become another 'sub-human' just as much as the Japanese. Islam had no race, and thus "blacks" that were Muslim and just another part of the "ummah" would have been targetted. In fact Hitler had said that Morocco was full of Arabs and Berbers infected with Jewish blood running in their viens.

I see value in your statement that shrugging off the influence of relgion was the advantage that made Europe successful over others and I see how you came to that, I also thought like that. What I have learnt though is this, certainly one of the shackles was the taking away the power of theocrats but religion had only until this last 100 years influenced the actions and motivations of civilization. Shall we not forget the division of Catholicism and Protestantism that defined borders and thus conflict say in Northern Ireland and even my country The Netherlands? The "us & them" grows larger the as the differences grow - Eastern Orthodox vs Western, shown even to the behavior and relationship say with Catholic Croats being able to deal with the western nations more than the Orthodox Serbs,Macedonian or Bosniak Muslims and others that formed Yugoslavia.

At times the enlightenment crossed such cultural boundaries and I argue it was the Christian west that distorted histories more than the Muslims ever did. Like erasing the history of Andalous, did they point out that at one point French KingLouis IV was the brother-in-law of Moroccan Sultan Moulay Ismail?

But such times are far gone though history does show its true colours for us to know, and points out or embarrasses nations what they have and have not done. The backwardness of the Muslim world now is a subject that needs to be both understood by the west and realized and accepted by the Muslims themselves.

As for the maintenance of their religion, it is the radicalism that is the problem, are the people more or less faithful than the were during their golden ages? It is not piety or faithfulness, radicalism is the usurption of faith to suit a poltiical ideology rather than the other away - I would argue that they are less "faithfull".

Cheers

Solkhar
We must agree to differ on the gun powder question. The Grand Master of the Knights of St John who were defending Malta in 1565 "de Valette", himself said prior to the Turks landing "the number of soldiers that will make land is between 15,000 and 16,000, including seven thousand arquebusiers or more, that is four thousand janissaries and three thousand spahis."

Arquebusiers were infantry, armed with hook muskets. The elite Janisaries that you mention were an early example of the Islamic talent for grooming vulnerable young people. They were the captive male children of slaughtered Balkan Christians who were indoctrinated and groomed to become Fanatical Suicide Fighters. Spahis were light cavalry armed with pistols powerful enough to penetrate the best European armour. So concerned were the Knights about the threat from these fire arms that they required their breast plate to be "proofed"by having the armourer shoot a pistol ball at it.

At that time all well dressed knights went in to battle with a single pistol ball dent in their breast plates. This is where the term bullet proof comes from. The main weapon of the Knights was a 6 to 8 foot two handed sword and only "Common",men at arms used firearms or crossbows. The Siege of Malta was the first defeat of a Muslim force in 100 years but did not affect the balance of power in the Mediterranean.Turks "or Barbary pirates" could range as far as Cornwall in England to take fishermen as Galley slaves. On the other hand If the Knights had lost, I would probably be writing this in Arabic not English.

As the English Queen Elizabeth said," If the Turks should prevail against the Isle of Malta, it is uncertain what further peril might follow to the rest of Christendom".

In my Agnostic and I hope honest and objective opinion;The Protestant Reformation and later the Scientific Enlightenment were the two driving forces that resulted in the ascendancy of Europe. As just one example; Defending England against powerful Catholic neighbors spawned the Royal Navy and the technological and logistical requirements of maintaining the Royal Navy spawned the Industrial Revolution. The industrial revolution was an engineering and scientific affair and by that time religion was discredited as a superstitious dogma and reduced to a crude welfare safety net, a code of best moral practice and a spiritual insurance policy on the off chance that there is a life after death.

Technical progress and enlightenment are born out of war not Peace. look at the technological advances that have in recent history,spun off the wheel of conflict: Is Iran in the Space Race or the military missile business? Have they become world leaders in finding a non carbon nuclear alternative to fossil fuels? Or are they planning Armageddon out of blind faith in the writings of a historical warlord and prophit? Will they be enlightened if they continue to pose a military threat?

To return to the theme of this blog. My fear is that Islam will continue to harm European society because it promotes a deluded and medievil world view. It is obliged to deflect and deny scientific truth that debunks mistakes in "revealed" wisdom. Already in Britain, Darwin is not taught with any conviction or comitment in faith schools inspite of genetic validation of his theory. Unforgivable and socialy degenerate in my humble opinion.

Cheers

Good discussion here. My question, and I am following not just my own but a number of historians that I have read, that if the full use of weapons was embraced by the various Muslim forces then why did they not succeed. Regardless of the examples you have cited, the reality of the major battles that in fact the Muslims had lossed was because of Arab tribalism and their not embracing anything except their family fueds. The Ottomans relied not on the elite of their forces but the dregs of their empire and they were often woeful. Though their were artillary and janissarie etc at the gates of Vienna, the bulk of their forces were halbred, swordsmen and other militia. Even the Russians were slaughtering Muslim forces using artillary and musket formations against horse charges with traditional bow attacks. Basically, something happened and it was tribalism of the satellite empire subjects. In the non-Ottoman side, the Maghreb was perhaps a bit more embracing, but they lost out to waging war against France, Spain, Portugal and England often at the same time, as payback to their basing pirates. I noticed how you called the Turks "barbery" pirates. Check that out and you will find that the Barbery Pirates were North African and based in what is now Tunisia, Algeria but mostly in Morocco, with the city of Salé (just on the other side of the river of the modern capital Rabat) being the main home. I live between Rabat and my main home in Marrakech and have seen the mixed blood pirate ancestors of Salé first hand.

The Industrial Revolution certainly stood on the back of the Protestant Reformaton and its conflict with Catholicism - mind you the most advances of the Industrial Revolution also played out in very Catholic region that is now Belgium.

I stand by my view that it is peace that pushes golden eras of enlightenment, and I consider that as different to scientific breakthroughs and expansions of science that normally do come from periods of necessity - when wealth can be justifiably or forcibly devoted to singular subjects. But ages of philosophical enlightenment comes from peace and prosperity - the ability to have universities, colleges or its ancient equivalents go through a full generation or more feeding off each other. For the Muslim world Al Andalous had that for at least 500 years of its 800 year history. Damascus had 300 years, Baghdad and Cairo 200 years each and Samarkand a short but effective 175 years.

As for this modern, very un-golden period with its radicalism - I too am dismayed and conscerned about the radicals and their effects in Europe. You may have not read my postings but the reality is that there is a new breed of radical Muslim and they are not in the Middle East or South Asia but in the West and in particular in Britain, France and The Netherlands. They push and milk the liberal (and foolish) nicesness of European governments and the EU, make demands for things that are frankly never asked for within the real and existing Muslim world and call for that "caliphate" that does not exist and is rejected by the real Muslim World and all 56 Muslim countries as a 'utopian ideal'. They are now branded as small "e" euro-muslims and us living in the real Muslim World are amazed beyond speechless how they are tolerated. They are not welcome over here, and many are the "expelled and unwanted". Basically, Europe invited the "sh*t" and the question why needs to be asked. I know the answer but that is for another session.

It is for that reason that I cannot accept your last comment that "Islam will continue to harm European society". It is radicalism in the form of euro-muslims that harms, Islam does not harm and Muslims have been in Europe since the 10th century in various facets with little impact. Europe needs to demand integration (not assimilation) and go even further into forcing and breeding a European Muslim identity along with patriotic European Imams - if not then they are in a problem. Such a European Muslim will be faithful to western standards, morals, secularism and yet still can go to a Mosque, celebrate Eid'l Fitr, Adhar etc and say Salam'alaikum with a strong Cockney, Lyonnaise or Amsterdamer accent.

Solkhar
I am surprised at your admiration for the contribution Belgium has made to the industrial revolution.From a British perspective Belgium is only slightly better than Salsbury Plain as a live fireing range.It is after all the venue for some of our best battles with the French and Germans.
Cheers

Again losing thread space here.....

You said: "I am aware that the Koran was written in the 7Th century but that should not be an excuse."

Certianly there is no excuse - if anything it is the westerners interpretations of the style that is the excuse, the Qur'an is certainly a book for any period. It is how you read and take it that counts - if you read it, as I said, with the style of the wishy-washy translation and mind-set of 18th and 19th century Bible then you will certainly get it wrong. The Message and Examples portion of the Qur'an is just as important for today as it was then, but the historical references of events are simply that and taking them as something other than 7th century in perspective is a mistake (or an excuse for cultural/tribal tyranny by radicals).

As for Belgium, I stated that I am not defending them at all and not interested who did what - and unlike Beejj who is incapable of logic, I stated that many historians - and I gave examples - argue that the IR spread in both countries at the same time, the word "invented" or "seeds" is for all purposes a useless phrase.

Greetings Solkhar
Sir Robert Peels "Peelers" were the model for almost all modern state police forces.Constable is a 500 year old Anglo Saxon word for a Warden similar to a wild west Sheriff. in effect a Police man (England) (Police) I grant you is a french word and they did have an organisation that was reformed on the British model. Postage stamps, Penny black Rolland Hill any problem with that?

My real Question was are there "no go", areas for the Police in Brussels?
My information is Yes.
If this is the case then my theory of a patchwork of hate filled enclaves that will ultimately result in a very nasty civil war is proving correct. Democracy may then come back to Europe after a 50 to 60 year absence. It will take a popular uprising. There are ugly presidents in European history. What we are witnessing is a peoples Jihad. Look at what happened to the peoples Crusade for an ultimate outcome.
Cheers

Beej is incapable of logic? Your kind of "logic", perhaps, but I am at least capable of reading history and recognising a bare-faced liar, such as you, when I read his words. The IR was born (yes, BORN) in Britain. When will you get this into your armour-plated skull? Ever heard of James Watt? No? Um ....... he was a Belgian, don't you know. A Belgian who converted to Islam. He invented fire and perfected the burqa. I just looked up "solkhar" in my Latin dictionary. It translates to Odious Bacillus.

Solkhar
I know how difficult it is to shine the light of reason on to the superstitions of a life time. I will not continue to rip in to your religion. If I have planted a small seed of doubt in your mind,then my work is done. If not then may your God go with you (as long as you don't force him on to anyone else).

Regarding Invention, I am very proud of the contribution that Britain has made to the world. It is estimated that 60% of all institutions and inventions in today's world were invented in Britain. Everything from postage stamps to Police officers. Not diplomacy though, that was just bait that you rightly ignored..

To get back to Islam in Europe: I saw a very interesting review about a young Belgian Muslim woman of Moroccan decent who has written a book. The subject being that while first generation Muslim immigrants are reasonably stable and moderate in their views, Their children are radicalised to an extent that seriously concerns their parents. They openly expect to out breed the "Kafirs" within 20 years and to "change the decision making process". I would be interested in your views. If you are not familiar with the book and author I will research the details.

As you rightly say, you know Belgium better than I do (although 2 generations of my family have war graves there).
Is it true for example that already in some areas of Brussels the muslim community dispute the right to Police?
Do some areas in Brussels claim Sharia Law?
Cheers

Having lived in Brussels for four years, studied there and coming from that country to the north, I perhaps see a bit more in it than you do, all tounge-in-cheek aside.

The industrial revolution was simultaneously growing in both Britain and Belgium and the political and social links then was the cause. The creation of the train and train tracks was more prominant in Belgium than Britain and it fed the important coal industry in the southern wallonia French speaking part of the country whilst in Britain the concentration was on the factories and mills. Both created a new form of wealth and strength that Britian capitalized on, combining iwith ts naval and sea-faring dominace which Belgium certainly could not match. I read a great book (in French) that condemned Belgium for basically giving away the benefits and lessons of the Industrial Revolution to Germany which I think is very true. The Royals of Belgium, especially at that time were in fact Germans and that is also shown that in the First World War the Belgium King and his family simply moved to a castle in Germany sitting out the event which at the end of the war almost caused a revolution. Both Leopold I and II both preferred to speak German than French (and none to this day still speak Nederlands/Flemish at all and only the current crown prince does).

I do not so much admire the Beligim contribution, but rather acknowledge that the Industrial Revolution was just as much there as in Britain, but as you see - I am aware also of its consequences.......

Greetings Solkhar
I am aware that the Koran was written in the 7Th century but that should not be an excuse. It is supposed to be a faithful record of revealed wisdom directly from God. Therefore it should be perfect with no inaccuracy or mistake. Muslims go through all kinds of hoops to reconcile it to the modern world but the fact is it is written by a very clever but entirely fallible and uninspired human. I am the last person to defend the Bible or the Christian Clergy. That book is also riddled with contradictions and reams of boring lists of family trees begetting and begotten. What it does not have I notice is instructions on how to kill people or force them to convert.

What I find most amusing about the Bible is the change of personality God goes through from the old testament vengeful psychopath to being a jolly old Father Christmas type of supreme deity in the new. All this is nonsense of course and deep down someone of your obvious intelligence knows it. I genuinely admire that you are remarkably difficult to needle as most Muslims fly in to an embarrassing palaver at the slightest hint of a criticism.

If they really had faith they would not care what "the infidel or the kafir" said. That is the biggest con of them all. If you can get enough people to share in and reinforce your delusion it becomes a religion. If you can also intimidate Infidels into respecting your medievil superstitions then this also helps to reinforce the delusion.Unfortunately for Muslims, irrefutable scientific truth is not subject to a vote.
As for the industrial revolution.
First Beam Steam Engine, First Blast furnace, first use of coke instead of charcoal. first Iron flanged waggon wheels on Iron rails, first tram locomotive, first road passenger locomotive first super-heater boiler on the first successful railway locomotive on the first passenger railway line, first Iron bridge. First tunnel under a river. First mass production,

Give me a list of Belgium firsts then I will continue.If you are saying the industrial revolution spread quickly then yes of course it did, as a natural capitalist process, Capitalism is another British invention as is Diplomacy. As a matter of interest Britain is still the most inventive country in the world, according to Japanese research. You would think God would favour his five times a day worshipers, but there you go, perhaps Gods British as well. A real bonus for patriotic Imams.
Cheers

This is for Beejj because the thread does not allow another reply.

I suggest you stop pretending you know something that you obviously do not (again), accusing me of re-writing history.

Just the smallest amount of study or investigation immediately shows that there are no dates that define the Industrial Revolution - and some will argue that there were two of them, though I follow the line of others that say there was one.

You will also find that the bulk of historians and other "experts" consider that though the seeds of the revolution began in Britain around the 1760s that the impact of it was not felt or noticed until the 1830s. It was exactly at that time that Wallonia had its Indistrial peak that many argued was as powerful and economically valuable as that of in Britain.

If your interested in playing pedantic, then I suggest you stop and take a big look at all your posts that generalize and are certainly factually questionable in most cases and full of errors that I simply did not, like your posting here, play pedantic.

Back to the Great Industrial Revolution (what many call the combined two periods), Prof John Clapham of Cambridge, his most famous student John Habakkuk - the most noted economic historian Britain ever produced and Warrick University's Professor Nicholas Crafts all follow the same view that there are no fixed dates of the Industrial Revolution and consider that it spawned and impacted simultaneously in Britain, Belgium and France at the same period because regional communications, collective studies and politics ensured that such monumental events can never be contained and kept secret or hoarded.

I do not re-write history, have not done so and am never so stupid or naive to open my mouth and accuse others based on my own lack of knowledge - that you have now shown ...... yet again.

Yup, and the seeds germinated in Britain. Stop re-writing history.

The Industrial Revolution began in Britain. Belgium (Wallonia) followed a bit later. Don't re-write history (again).

Solkhar
I interchanged Turk and Barbary pirate because at the time Turk was used to denote all Muslims. At the time of the crusades they were called Moors and the English name Morris means Moor-like. Morris dancing is a traditional English village pub dance that was a copy of Moor dancing and has survived to this day. The actual raiders in English Elizabethan waters were Barbary Pirates or Corsairs as they were also known. I don't think we should squabble over the military ineffectiveness of both sides. The reason the Muslims did not overwhelm Europe is because there was a balance of power that eventually tipped in favour of Europe. The better made more advanced weaponry that accompanied the industrial revolution made this inevitable. You site Arab tribalism as a factor in why the Muslim world did not match European progress. My argument is that it is the fundamental mind set inflicted from birth on the victims of Islam that stunts their ability to reach their full potential as individuals or nations. I do not mean this as an insult because I know from experience that the peace, respect and trust that exists between Arab Muslims who live and work together could teach westerners a lesson in serenity and good manners. The problem is they relate everything to a book that is in effect a military instruction book on expansion, infiltration, intimidation and indoctrination. From my standpoint as a non believer all religion is a cloying mental burden that bogs down a mans spirit of adventure and limits his curiosity but Islam has a more sinister dimension. It tells him god wants him to convert or kill all non believers.If you read the Koran ,as I have it is filled with poetic wisdom but interspersed are mad rants and instructions to cut the throat of non believers and bleed them like the sole less animals they are, To make peace with enemies only to gain an advantage so as to kill or convert them at a more convenient time. All evil is allowed and encouraged as long as it furthers the Muslim cause. So as you can see I rate Islam is an aggressive ideology not a religion. I would like to see all man kind as individuals take responsibility for their own actions and spirituality. All "off the shelf" religions are now debunked, except for some core nuggets of universal wisdom and mystical experience. Islam stands out as a dangerous load of bollocks designed by a war lord to assist in his dreams of conquest and domination. It blights the life of millions of poor deluded followers around the world. It keeps them in a child like relationship to a stern,invisable and bigoted father who lives in the sky. This father laid the unchangable law down to one special man who happened to be the last man he would ever speak to. Can you not see the con man in the tent?
Cheers

"A dangerous load of bollocks" funny how a few simple words can so accurately describe fact.
Your mention of evolution being given "lukewarm"attention by schools in the UK was highlighted by Richard Dawkins some years ago;on the basis that it might cause hurt to both Christian and Muslims 'sensibilities.
This lamentable state of affairs is as a direct result of the poisonous influence of so called "social scientists"
occupying positions of influence within the bureaucracy and those perverts within the labour government.
If you go to venerablebeads blogspot you'll see a photograph of "Red Ken" bedecked in Muslim fancy dress.
Hopefully the newly born English Defense League can supply a plausible opposition to Muslim encroachment ;
provided they keep their distance from the BNP,NF and similar lunatics;as well as maintaining a non-violence
position.

Hellosnackbar
Thank you for your kind remarks. I will watch the EDL with interest but suspect they will degenerate into a bunch of pathetic racists. I must confess my interest in politics in the UK is minimal. I don't want to play a fools game against the sham democracy. I live in hope that the Tower of Euro-Babel that is currently being cobbled together from the rubble of national identity and the glue of alien culture will collapse under its own weight of bullshit. By that time I suspect Europe will be a patchwork of festering hate filled enclaves that will take decades to sort out. We may even see Armoured Toyota 4x4s patrolling our streets manned by Chinese or Indian peace keepers.

I think Great Britain had its finest hour in 1945-6 it may well be that it was also its last hour as a viable nation. Look at Belfast in the decade after 1969 and I think you will see a small model of the bonfire that will engulf not only Europe but also USA and Canada. I could be wrong but the alternative future of a coffee coloured race in a multi cultural European love fest, financed by nice Chinese and Indian philanthropists seems unlikely to succeed but then you never know your luck.
Cheers

" a far inferior and frankly vulgar Castillian kingdom "

The same one who produced people such CERVANTES, GOYA,
VELÁZQUEZ and PICASSO ?


" Catholic Castillian taking over of Al Andalus "

They just DISCOVERED the New World by financing Columbus...


The Christian Civilization DISCOVERED oil.
Without it, muslims would still be eating ticks off their
companions' heads, amidst thousands of flies buzzing around in the
heat of the desert's sun.

The Christian Civilization created TVs, computers, internet,
telephones, electric light...all kitchen's appliances...
advanced surgeries and organs' transplants and vaccines...
" with it an unashamably Christian-right banner behind it."

Muslims are a BIG NOTHING. Even 14 million Jews had a
far better performance than 1,57 Billion muslims !!!!!!

Muslims did learn something, though...
As the Christian Civilization also invented the airplanes,
some of your brothers learned to fly in order to kill 3,000
in 9/11/2001.

" on anal-retentive at best "

Oh,man...you've got a damn fixed idea on this...you repeat that
so often that I could only picture you seated on the toilet bowl...
HOW GROSS !

Greetings Jewhawk
After my travels in the middleeast, its backstreets and public transport. I can assure you that many Arabs have a complete contempt for anal retention. The vision of an Arab sitting on a toilet rather than squatting at will, would be, "literally", a welcome relief.

MUSLIM FINESSE & ETIQUETTE:

Yes, They SQUAT !!! They've got no western-styled toilet bowls as we know it...

After relieving themselves, they EAT without utensils...using their bare hands...
Nobody told me.I saw it.

At the muslim quarter of Nazareth, I've seen a GOAT'S HEAD right in the middle
of the street...disgusting. The Arabs seemed to be quite ok with that scene.

The Jewish streets were clean, though.


FINEST HOUR ??

" I think Great Britain had its finest hour in 1945-6 "

WHY ?

The British in that period perpetrated shameful acts against the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust by BLOCKING their ships from entering into Israel, sending them BACK to Germany using the Royal Navy warships and the RAF's bombers ...interned thousands of Jews in CAMPS in Cyprus...
Helped to give weapons to the Arabs and impeding the Jews from doing the same...
Trained the Arab Army of Transjordan and made a British officer their commander to defeat the Jews...

Clearly,Sir, the British "finest hour" couldn't be that period, but 1940, when their Hurricanes and Spitfires defeated the Nazi onslaught against the British Islands.

Churchill would agree with me.

" Non Aryans "

What is an "aryan" ?
Would it be the Klingons' cousins ?

Would it be an India's ethnic group ?

Would it depict a ficticious blonde, blue-eyed "race"
who somehow did include black-haired, black-eyed
specimens such as Goebbels, Hitler and Himmler ?

Hi Jewhawk
Aryans "according to the Nazi twisted creed" meant Nordic, I am aware of the irony of the words entomology. The problem of Palestine/Israel did not figure in my picking 1945-6. The point I was making was that Britain and the Commonwealth had come out of the war victorious when it looked for a long time that the Axis would win.Had the Axis won Israel would not exist. That's why it was our finest hour. I was under the impression that General Wingate "of Burma Chindit fame", trained the founders of the Israeli army? You have to take in to account that historically Britain has got on reasonably well with Arab states. Islam aside the cultures tend to dovetail quite well. For example Oman was saved from communism by co operation between British advisers and Arab forces of mixed, normally hostile, tribes. My big problem is with Islam in UK not Arabs. There is much to admire about Israel but I am not an American. I see images of British paratroopers killed by israeli terrorists at the time of its formation. I also recall that on "all" occasions British forces refrained from opening fire on migrant ships or illegal migrants who had made it to land. It strikes me that radical religion of any sort is a force for evil and radical Judaism is at least half as ugly as radical Islam. I saw a documentary about how Arab families are being evicted in Jerusalem because "God" gave the land "including their pre Israel building plot" to Jews. "Balmy or what?" Worthy of a blond man in a black uniform.
Cheers

" I see images of British paratroopers killed by israeli terrorists "

Hmmm, must be the ones hanged from trees in retaliation to our men hanged in British dungeons.


" illegal migrants who had made it to land. "

" ILLEGAL " ??? Hmmmmm. NOPE.
Was the British presence there "legal" ? NOPE.

Just because you say so I won't bow and obey.
Doing so, the Malvinas Islands were ROBBED from
the gullible, ill-prepared Argentineans.

Britain calls the Malvinas " Falklands"...
Sure.
As if the whole South America would recognize that COLONIAL
OUTBURST.
We don't.

"British forces refrained from opening fire on migrant ships "

I bet you regret that now, don't you ?

I'm seeing a WWII-worn British sailor strafing Jewish survivors
from the Holocaust on the Exodus' deck with a .303 Bren machine gun...
Maybe the Queen would give him a medal for that or by
sending Jewish survivors back to Germany ??

THANK YOU for that... You' were so kind, sipping you tea while the Jewish refugees
were baking under the sun CAGED in Cyprus' camps...with BARBED WIRE... towers...
to someone who came from Treblinka it would look like a concentration camp,isn't it?

The truth is that Britain INVADED that region, SLICED it as someone slices a pizza,
founded ficticious "countries" such as " Transjordan", " kuweit" , "Oman" and "Saudi Arabia"
ROBBED the raghead's oil...



" Worthy of a blond man in a black uniform."

Funny. Many Britons loved the Nazis, including the members of the ROYAL FAMILY.
You should know that.

Since Prince Albert was a born in Germany, he and his sons kept a very close
emotional relationship with the Deutschen Vaterland before and during WWII.


You must be David Irving's friend / follower.
CHEERS !!

Greetings JEWHAWK
As I suspected, I have checked my facts and the Exodus was taken over and returned to Europe without "strafing" the decks (strange choice of German word) with a Bren Gun. I find it remarkable that you could fabricate lies like that about decent British service men.
No Royal Navy Officer, who holds the British Sovereigns Commission, would under any conceivable circumstance order an ordinary young Sailor to fire a machine gun at harmless,defenceless civilians.

I have visited concentration and death camp sites and seen the artifacts and photos of the horrors inflicted by the Nazi Arseholes on Jews,Communists, Gypsies, Political Prisoners, Prisoners of war,Resistance Fighters, SOE agents and anyone else the sick bastards didnt like.
I have also seen the fruits of terrorism first hand. So please don't accuse me of being a "follower" of anyone or any thing. I would not go meekly into any cattle car.

Beejj
Cant Fault what your saying. I don't agree that British conduct was any worse than any other authority would have been faced with such a mess. There were unforgivable reprisals and a breakdown of discipline after the murder of the two sergeants. This was not ordered but was the spontaneous reaction of outraged soldiers. There were also anti semitic riots in Britain. This was because of the cowardly nature of the murders. The Brits were slowly strangled in a cellar then the bodies displayed in a grove for American media effect. It is also true that America refused to loan money to the devastated British economy unless we complied with their plan for Israel. The British efforts were for a balanced population who could live together. Having said all above as an ex soldier I do admire the military performance of Israel and cant help my contempt for the forces and strategies deployed against them. The fact is Israels sponsorship by America is the root cause of Islamic extremism. I may be biased but I don't recognise the claim that any race or nation is special to God or that God allocates territory to his favoured race.I I have also worked with Arabs as a soldier and if you take the religion out of the picture, guess what they are brave and admirable people the same as you me or anyone else. It is an irony that genetically Jews and Arabs are indistinguishable. its only ideas of religion and culture that divide them. I am not saying that if a settlement was found between palestinians and Israelis every thing would be OK. Not so, we face a horde of deluded fanatics who sniff the possibility of winning the world for Islam by taking advantage of the liberal west. Its an old story that has always ended in massive bloodshed lets hope its mostly theirs. Go on ,You tube and see Colonel Gaddafi's laughing about "all these people who come from the jungle and the desert who are given asylum in the west".

Paul, I have read a bit of the history of what I'll call "Pre-Israel" - the few decades before Israel was born - and I hang my head in shame over the behaviour of the Brits towards the Jews. Little wonder the Jews acted towards the British as they did: I'd have behaved exactly as they did, were I Jewish. The Jews can thank God for Truman and stick pins in the effigy of Attlee and Bevin. But then, I profoundly admire the Jews so perhaps I am biased. How easy it is, from the comfort of a cosy armchair, to look down one's nose at Israelis and to damn their occasional excesses, but when one stops to consider the knife edge the country daily walks one sees their plight and begins to understand their mind-set. Unlike their Arab neighbours, Israel has to lose only once and it's all over. They haven't lost yet, God bless 'em, and may they never taste defeat. Allow me to be a bit romantic for a moment. Make a list of the finest physicists, violinists, pianists and chess players of the 20th Century. Lots of Jews, agreed? How many Muslims? Hell, how many Welsh? Perhaps I am an intellectual snob (I hope I am), but these Jewish buggers impress the hell out of me. Unlike Muslims, they are Treasures of the World. So they defend themselves when attacked. And why shouldn't they? So they go over the top now and then. And why shouldn't they? I truly believe they do wrong in certain aspects of their treatment of what we are supposed to call "Palestinians", but when one's life hangs by a thread such is bound to occur, alas. Be honest: Muslims in general do not care a flying bollock about the "Palestinians", but they recognise a good thing when they see it, and they know how to make political capital out of the mess and how to tug at the heartstrings of the liberal unfortunates.

Calm down Jewhawk.
If its too hot in the kitchen then get out. No one will think badly of you. I must admit I am a bit weak on Jewish history. Policing Palestine for the league of nations is, to me, an uninteresting foot note in the twilight of British Imperial history. I just know that you owe us some tiny nod for saving you from Nazi genocide.

The refugee problem in Europe was the fault of the Germans not us. I'm sorry you think the camp accommodation provided by a bombed out, bankrupt and food rationed Britain didn't come up to the standards of Treblinka or even Belsen (liberated with the help of a close relative of mine,) but the Germans had the advantage of only needing to budget for short stay accommodation in most camps.

I was right about Wingate though wasn't I? Your one eyed General said of him "he taught us everything we know".

What you say about the royal family may well be true. At least as far as our abdicated King Edward who seems to have been a bit of a cad. Not only in his Nazi dealings but also his near proximity to a murder in the Bahamas.

On balance I think the rest of the family can be trusted as being broadly Anti Nazi. As for Prince Albert, yes he had some very perverse foreign, Non-English tastes. For example he is rumored to have had a piercing in his gentlemans area. Indeed all piercings of that type are now known as "Albert's" in the UK. They are generally regarded with polite distaste, on a par with ritual child circumcisions.

As for the Malvinas or Falklands. The settlements look very British, the people talk English and they want to stay British. Add to that the big untapped oil fields just off shore and Failing the arrival of waves of Jews claiming God has promised the islands to them. I think they will stay British in accordance with the inhabitants wish.
May I remind you that we are supposed to be discussing Islamification of Europe.
Cheers, and Lighten up, its only a bit of fun.

Very funny Paul!
I have a lasting memory of a Morroccan chap in such a pose on one of the main streets of Fez.
But then what is some chap to do when caught short?

"I do consider even muslim children as ISLAMIC FOOT SOLDIERS
dedicated to destroy my way of life and my culture,therefore they
are my ENEMIES."

This is my point. Even though millions of Germans and Japanese were 'good' people in 1944, they were still the enemy. Even though millions of southerners in 1864 were 'good' people, they needed to lose the war, hence they were the enemy. (I am from New Orleans, this is a tough, personal one for me. I still feel that it was in the best interests of our country and the world that the south lost the war.)

Political Islam is at war against us. Political Islam is what hit the U.S. on 9/11. Most Muslims support at least some type of political Islam. This makes them the enemy. Even if they are 'good' people.

" Political Islam " ???

My friend, there is no such a thing called " political islam" or other POLITICALLY CORRECT-INVENTED euphemisms such as " islamist", "radical islam" and that " Wahabism isn't a true
representation of islam".


As some of you already have noticed, being politically correct isn't my forte...
I will do my best to debunk those pinhead myths.

Islam is a DISGRACE. You could put lipstick on it, but won't change an iota.

I'm still in awe of your progress in the English language JH;are you a musician? you certainly have
an amazing ear!

Thank you, hellosnackbar !

Writing in English is an uphill battle, for I think in
PORTUGUESE and many times I "translate" things
that couldn't or shouldn't be translated... I guess that
atrocious mistakes were commited because of that !

I do love music, but what is improving my English is
watching FOX News on a daily basis, I reckon.

I use the term 'political Islam' to separate the 'religion' from the state. With true Islam, this is not possible. The concept is another major instigator in all of the violence.

Right.

You could put lipstick on it, but won't change it one iota." Love your words, JH. You are correct: all these silly names invented to sweeten the pill change nothing. Islam is Islam, the brainchild of a particularly nasty fellow who was smart enough to see what best served his evil ends.

The political arm of Islam is totalitarian Sharia law, and it's military arm is coercive and mass-murdering Islamic jihad. These two aspects of Islam are evil, yet the purely religious practice of Islamic worship is not. This corresponds exactly the Germans under Nazism; they were ordinary citizens for the most part, but were trapped by evil totalitarian Nazi law and government, and by the evils of their Nazi Military, SS and Gestapo. Islam will travel the same path as Nazi Germany unless it can excise the evils of totalitarian law and murder.

I think you almost have it but it is either terminology or your still missing one point.

It is "the political arm of "Muslim groups" is totalitarian "7th century interpretations of" Shari'a.....

I will add also that the term Islamic Jihad is used only by the radicals themselves, western media and those with anti-Islam agendas.

Thus saying "These two aspects of Islam are evil" is neither correct and is in contradiction with the next part said as "yet the purely religious practice of Islamic worship is not" which identifies that they are not purely religous practices - meaning they cannot therefore be identified as being Islamic.

I would also add that equating Nazism to Islam in any form is a failure other than the single line that radical totalitarian movements can easily be followed by the masses when they are suffering or in anarchy - like the depressed and repressed Germans of the 1920's and 30's.

Of course, that is the only similarity with Nazism, which is not a faith or a guidebook to life nor a partof the Abrahamic faith structure.

The 7th Century interpretation of Islam is the direction of today's Islam. Today's "reformation" of Islam is retrograde, not antegrade. Today's Islam is not just worship; it is Totalitarian Political and Military, just as it was in the 7th Century.

"If there is one thing that is innate to the functioning of a democratic society, it is that every person is legally equal under the law. It is also why Islamic Law or Sharia, is incompatible with a democratic society, because Islamic law presumes the inequality of everyone who is not a Muslim male as a given... Islam does not recognize human equality. It is premised on human inequality. Women cannot be subject to the same laws as men, just as Mohammed was not subject to the same laws as men... The suicide bomber best expresses the contempt that Islam has for the individual, whose life is better off sacrificed, often unnecessarily, simply to prove the willingness of Muslim believers to kill in the name of Islamic rule. There can be no middle ground of compromise between Islamic law and civil law, because Sharia is not legal, it is religious. There can be no concession to the rights of the individual, because Islam does not recognize the worth of individuals or their power to make law, rather than be subject to it. It is why Islamic law is the antithesis of equal justice under the law, and the two of them cannot co-exist side by side. If Western nations admit Sharia, then they are admitting to a state of inequality under the law. And that will be Islam's greatest triumph over the freedom of the individual and the equality of man."

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200908065844/globa...

http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/04/07/video-gee...

We are crossing two threads there SR, so I will not write what I just did on another thread. The reality on the ground shows very clearly that reform, liberalness in Islam is NOT retrograde to a 7th century idiological extremism. It perhaps is stalemate though but the existance of the majority of nations rejecting Shari'a, that the majority of those that chose it have dual-systems (ie only Sharia for family court and subject to appeals by secular courts) are factors that you have to consider.

Again, not going to repeat myself, but the western MSM and agenda-driven westerners like to concentrate on the behaviours and incidents of a dozen of the most hard-line nations and make no mention of the normality of life of the rest.

The above quote is an assessment based on the assumptions that the only Muslim world is that of the extremists, and thus fails .... let alone its agenda-based reasonings for writing it.

Then why Solkhar are the "peaceful Muslims"so deafeningly silent when it comes to condemning the misdeeds and influence of the radicals.
Could it be that the doctrine of the Ummah keeps their cowardly mouths shut?
Furthermore it would appear that you are somewhat at odds with the immutable dogma of that book.
When I see the active marginalisation of quasi fundamentalists by governments in countries where Islam is the dominant religion/political system;.
.then I will give you some credence.

A case in point is Pakistan which despite receiving billions in aid still permits the existence of madrassas
some of which house known radical clergy. Islamic extremism is clearly a serious threat that threatens
order.
Seems like our Chinese chums could teach the Pakis a thing or two.
What I don't understand is why simple brutal
sanctions are not applied?

You are asking exactly the right questions and you are also exactly reflecting the concerns of the average westerner. That is good.

The "silence" of Muslims, as I see it, is categerized into two simple categories. The mass of "sheep" that all communities in the world in fact have, and "normalists" which will require some explaining.

The main article of this thread explains the "Sheep", such as how the population of Germany, Austria and others backed and participated to varying degrees of Nazism. Basically the average human will just go with the flow, out of fear of being "differenent". They will support the most vocal and powerful group and they are in fact waiting for a similarly vocal and powerful group with a collective moral agenda to appear and then they will take over. Thus, the majority of Musilm "sheep" in the west, as I ave said in another thread, are in fact already integrated and you never see them. They can hide amongst the majority non-Muslim population and until there is a strong moderate pro-integration Muslim community in the West, they will stay hidden. Those in the Muslim world that is another matter, they are doing that "sheep" behaviour perfectly, they are willing to a certain degree to join in, accept meekly or just shut-up regarding the power and dominance of noisy, brutish and forceful radicalism. But having said that, they will also, embrace very quickly any vocal and successful liberal/reformist group that rejects it, if or when it comes. You see partial moves in that way with students and middle-class in Iran - they are not strong enough but you still see how they have come out only recently.

There is another group though, but it is not shown in the media because it is a slow and steady growth, a few academics refer to them as "normalists". They are the ones whom do not openly attack, condemn but nevertheless move the Muslim world forward. They are mostly the middle-class, the businessmen, political parties and beaurocrats. What they understand is the concept that the greatest enemy to radicalism and extremism is in fact "normality", or getting on with life without the radical element to it. I support them and it is from them that eventually comes out those whom chose to go one step further and start a stronger movement (which in turn will allow the "sheep" to jump on the bandwagon).

These normalists is the only way things will change. You see them all the time but do not recognise them. We can say that 30 of the 57 Muslim countries are in fact in control by "normalists". They, their civil service and military are in fact them. They reject radicalism, they outlaw it or are trying to. They are debating and doing their job in varous fashions to stop radicalism by trying to be "normal". They have trade with the West, they wish normamilised and strong relationships with the west or other nations as a part of a package of governance and normalization. Everything that the Radicals are apposed to.

Thus, your question of why Muslims are not doing anything about the radicalism and horrible backwards 7th century way of thinking, is anwered as such. Like the average citizen of this planet, they are "sheep" and will do nothing and will even join in if they think they are at risk or will be seen as "different". But, there are others, big but unexciting examples of how people do battle radicalism, by proving the propoganda of the radicals are wrong through living normal lives. They are also the majority of governments and populations of countries that have in fact rejected radicalism through the voting box or voting with their feet by having normal lives.

solkhar: "Of course, that is the only similarity with Nazism, which is not a faith.."

“Several elements of Nazism were quasi-religious in nature. The cult around Hitler as the Führer, the "huge congregations, banners, sacred flames, processions, a style of popular and radical preachings, prayers-and-responses, memorials and funeral marches" can easily be considered as the "essential props for the cult of race and nation…”

"If traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are likely to satisfy man's quest for meaning... It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century.”

“There has been significant literature on the potential religious aspects of Nazism. Sometimes it is even asked whether Hitler and the Nazi leadership were about to replace Christianity in Germany with a new religion in which Hitler was to be considered as the messiah… Other evidence that Hitler was occasionally compared with Jesus, or revered as a savior sent by God is a prayer recited by orphans at orphanages. It runs as follows:”

Leader, my Leader, given to me by God, protect me and sustain my life for a long time
you have rescued Germany out of deepest misery, to you I owe my daily bread
Leader, my Leader, my belief, my light
Leader my Leader, do not abandon me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_G...

Nazisim tried to create a mystique of faith to strengthen support, that is a big difference to it being an existing world faith. I still see no correlation, but I understand why you mentioned it.

The totalitarian 7th Century interpretation of Islamic Sharia is the dominant force within Islam today, not the so-called moderate form of Islam; just as totalitarian 20th Century Nazism was the dominant force within Germany in the 1930's and 1940's. The similarities are true; today's ordinary Muslim under totalitarian Sharia is in the same predicament as the ordinary German under totalitarian Nazism.

Christianity underwent Reformation which resulted (particularly in the United States) in religion which affirms the individual's sacred nature and his/her corresponding sacred and unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (private property honestly earned through labor). Islam’s Reformation is heading in the other direction – Islam’s original direction; Islam is having a Totalitarian Reformation - a Revolution of Evil.

solkhar: You are evidently a very intelligent and thoughtful man; and you write with great precision, but you have things precisely wrong. I appreciate your intelligence - high IQ, but you have become morally blind and are lacking in MQ.

I believe there is a serious and very dangerous battle between extremism/radicalism that follows the 7th century ideals but I will not say it is dominant - though it is at the breach point.

Why I say this is because of the fact that there are not a majority of Shari'a Islamic States and thus by definition, such a way has been rejected. Also I will add that the media, agenda-players and certain governments play the "radical card". Most Muslim countries are simply poor nations going through their lives like other such nations. The radicalism in the fashion that all want to see is only in a dozen countries. Add to that, much of the argument is based on the actions of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab and the war with the Taliban. The media also plays on the actions and rantings of the Euro-Muslims - those radicals established in Europe asking and demanding basically stuff that again most Muslim countries reject or laugh at.

No, like a number of people with similar thought, I do not downplay the dangers and the great risks but at the same time I am not going to exagerate, over-generalise or over simplify the motives of all of Islam becauseo f the politis and behavour of certain groups.

I continue to stand by my point, that your basing your ideas on the fact tha there is a large, dangerious movement amongst Muslims that wish things to be like the 7th century. Thus, you equate Islamic teachings as being only 7th century. By the same token you argue that Christianity reformed and moved away from the 1st century. I certainly disagree. Because you have used the radicals point of view, you have failed to acknowledge the existance of the rest (and the majority) of the Muslim World. 57 nations, most rejecting Shari''a as a legal system, attempting to modernise, participating in life or struggling for it. A group of them, though having Shari'a in various forms, doing well but I think at risk to radicalism because their judicial system is run by clerics and then there is a dozen or so countries that are for all parts sh*t-holes. Yes there is a battle against that radicalism/extremism, there is certainly not enough done by those non-radicals nations to severe their connections with such philosophy.

I agreed with everything you said until just right at the end when you then generalized.

"Most Muslims" do not support some type of political Islam. If anything "most Muslims" are to busy trying to make a living, feed their children or pay for their education. Most Muslims are also not interested in the political efforts of a minority. Most Muslims do not even know what these arguments are about or what is the real story.

Thus, to put it to a conclusion, you are wrong that most Muslms are, as you put it "the enemy". Remember, your responding to someone with an agenda as bad as those you are criticising, someone who has already said he does not recognize a multitude of fundamental rights, considers all Muslims as less than dirt and thus is the archetypical example of a the strength of the propogandist radicals whom wish Israel's disstruction.

Modern totalitarianism (arbitrary law derived from "We the Elite" which is destructive of the individual's sacred rights to life, liberty and private property - pursuit of happiness) is European in origin, whether Fascist or Marxist; and to this day totalitarian government power is still endemic there. Political Islam is also totalitarian; so it boils down to which form of totalitarianism will be imposed on the European people.

I am on two minds on the topic and have my own ultimate view. I think, to be honest that there is going to be no "Islam will be Europeanized" or the other way around. I should, obviously, explain my logic here.

For a start, I have read Bassam Tibi and respect a great deal of what he says, I have not read much of Bernard Lewis except for his critical part in the past relationship between Israel and Turkey. I do, however, know very well and have a relationship with Prof. Gilles Kepel and have argued many points with him, agree on much and though I also know and am friends with Ambassador/Professor Oliver Roy - who critices Kepel, I can have a good constructive conversation with them both.

What both Kepel and Roy both accept and believe, which Frontpage will never post, is that they accept that Islam can and could continue to exist in a western society and that it is political radical "small i" islamists that are to blame. Prof. Roy more so than Prof. Keppel whom to a point is more the synic. They have very large opinions about how wide-spread radical influences are in governments and politics, I have had a professional working relationship with Prof. Roy, whom we both served with the OSCE. It should be pointed out that Prof. Roy is considered the more superior and accepted academic in the field, with his L'Echec de l'Islam politique" that he wrote in the early 90's as the number one text book in the field of study in political Islam. Both of them reject the rubbish of people like Spencer, by the way. Enough background, and to the point.

The single main issue regarding Islam and the West iis something that can be divided into two - 1) the Muslims that are in the West and
2) the politics, involvement and percieved interference of the West in the Muslim World.

The first is that there is now a very different group of Muslims in the West whom are dominated by a very vocal, radicalised and well-established movement. The majority of Muslims in the west are in fact already reasonably well integrated, law abiding and simply part of the nations they are in - you do not hear about them, see them or know that they are there - simply because they are already integrated. They are not into hijabs and burqas but are still conservative, at home they mostly do their prayers and do not eat pork. They probably speak in the local language except the mother and father when together still talk the "old language". The father and brothers probably go to the mosque if it is not radicalised, if it is, they will stay away and only on the two "Eids" does the family go there as a sort of tradition. They associate mostly with others like them and maybe every second year does one of them, probably the parents, go to the "old country" if they can afford it and if its safe. Unless they are in West Europ and they are from the Maghreb or Turkey in which they go each year for summer vacation.

What you see, of course, is the radical side which though is a serious issue and in fact dangerous and must be dealt with sooner than later, is still a minority. Their existance to some degree is a shooting in the foot by the western countries themselves. A rediculous policy that backfired. In the early 1970s western governments, particularly Britain and France chose to play a game of diplomatic face-slapping with many Muslim countries as a form of retribution for those countries chosing not to stay as economic dependants to them after decolonisation. Also it was the period of "petrol price wars" and OPEC flexing its muscles. Anyway, the result was that these western nations chose to accept "political refugees" in great numbers from these countries, which in diplomatic terms means that "we acknowledge that you abuse your people". In doing so, they accepted religious extremists, political militants and known criminals and even wanted terrorists. So, the system backfired and now almost 40 years of establishment, imbeddng and worse has been allowed in their countries by these people! They have had kids, made sure that these kids are now lawyers, civil servents in the right areas and journalists. Networks, cells and political parties were formed.

It is this group that makes up the problem of Muslims in the West. They are infiltrated by the worst radicals, the ones that ask for things that are UNACEPTABLE in the real Muslim world. Calls for a caliphate that does not exist and is not accepted by 57 nations including the most hard-line or ultra conservative. Calls for Shari'a Law in non-Muslim countries when the majority of Muslim countries have in fact REJECTED the implementation of Shari'a systems in their own countries. To be blunt - the majority of Muslims in the actual Muslim world laugh at how the Europeans accept, protect, feed and then allow these criminals, murderers and terrorist supporting thugs!

The West needs to get rid of the radicalism, it needs to force complicity from the Musims there so that they become like the others that have already integrated. There is already proof that Muslims can integrate, become faithful, dedicated and patriotic Euorpeans, Americans aor whatever nationality and not lose their status, right to faith or identity as Muslims. To put it simple - the West must create a Western Muslim Identity - not a Muslim Western Identity.

The other side of the topic is the western relationship with the Muslim world. That has a bearing on the first factor. There is no denying that the Muslim world is moslty in the developing world and like all developing nations (sometimes I wonder if some on this and other blogs forget that the developing world is not only Muslim) given half a chance they want what the developed world have or at least they want their children to have the same opportunities as the westerners have. This connection, basic globalization and trade makes the actions in one area affect the other.

Add to that equation, the obvious existance of radicalism in the existing Muslim world, all the headaches, disgusting tribal habits and other things that have infiltrated it and bingo you have the great varying differences of effects on Muslim countries - some negligable and some huge.

1.56 billion Muslims, 57 countries and all this baggage, cultures, qualities of life, individual political situation and all other complexities has to be dealt with and all of these nations have their inalienable rights. Some take it, some do not, some are incapable and some are so warped, abused and disjointed that they are simply of no value or relevance. They share a belief in Islam but they do not share social, cultural, economic or political unity - their organisation is perhaps the least effective of all such unions.

They are also hijacked by the radical movement that was reborn and invigorated to a massive scale from its birth in the Iranian Revolution, when religous extremism married militatant revolutionaries. The ugly bastard-child that came from that is willing to do the unthinkable - reinterpret its faith to suit its politics instead of the other way around.

The west and the way the west deals with this complex issue is critical. Each action postive or negative (in the minds of the Muslim world) has a reaction within the minds of the Muslims in both worlds. Negative actions results in strenthening the arguments and propoganda that the west simply wants to destroy Islam and continue raping the wealth of the developing world. Similarly, every postive and forward step between the West and the Muslim World throws doubt on that very propoganda and encourages the week, sheep-like moderates to stand-up and reject the radical's push.

It is the job of the Muslims to destroy the radicalism in the Muslim world, there is no denying that and any Muslim who does is fooling himself and giving discrediting the his own world. Having said that, much of the ammunition, be it moral or bullets to fight that radicalism comes from the one propoganda element that is used the most - the West itself. Though it is the Muslims that must end it, that easy argument that the Muslims are not doing enough is correct but must be said with a little more respect. It is they who are also the main victims and targets and live the lives in some of these sh*t-holes (that they certainly have become), saying that they are not doing enough from the comfort of a chair in Birmingham, Lyon, Eindehoven or Denver does not come sounding so honorable.

The big question is who is responsible for fixing the issue of the very different radical Muslims in the West? Is it, like above, the eventual responsibility of the Muslims themselves? Is it for the non-Muslim West to fix or is it the responsibility of the Western Muslims to fix? My view is that it is all the above. Recently, my country, The Netherlands, along with Belgium and Spain have started bringing in moderate-Imams from Morocco and Tunisia to try and de-radicalise these communities, this is a great start. The local governments must encourage the non-radical and integrated Muslims to be the backbone of community groups and they must participate together. Religous schools should certainly exist but be controlled and work in collaboration with authorities to eventually produce locally created Imams whom are bastions of Western Muslim Identities that are, if anything - pious, conservative and patriotic westerners.

A last comment though, what to do with the radicals and that radical sentiment? Simply put an ultimatum must be given by each western government to the Muslims in their countries. They must accept integration (not assimilation, that is a human rights violation), they must support the ideals and standards of the country that THEY CHOSE to live in - and in turn, their faith will be respected, protected and fully supported (in integraton-processes). Those that do not accept and are not citizens will be asked to leave to the country of their nationality and face whatever consequences. Though hard to swallow, it must be done. I see a future were an entire generation will have to accept the changes that will happen to their families and lifestyle but knowing that it is the price for wanting that "western life". They will do it for their children. It is their children that will be the test case, like so many families have done in the past - if the parents and the communities do it correctly, the next generation will be of this WMI (Western Muslim Identity) or they will have assimilated as well and will be just other westerners. That is the risk and it is for each family to take.