Living with terrorism |
2006-09-23 |
Or maybe they won't. Whatever happens, I do not believe we can make the threat go away with outside force. Not with police work, not by invading terrorist states, not by solving any social problems, nor by making the world more peaceful and wealthy, and not - certainly not! - by giving them what they want. We can reduce the threat, we can make it difficult for terrorists to succeed, but the threat is not going away. The risk of terrorism will always be there, until they choose to remove it.
And if the Islamists do give up terrorism, others will pick it up. Islamists are not the first to use this tactic - anarchists used it in the 19th century, radical leftists in the 1970's - and they won't be the last. It is a very odd idea to be infected with, that the world is evil and must be put right with explosives, but the world is full odd ideas, and people who will believe them. The internet and the new global culture will help the crazy fringes more than it helps the rest of us, it will help them to discover each other and maintain their closed little worldviews - and then it will help them to plan and carry out their attacks.
Do you think surveillance will put an end to terrorism? Read up on cryptography. Today's terrorists may not have understood the potential of information technology, but the next generation will. It will never be easy to carry out a spectacular terrorist attack, and there are many things we can do to make it more difficult, but there will always be a risk of success. Do what you like, our fight against terrorism will always have a component of luck. Flip a coin: Heads, a neighbour sees something suspicious and reports it, tails, they don't, and a bus gets blown up.
When we talk about terrorism, it is usually to say how horrible it is, and to ask what we can do to fight it. A lot of people died! Or they could have died! What are we going to do about it? Who's to blame? Is there a law we could pass? Should we give more money to somebody, or maybe invade some place?
This is useful. There are many things we can do, and there's no reason to make it easy for terrorists to kill us. New laws can be useful, and so can money, and even sometimes invasions. But there is another thing I believe we should also talk about, and think about, which we usually forget, and that is how to live with terrorism. How to deal with terrorism as a part of our lives.
What?! Live with terrorism? What are you, a defeatist? We must fight it! We must end the terror threat once and for all! Fight everyone who supports it and makes it possible, teach everyone the futility and immorality of terrorism, until noone is left alive and free who would even want to be a terrorist.
Right, so let us do all this. Whatever it is you have in mind, imagine it done. And then what? Have we now eradicated terrorism? Unless your solution is a police state, walled in and trigger-happy and suspicious of everyone and everything, afraid of strangers and obedient to the state, (and maybe not even then), I believe the answer is no. Let us do all that we can do without becoming something we despise, and there is still a terrorist threat to worry about.
So we need to learn how to live with terrorism. It is a part of our lives that no power we have (or want) can fully take away. No matter how you want to fight terrorism, you also need to find a way to live with it. Live with the possibility of hijackings and plane bombings, of suicide bombers on trains and buses, of snipers killing random people in the street. Terrorism is here to stay, deal with it.
And we are dealing with it, in our own different ways. In the years since September 11, several strategies have come up. One is to pretend that there is no threat. "Of course it could happen there, but never here!" Or "terrorism is really scary, I'm so glad we have police and airport security to protect us!" Or "it's all a conspiracy anyway, it just crazy to think that Muslims would be evil enough to blow themselves up!" Denial is an effective strategy, but it is not for me. I like to keep my brain free from lies, I have this funny obsession.
Denial is often combined with another popular strategy: Retreat. Pretend that the threat is concentrated in certain places, and then stay away from those places. If bombs go off in London, cancel your London vacation. If they go off on Bali, stay away from Indonesia. If a plot to blow up airplanes is uncovered, avoid flying for a couple of months - or at least get off the plane if you see any Arabs on it.
Legislation is a popular strategy, well in keeping with our political culture: If Something Bad happens, pass a law. Don't think, don't ask if it will work, don't ask what it will cost, just write it, pass it, and sign it. In fact, the more expensive it is and the more it hurts, the more it feels like we're doing something.
Others deal with terrorism by distracting themselves with the fight against terrorism, thus avoiding the question of how to live with it. Be very angry about terrorism, write about it on your blog, blame your political enemies for helping the terrorists - do anything but face the inevitability of terrorism. These are usually the people who go furthest in losing their sense of proportion, to a point where they embrace autocratic ideas. "No trial for terror suspects? Torture, unaccountable surveillance, and harebrained identity schemes? Fine, I don't care! Just do whatever it takes to protect me!"
I have a different strategy. It is not for everyone, but I believe it is honest and politically safe. Let us take away the most powerful weapon the terrorists have: Fear. Be less afraid of terrorism. Make it your personal project not to fear terrorism, and not to let the fear that remains influence your life. Don't panic over newspaper headlines. Don't cancel your vacation because of terror alerts. Don't hold back your plane because there are some Arabs on it. Don't support hasty laws and careless political decisions, simple because we "have to do something".
Accept that there is a threat, but don't exaggerate it. Don't trust your instinct to guide you, our instincts are notoriously bad at risk assessment, use reason and facts instead. When people are afraid of flying, they remind themselves that they're much more likely to die in their car on the way to the airport than on the plane itself. Do the same with terrorism. Fight your fears with facts. I don't believe in denial, and it is not denial to say that terrorism is one of the smallest threats that any of us face. It is simple irrational to fear terrorism more than traffic.
When you have reduced your fear to a rational level as much as you can, face what remains of it with open eyes. Don't let the fear influence your behavior, except after careful thought. Life is full of risks, and terrorism is no different from all the others. So there's a tiny risk you might die today. That's no excuse to act like a fool or a coward. Death is a part of life.
Terrorism is naturally more frightening than, say, car accidents or natural disasters. Accidents are impersonal and random, terrorism is personal, it is evil. But that is precisely why we have to think rationally about it, so that terrorists cannot exploit the irrational fear that their actions create in us.
After all, what other weapons do terrorists have to harm us with than fear? They have some guns and explosives. They can kill a few people, once in a while, at high cost and high chance of failure. That is all they have. Measured in terms of pure damage to people and property, the terrorist threat is small. Only with nuclear weapons might terrorists come close to the threat posed to us by cars.
It is the fear of it that makes terrorism uniquely dangerous. The killing is only a means, a way to trigger the destruction of their enemies. Make us angry, make us fearful, make us do something stupid.
I'm not saying that "if we do X the terrorists will have won", as if Islamist terrorists want nothing more than to trick us into passing a couple of bad laws. Can you imagine it? "Osama, did you hear? The infidels have removed their legal protection for terrorist suspects! Allah be praised!"
There is an overlap between what terrorists want and what terrorism actually makes us do - excessive retribution and suspicion is a useful recruitment tool - but on the whole we should not spend much time thinking about what terrorists want, and how to avoid it. They live in their own crazy little world, a world where their enemies are weak and ready to break, and all that is needed is a push in in the right place. It is the world Alan Moore imagines in V for Vendetta, where an authoritarian government is brought down through surgical use of terrorism. A small cut here, another there, and down it all falls, and come now everyone and embrace our truth, let us build a new world together in the name of our God/ideology.
This is not the real world. Terrorists have a different reality, and it is silly to obsess about what they really "want" with their attacks. Whatever it is it has little relation to our reality. "Victory" for an Islamist terrorist is the submission of the globe to their form of Islam, not that we introduce some bad laws.
But it is bad for us when terrorism makes us do this. Islamist terrorists will never succeed at whatever it is they're aiming for, but they often make us do foolish things. The fear makes us stupid. It makes us want to throw out centuries of experience with democracy and rule of law, it makes us consider identity cards and massive surveillance, it makes us treat all Muslim immigrants as suspects, it makes us take hasty and clumsy decisions in foreign policy, and give massive powers to the state, and bog our airports down with pointless security measures.
And that's just the mainstream - consider the fringes, as they prepare for The Great War With The Muslims, dismissing liberal democracy as weak and inefficient, branding moderation as treason, and creating a new nationalism.
Dangerous ideas like these will always be with us, but hystericism makes them more appealing. So. Remove the fear, or reduce it to a rational level, and we will have changed terrorism from a major disruptive force to a minor physical threat, far below the level of accidents and disease. Take away the panic, and then we can think rationally of how to balance our efforts against terrorism against other things that are important to us. Things such as political freedom, human rights, decent behavior, and not acting like panicked chickens.
The irony is that the ones who want to go furthest in placating their own fears, have succeeded in presenting themselves as "brave", and their opponents, who worry about civil rights and discrimination, as "cowardly". I don't see much bravery anywhere, but least off all among the loudest of the anti-terror warriors. It's not brave to scream on your blog for even more anti-terror laws. It's not brave to be willing to torture innocent people because there's a chance they might be guilty.
Brave is sitting down calmly on a plane behind a row of suspicious-looking Arabs, ignoring your own fears, because you know those fears are irrational, and because even if there's a chance that they are terrorists, it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip. Brave is insisting that Arabs not be searched more carefully in airport security than anyone else, because you believe that it is more important not to discriminate against people based on their race than to keep the occasional terrorist from getting on a plane. Brave is not watching the news anxiously for hours whenever there's been an attack, or a new plot has been uncovered.
"You call that brave?! Why, that's nothing!" Yes, it's barely anything. I'm presenting a minimum standard here. Something almost anyone should be able to do, small acts of bravery to begin with. Once you've managed this, go and seek larger challenges. Go on vacation to a city that has recently been bombed, for instance.
Some anti-terror warriors will say that I hate my own culture and secretly want the terrorists to win, (maybe even subconsciously - yay Freud!) Others will say that if everyone thinks like me the Islamists can just walk in and take over. Suicidal tolerance! But if the only major weapon the terrorists have is fear, then the best way to fight them is surely to confront that fear? Hack it away, piece by piece. Liberate yourself.
And then what can terrorists do to us? Tell me that. If we learn to be rational about our fear of terrorism, while also doing as much as an open and free society can do to fight it - which is plenty - what more can they do to us?
(Update: This essay has made quite a few people angry, and I recommend that you read these comments that I wrote at Dhimmi Watch and Ace of Spades HQ before calling me any further names.)
Brave is sitting down calmly on a plane behind a row of suspicious-looking Arabs, ignoring your own fears, because you know those fears are irrational, and because even if there's a chance that they are terrorists, it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip.
Michael Tuohey, a ticket agent for U.S. Airways, gave the following comments about Muhammad Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari after the September 11 attacks:
“I said to myself, ’If this guy doesn’t look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.’ Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it’s not nice to say things like this”.
Personally, I don't fear Islamic terrorism much. It is the most spectacular phenomenon of Jihad - no doubt about it - but I agree, it is not a very dangerous threat in itself. However, massive Muslim immigration, combined with a significant unwillingness on their part to integrate (due to Islam) in an era when a suicidal European population cannot be bothered to make the next generation, is a mortal threat to Western civilization.
I don't want to ignore my fears, I don't want a war which attempts (and eventually fails) to democratize the Middle-East, and nor do I want to nuke Mecca - what I want is for Muslims to be contained and isolated in their historic lands, so that they cannot pose such a grave threat to us as they do pro tempore. This means laws which discriminate against Muslims in particular, and steps taken to reverse the tide of immigration, and finally, a crucial ideological battle against the thoughts and ideas which placed the heart of the West, Europe, in this predicament to begin with.
This is my approach.
4 Egyptian clericks were denied entry into the US for Ramadan. It's a start.
Bjorn,
For the most part I like this essay, since for the greater part it reflects what I think. If I had been in charge, if I had had a voice in the strategy after 9/11, my message would have been that every expansion in power of the federal government, every increase in the difficulty or cost of an airplane ticket, and every new regulatory restriction flowing from all this was a loss to all of us.
I would have advocated only those actions whose payoff in increased security was much greater than the loss from those same actions. I would have tried to put a value on human life, a number, and a value on freedom. I would have put the value on freedom very high. If for instance the question was whether to let people bring bottles of liquid on airplanes, and it looked like after a best-guess analysis the relative cost of that freedom would be that ten additional people on average would die a year, then I would say let people bring bottles of liquid on the airplanes, or even better, I would say let the individual airlines decide whether to let bottles of liquid on their planes and immunize these airlines against lawsuits based on issues at the same time.
I'm in a minority. Most people would have put a higher value on the ten people.
And I agree with your sentiments on how to personally defy terrorism.
A few years ago in the Washington metro area there was a sniper randomly killing people. The first man to be killed was in the parking lot of a grocery store barely a quarter mile from my house and where I had been just hours before. The second, a failed attempt, at a craft store that I had been in just two days before. The second death at a small shopping center I'd been a few days earlier. The third death at a gas station I'd been next to that same day. The fourth...the first week's deaths were all in my general area. For a while every morning it seemed like I was waking up to a helicopter over our house.
Or something like that. I'm not going to look it all up again.
I acted like things were normal. I walked where I would normally walk and drove where I'd normally drive and did what I'd normally do.
Sometimes I felt there were quite a few people staring at me. One day as I was setting out for a walk from my house, my neighbor ran out of my house and up to me and said, "You're crazy." And then ran back into her house.
I have a feeling though that people would have come around to my point of view given enough time.
The recent outrage against the pope's seemingly innocuous remark is again indicative of how peaceful adherents of this global cult of terror can be. Islamists and grovelling western publications even declare that such papal lapsus linguae will risk sparking a religious war and increased terrorism from 'understandably' outraged muslims who feel that their pride and honor ie. their prophet had been ever soooo slighted by the pontiff. Truth is their 'holy book' and the hadiths are the source of all the islamic violence, until the west wakes up and recognize islam as a violen and expansionary ideology and cult masquerading as a religion, terrorism and violence will be the staple of the day for many more years to come. All outraged infidels should watch The DVD, "Islam- what the west should know" by Quixotic Films. Saudacoes do Brasil
Mark Amerman: I have a feeling though that people would have come around to my point of view given enough time.
I wonder how people in Israel have dealt with terrorism, especially when the suicide bombings were at a peak a couple of years ago. The international media focused on the politics and the deaths, but what was the approach on the personal level? What did people tell themselves when they went on the bus, for instance? How many broke apart, how many made a successful effort to live "normally", and if so how did they manage it?
Kim Sook-Im: The recent outrage against the pope's seemingly innocuous remark
Off-topic.
That should have been, "...my neighbor ran out of her house and up to me..."
Bjorn,
My understanding is that people in Israel have made a point of not showing fear. Ie. a bomb goes off in a restaurant and twenty people are killed, the next day the restaurant next door would be overflowing with people.
As to people breaking down or letting themselves be overcome with fear, I'm sure it happened, but since Israel has a patriotic press I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't focus on it.
I note from the essay you cited that George Orwell would have called this "positive nationalism," by which he meant not that it was necessarily good, although it could be, but that it was people believing in themselves or expressing faith in something that they have a deep knowledge about; so much so that they have to be aware at some level of the flaws.
If I understand Orwell, his "positive nationalism" is pretty close to what most people mean when they say patriotism. His "negative nationalism" on the other hand is a concept that most people don't have in their heads.
Negative nationalism is an idea or ideology that frames a person's thinking and dominates that person's thinking to such an extent that they reject their own culture.
Orwell's "negative" thus is not meant to say that something is necessarily bad but rather that it's anti-patriotic. On the other hand, it seems clear that Orwell sees negative nationalisms as being responsible for the greater part of the horrors of the twentieth century.
I have no doubt for example that Orwell would have labeled National Socialism as a "negative nationalism" because despite its claims to patriotism the movement despised and aimed to radically change and even destroy the culture that preceeded it.
Mark Amerman: If I understand Orwell, his "positive nationalism" is pretty close to what most people mean when they say patriotism. His "negative nationalism" on the other hand is a concept that most people don't have in their heads.
What he meant by "positive" or "negative" was just whether the object of your nationalism is something you support, or something you're against. Also he meant it in a different and broader sense than the usual one: he meant any kind of worldview which sees the world as a game of competitive prestige, where every event is measured in terms of its effect on a country, ideology, race etc. For instance, someone who is very pro-American might see anything that reflects well on the US and its foreign policy as a good thing - a positive nationalist. But an anti-american might see anything that embarasses the US as a good thing - so that's negative nationalism. Neither of them really cares what the truth is, they just care whether the US scores points or not, like sports fans.
Orwell's definition of nationalism is unorthodox, but I like it. It's useful in a lot of contexts you might not think have much in common with national politics. He's really talking about group psychology, and researchers in that field have observed and described pretty much the same processes. See for instance this study into partisan politics.
"Brave is sitting down calmly on a plane behind a row of suspicious-looking Arabs, ignoring your own fears, because you know those fears are irrational, and because even if there's a chance that they are terrorists, it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip."
No. You're describing 'fearless', not 'brave'. Brave is Tod Beamer, being prepared and ready to deal with the row of Arabs in his plane, should his suspicions prove to be founded. Brave is saying "let's roll". "Brave" involves making yourself strong enough to defend yourself and others.
It's not irrational to be fearful about 'a row of suspicious-looking Arabs'. Suspicious-looking people from their background have used airplanes to kill the innocent; others have recently tried again. It may be unfair to these particular individuals, assuming that they're innocent, but it's not unrealistic or irrational. The brave response is to say to yourself "they look suspicious. If they try to grab a flight attendant, I'm going to…" And then sit back and relax, because there's probably not really a problem.
And an 'open and tolerant society' - open and tolerant towards what? Honor killings, for example, because they happen to fit within someone else's culture? It's insane - or irresponsible - to tolerate absolutely anything, in service of an abstract idea labelled with the t word. Morality demands that you tolerate what is good, and reject what is bad.
For a society, the principle of tolerance only works when society is able to control the intolerant within and without itself. Admirable as it may be, tolerance is weak in the face of fanatacism. "He say's he wants to kill us all? He's entitled to his view, and we wouldn't want to suppress his free speech. He's amassing a group of supporters? Well, free speech again, and freedom of assembly. They're coming at us with knives…"
Let's be tolerant, by all means, but in the wise way that selects the line between what we can and cannot afford to tolerate. Then let's be brave, in the sense of standing strongly against the intolerable.
In between times, I agree, it doesn't make much sense to sit around trembling, or for that matter screaming hatred, to deal with our fears.
Dick:Brave is Tod Beamer, being prepared and ready to deal with the row of Arabs in his plane, should his suspicions prove to be founded. Brave is saying "let's roll". "Brave" involves making yourself strong enough to defend yourself and others.
Well, yeah. If your plane has been hijacked, that's the only brave thing to do. I don't think anyone has questioned that since September 11. But what do you do if you see a couple of Arabs about to enter your plane, and for some reason you get really suspicious? Do you enter the plane like everyone else, or do you demand that they be thrown off? That's what happened to a plane recently. The passengers refused to enter the plane unless two people they thought were terrorists were thrown off. Is that brave? Is that how passengers ought to behave? I don't think so. I think that's cowardly. Sure, if no Arabs are allowed to fly any more, that would make it very difficult for Islamists to hijack planes. But at a cost I'm not willing to pay. I want to live in a society where nobody is discriminated against based on their race or religion. I am willing to accept a small increase of risk to my life to live in that society.
And an 'open and tolerant society' - open and tolerant towards what? Honor killings, for example, because they happen to fit within someone else's culture?
Of course not. I think the lesson here for you is to not trust the word of the blogs that linked to this. There are more than two sides here, at least I'm not on either of them.
While I agree with your statistical point about risk assessment, I disagree with your implicit premise that there isn't a clash of civilizations coming down the pike, at which point the debate will cease to be statistical and become existential. At that point, the choice will be between liberal society and Islamic Sharia law. Also at that point, to preserve liberal society in the long run, some illiberal things will need to be done in the short run. How illiberal will it get? I'm not sure, but my sense is that in the long run, after the elimination of the one group that causes almost 100% of the terrorism in the world, those illiberal measures will be rolled back quickly precisely because they really don't add any value to society except in times of extreme emergency.
Muhammed Ali was once challenged for seemingly regarding all whites as racists. He observed that, in a room full of snakes, there's more important things to consider than the fact that some may not be venomous.
I'm white. But I think that, given past history, Ali was right to approach us this way. Not understandable or forgiveable - right. Sooner or later, one of us would try to harm him. (Plenty did, too, as soon as he "got out of line" regarding the Vietnam War.)
The important thing is this. He'd be right if only a very small proportion of the snakes were venemous. Only takes one! We might even say: if your an non-poisonous snake: prove it.
It doesn't bother me even a little that M.A. - and, I'm sure, many other African Americans - mistrust white people in the USA. Hopefully, some come to know they're wrong in my particular case. But wary of me/us? They'd be crazy if they weren't. And I'd be crazy if I didn't understand why they feel that way.
Now consider arabs and muslims. Case in point: Mullah Krakar. He supports bin laden, considers islam to be at war with the west, has threatened your country with 'punishment' if he's deported, and speaks of muslims as a population bomb, 'breeding like mosquitos' (his metaphor, not mine) in your midst. Sure sounds like discrimination to me. In fact, it sounds like there's probably a couple of venomous snakes out there. Doesn't matter what proportion: it only takes one.
Charming as it is to imagine a society where "nobody is discriminated against based on race or religion"
- you don't live in one. MK and those like him are discriminating against you.
Wishing such people away doesn't get rid of them. It's damn hard even to deport them! Being pure of spirit, wishing for a discrimination-free world, won't work either. Pretending it's so when it isn't - well, that's irresponsible. As if Muhammad Ali were to pretend to himself that white America uniformly comprised people wishing him well, despite his blackness.
As you can tell, my sympathies at this point are more with the passengers on the flight you mention that the Arabs who wished to board. Blame the Mullah Krakars of the world, not me, for my obvious discrimination.
DG, USA: Also at that point, to preserve liberal society in the long run, some illiberal things will need to be done in the short run. How illiberal will it get? I'm not sure, but my sense is that in the long run, after the elimination of the one group that causes almost 100% of the terrorism in the world, those illiberal measures will be rolled back quickly precisely because they really don't add any value to society except in times of extreme emergency.
You have quite a lot of faith in your ability to predict the future, in society's ability to "eliminate" .. what? Islam? Islamism? .. and in its ability to switch liberalism on and off at will. Me, I think you can't predict the future, that "elimination of the one group that causes almost 100% of the terrorism in the world" sounds like a euphemism for something very evil, and that once people like you manage to switch liberal and tolerant ideas off in a society, it'll need to take the same long, hard road as it did the first time to restore them again.
Dick, Connecticut: As you can tell, my sympathies at this point are more with the passengers on the flight you mention that the Arabs who wished to board. Blame the Mullah Krakars of the world, not me, for my obvious discrimination.
No, I blame you. You are responsible for your own actions. When you discriminate against Arabs because of their presumed religion, that makes you a prejudiced person. You have your priorities wrong, or at least they are different priorities than mine: You believe that it is more important to eliminate entirely the extremely small threat posed to your life by "suspicious-looking Arabs" than that everyone in society should be treated fairly, and as individuals. You will sacrifice the rights of many, for a tiny benefit to yourself. If that isn't cowardice, if that isn't greed, then what is?
Bjorn, I'm pretty comfortable that I understand the 'endgame' that's emerging between the West and Islam. The writing's been on the wall at least since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The first step is the elimination of Islamism, to answer your question. The second, perhaps unnecessary step is the elimination of Islam. I hope it is unnecessary but quite frankly don't care if it is necessary because nothing of any value to future human happiness comes from Islam, regardless of what it's accomplished in the past, and it's as necessary to the future as dinosaurs. The sooner the 'average' Muslim recognizes that his entire presumed 'raison d'etre' is bogus, the better. I remember reading that Al Gore once yelled at a vacillating Bill Clinton to 'get with the g--damn program!'. History is saying the same thing to Muslims and they don't seem to be getting it. "The program" in this case is dropping the pretense that the Koran is the fountain of all knowledge, that Sharia law is perfect and that there is something special about Muhammed. Nietzsche talks throughout his works about how Christianity 'neutered' and 'tamed' the old Germanic peoples, the "blond beasts". The same needs to be done now with the Muslims because they are just as out of control. As for switching liberal ideas on and off, I do have every confidence that it can happen and will happen. The Romans of the Republican era used to have a system of dictatorship that kicked in when the republic was in trouble, then would back off once the trouble was eliminated. The same system is appropriate to the West's situation today. To the extent that the West has historical amnesia, and the Islamist threat is still weak, this option doesn't appear as part of the debate, but it will eventually make it on to the agenda if the Islamists keep pushing.
We're being threatened w/an American Hiroshima during ramadamading-dong. And they're not gonna be named Mo Atta Abdul and the rest: "We have a different plan for the next attack," [AQ Afghan commander Abu Dawood] told Mir. "You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Mohamed Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter." ---- What we're planning isn't evil, Bjorn, it's entirely up to them how far it goes. -- Dick, what is the number of this "extremely small threat?" 1 million, 2 million, 200 million++++???
And Dick?? Wait until they wire up 2-300 cell phones (sans battery) and w/the push of a key and MSN and/or SKYPE(?) they all detonate together. Rumor has it that is what was being practiced in Bangladesh.
"Brave is insisting that Arabs not be searched more carefully in airport security than anyone else, because you believe that it is more important not to discriminate against people based on their race than to keep the occasional terrorist from getting on a plane." Brave? That's not brave, that's stupid. Profiling is a proven strategy. A couple weeks after the Madrid train bombings, I was at a train station. A young, slight man who looked Middle Eastern walked into the station and sat near me. It was warm in the station and we all had our coats off or at least unbuttoned, yet his coat was zipped to the neck. He was very slight in hands and feet and facial features, yet his torso was very bulky. Being the mad profiler that I am, I stared at him for a long time. He had no luggage; just a small knapsack, and he was nervously fingering a train ticket, never looking up at anyone. Eventually I tired of staring at him from the side, so I stood up in front of him, maybe 10 feet away, and continued to stare down at him. He never looked up. After about 10 more minutes, I sat next to him and stared some more. Eventually, he got up, left the station and did not return. I went to the station door and watched him walk away. He either was on a practice run or was packed to blow up. I didn't think to report him to the train security people; next time, I'll do that. We have to use whatever will work in the war with jihadists. Dick from Connecticut is right; it is insane to tolerate evil. I just read a novel, "The Age of Tolerance," by Glen Reinsford, who runs thereligionofpeace.com. It's a wonderful glimpse into the suicidal path that liberal tolerance and multiculturalism could take. The premise is that Bill Clinton resigns from the US presidency after Monica, Al Gore becomes president, he is reelected in 2000 and is the president during 9-11. Now that's scary. But I'm not afraid. I've been mad as hell since 9-11. Max Boot has a well-written commentary in the LA Times on 9/27/06 regarding Muslims' complicity with violence. If Muslims don’t cure their barbaric ideology, the result will be the radicalization of the non-Muslim world. It has already started. We see it in polls showing a worldwide and growing distrust of Islam. Despite the exhortations that Islam is a religion of peace, what we see with our own eyes is a religion of pieces. Time is short. In America, we will fight and die for our freedom and our way of life; even a 50+ mother like me won't submit. I hope Europe wakes up from her coma.
DG, USA: The second, perhaps unnecessary step is the elimination of Islam. I hope it is unnecessary but quite frankly don't care if it is necessary because nothing of any value to future human happiness comes from Islam, regardless of what it's accomplished in the past, and it's as necessary to the future as dinosaurs.
No comment necessary ..
Anna, Massachusets USA: Brave? That's not brave, that's stupid. Profiling is a proven strategy.
So is pushing other people out of the life boat to make room for yourself. A proven strategy for survival, that is. Don't you have any other goals? Is there nothing that is more important to you than your own life? How many people's civil rights would you agree to take away, in return for a slight increase of your own expected lifespan?
Do you have a problem with survival? Survival is the first priority of all living creatures, except the jihadists, who live in a culture of death. My goal is that my children live in a world where there are no jihadists; in a world where they can choose to read any book they want while having a glass of wine, without penalty of death; a world where men do not beat their women even though their holy book says they can, and so on. My children are still young, so for their well-being, my staying alive is substantially more important than some theoretical discussion about civil rights. Besides, civil rights are meaningless if you are dead. Furthermore, jihadists have no civil rights. They aren't people. They are killing machines.
Couple of things, Bjorn. First, have you notices how little Communist terrorism - and Communist terror-gangs, for that matter - are still around, post-Soviet Union? Make the obvious leap to the situation involving Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other state sponsors of Islamist terror, and you'll begin to see the glimmers of an effective strategy for winning the war against Islamist terrorism.
Second, FDR took far more stringent anti-liberty measures during WWII, and he -and America - backed away from them post-emergency, as did Abraham Lincoln from his own anti-freedom actions during the Civil War.
American notions of liberty are somewhat more resilient that our European friends can sometimes understand. I'd be more worried about the loss of your own freedoms at the face of demands from your growing anti-liberty segments of your Muslim minorities.
Anna, Massachusetts USA: Do you have a problem with survival? Survival is the first priority of all living creatures, except the jihadists, who live in a culture of death.
Right. So all those people who volunteer for military service, and go off to risk their lives in far-off countries like Iraq, are fools? There are more important things than staying alive. Life at any cost is not worth it - or would you convert to Islam at gunpoint? I think we agree on the general principle here, and that what we disagree about is which ideals are this important.
Bill Quick: Second, FDR took far more stringent anti-liberty measures during WWII, and he -and America - backed away from them post-emergency, as did Abraham Lincoln from his own anti-freedom actions during the Civil War.
I don't think any of us will find it very difficult to back out of the anti-liberal measures we've taken since September 11. As you say, they've been relatively mild. But I do think we would have a problem backing out of the measures some anti-Islamic extremists want us to take. The kind of measures that would help us to "eliminate the one group that causes almost 100% of the terrorism in the world", as one commenter put it above. Imagine whipping up enough public fury to "eliminate" Islam - now imagine undoing that damage, and returning people to tolerance. This wouldn't be a WW2 level discrimination, it would be hatred on the scale of the religious wars.
American notions of liberty are somewhat more resilient that our European friends can sometimes understand. I'd be more worried about the loss of your own freedoms at the face of demands from your growing anti-liberty segments of your Muslim minorities.
I intended no US vs Europe angle here. The trend towards sacrificing civil rights is global. So is the (admittedly still marginal) Islamophobic movement. As for Europe's Muslim minorities, just as the US is difficult to understand for Europeans, so is Europe often for Americans. Humility is generally the safer approach: Not "here's why your country will become a fascist dictatorship / dhimmified colony", but "here's something I've read about your country, is it true?" Think of it as the Michael Moore test of cultural understanding. Imagine the embarassment if the books you turn to for understanding Europe (Bruce Bawer's perhaps?) turns out to be the European equivalent of Stupid White Men.
America's military men and women are our ultimate heroes. Their enlistment is an effort at survival, but their effort is directed at the survival of the whole society, not their personal survival. It's the American left that believes they are fools, a pattern put into place in the 1960's. My parents escaped from two Eastern European Communist countries at great personal risk; I was born in an Austrian refugee camp. No one could ever convert either of them at the point of a gun. I can only hope that I inherited their bravery. It's my European heritage that causes me to be so concerned about Europe. I think you do have a problem with your Muslim minorities and events like the savage murder of Theo Van Gogh and the riots in Belgium and France point out that European society is on the brink. Are you willing to convert to Islam to live? That will be one of your three choices: conversion, death or dhimmitude. The books I read now are about Islam, and the Quranic imperatives are clear and simple. As many dissident Muslims have suggested, the best strategy is to reform Islam from within. But those reformers need to live long enough to accomplish that task, so the other half of the strategy must be to hunt down and kill or capture those who would impose their narrow world view on everyone else. As to the "trend toward sacrificing civil rights," every time I hear that red herring, I ask the person to name me one civil right they have lost or are close to losing. They can't. It's a diversion.
Anna, Massachusetts USA: America's military men and women are our ultimate heroes. Their enlistment is an effort at survival, but their effort is directed at the survival of the whole society, not their personal survival.
Well, exactly. Some ideals are worth risking your life for. I happen to believe that one of those ideals is equal rights for everyone, so that all people can be treated as individuals, and not as members of a collective. You apparently don't. Fine, but then it is not a question of which of us "wants to survive", but which ideals we believe are important.
Are you willing to convert to Islam to live? That will be one of your three choices: conversion, death or dhimmitude.
Didn't you read my post? And still you ask that question? Read again. Do I sound like someone who would convert to Islam to live? You're the one who tells me that survival is your first priority. It follows that if somebody holds a gun to your head, you should do whatever they ask of you. To me, survival is important, but not at any cost. I will not get Arabs thrown off airplanes just to satisfy my own panic, and I will not give up my right to think for myself. Two sides of the same coin.
--Right. So all those people who volunteer for military service, and go off to risk their lives in far-off countries like Iraq, are fools? --- We're all the militia, Bjorn. We always have been, just because we don't get all the high tech stuff doesn't mean we aren't. -- Imagine whipping up enough public fury to "eliminate" Islam - now imagine undoing that damage, and returning people to tolerance. -- Give it 3 or so generations. We're known for our attention span, after all. Look at US and Japan, I remember the 70s and 80s. Geez, look at US and Viet Nam. The "defeated" US and now I can buy their trinkets. Do you have faith/belief in your fellow Westerner? Bill's right, even more, for those who remain, we give a helping hand. Because that's who we are. -- It follows that if somebody holds a gun to your head, you should do whatever they ask of you.-- Steve Centani - Fox News. --To me, survival is important, but not at any cost.-- You are part of the West, the West needs to survive. They're going to be holding nuke guns to our heads soon enough, you're going to have to make a choice. But I think this is another American/European split. We went thru something like this w/Oyvind, IIRC.
Sandy P: You are part of the West, the West needs to survive. They're going to be holding nuke guns to our heads soon enough, you're going to have to make a choice.
Okay. So if an Islamist holds a sword to your neck, you will convert? After all, the West needs to survive.
I don't think this has anything to do with any American/European split. I just think many of those who criticize me here haven't fully thought through their own beliefs. One moment they tell me I'm a dhimmified European eunuch, the next moment they tell me they themselves would do anything to stay alive, and that I'm a fool to risk my life for my ideals. Which is it?
Hi Bjørn, It's been a while. This is one of the best pieces I've ever seen you write. I lecture on terrorism regularly, and you highlight some of the main points a good introductory lecture should contain. Fear. It's the most important aspect of terrorism. I fully agree. Secondly, We must live with terrorism. My catch phrase is: "Terrorism is part of our lives, that does not mean that it needs to dominate our lives." The fear most people have for terrorism is totally irrational. To demonstrate this, look only to the 7/7 London bombers. 52 people were killed. Approximately 3 million journeys are made in London's subway system every day. If I were in London on that day and needed to make a short trip...I'd do it....and I'm serious. Even if I knew that an attack would occur that day. 52 out of 3 million is a totally acceptable risk. Traffic is as you state a lot more dangerous. Remember also Brazilian Jean Charles de Menendez. Shot in the head by the police for no good reason at a London subway station.....not my dream society. AGR
Bjorn, you say 'no comment is necessary' as if there were some valid philosophical construct you were utilizing to critique my assertion of the fact that Islam is of no value to the future of humanity. I say your assumption of such a valid philosophical construct is false. Would you also assume that racism is vital to the future happiness of humanity? Both the Left and the Right of the West, if they are to be intellectually rigorous in applying their admittedly varying interpretations of the meaning of the Enlightenment, should agree that Islam is worthless. It creates human beings only to force them to live wasted lives worshipping an illusion. What is of value in it? Its cosmology? Its epistemology? Its theory of consciousness? Its theory of governance? What? Tell me one reason why I should care if the entire religion disappears tomorrow. I would be willing to bet that if its current adherents could wake up tomorrow fully 'Westernized', even they would agree they were happier after giving up Islam. It's only the fact that they are so illiterate and uneducated that allows them to 'settle' for Islam as an organizing principle in their world.
DG, USA: Bjorn, you say 'no comment is necessary' as if there were some valid philosophical construct you were utilizing to critique my assertion of the fact that Islam is of no value to the future of humanity.
Don't change the subject. You were saying that we (who?) should consider actively eliminating Islam. I don't care that you don't want to be a Muslim yourself, neither do I. But eliminate Islam? I don't think we have enough ground in common to discuss this. That's why I merely quoted what you said, so others could notice it too, and that's all I will do. You and I have nothing to discuss.
Bjorn, 'we' is anyone who thinks the Enlightenment was a significant advance in human thinking. Any rigorous understanding of the implications of that statement require a complete rejection of everything Islam stands for, as well as the willingness to eliminate it, via, as a first step, destroying every copy of the Koran and eradicating all memory of Muhammed. Depending on the outcome of that step, no further steps may be necessary. You're right that we have nothing to discuss, because you don't understand what the Enlightenment was in the broader context of human intellectual development. The information is out there, should you choose to avail yourself of it. I wish you luck in this endeavor.
bjorn, you are a coward.
Brave is most definately not sticking your head in the sand and hoping it will all go away, naturally life goes on but it is everybodies duty to fight against terrorism and currently that terrorism is Islamic based, when it moves on to become christian/bhuddist/hindu based we'll rethink the model would the world have been brave and enriched in 1939-45 if we'd all just hidden, acted as though we were beyond the situation, that the situation was somehow beneath us? Moral highground is a wonderful thing, however its easily removed by explosives placed directly underneath you by giggling insane jihaddists whilst you struggle to remain indignant to whats happening below you appear to be missing the obvious, you talk about just sitting on a plane accepting the potential.............WRONG if every westerner about to board demanded those of arab, islamic origin were either subjected to the full long and due process of searching, checking and re-searching, OR not let on the plane period, we'd be fighting back and securing our plane travel for a start, far easier to sit on a plane knowing the worst the islamic jihaddist has in his possession is the emergency procedure leaflet and a cup of coffee rather than the possibility he/she has something that goes "bang" oh dear we might upset some sensibilities by such action, big deal whats the worst they will do, radicalise and bomb us, wake up call we're already at that stage, appeasement now just gives the signal they are winning currently your suggestion is just giving carte blanche to these jihaddists to do whatever they like, because we own the moral highground so somehow that's us winning....its sooo wrong i'm actually choking at the suggestion, its the logical pattern that when faced by a pack of wolves, you stand upright with a stiff upper lip knowing your superior, even when they attack and savage you to death from hunger, a whole lot of good your stiff upper lip and superior stance did you when your somethings dinner
and most importantly do you think the pack would have understood or taken on board how wonderous you were whilst dying, or do you think they will just move onto the next meal/victim?
Fear is generated and yes thats what they want, but fear can be productive in the forming of a defence, and the very best form of defence is attack, so it must be, yes jihaddists everywhere please come and threaten our nations, our cultures, our way of life, BUT guess what we'll still keep living with our self established set of moralistic rules, our way of life and we'll simply deny you and yours them, when you feel grown up enough to have moved beyond your deranged jihaddist ideal, come talk to us, till then feel berated by having to swim to anywhere you wish to go, feel the wrath of the free west as you cannot freely move amoungst us, understand with our way of life comes responsibility and its collective and if you cannot fit it then we'll exclude you THAT MY FRIEND is being BRAVE in 2006 and in the politically correct, lets not offend the minority even if they are killing us free west, that is fighting back, that is defining what we in the non islamic west will tolerate and what we wont burying our heads in the sand with fingers crossed hoping we wont get rogered is equivilent to raising a white flag and adding "islamabad" to the end of your western countries name remembering of course you can only ever deal in a rational decent example setting way with people who are both rational and have an decent example to conduct themselves by jihaddist by default fall short of those qualities and the truth is historically the only language they have ever understood and been defeated by is that of utter defeat, and its long over due in the west and particularly europe that we must stop appeasement and start the defensive against this nightmare from the desert death cult btw i dont say this lightly, 7/7 london was a close call for me, a little too close and my response to my own governments appeasements tactics, plus its odd tackling extremism with throwing millions at the community thats actively propogating it not only baffles me, but is an insult to those many who died thus my conclusion is enough is enough, the battle lines are drawn up, now who is going to be really brave and start restricting rather than allowing and accepting fight the good fight Taranus
Quisling
To think the Norwegians once made Europe cower in fear. It is so sad to see, as a follower of the indigenous religion of the Norwegians, that Norway has no strength left. Unless Norwegians begin to thirst for the evergreen fields of Asgard and the gilded halls of Valhalla, Norway will continue to slide under the weight of still more foreign Gods.
To think the Norwegians once made Europe cower in fear. It is so sad to see, as a follower of the indigenous religion of the Norwegians, that Norway has no strength left. Unless Norwegians begin to thirst for the evergreen fields of Asgard and the gilded halls of Valhalla, Norway will continue to slide under the weight of still more foreign Gods.
You are seriously psychologically ill. Back away from cultural relativism in all its forms.
>>>Fear. Be less afraid of terrorism.
Fair enough. You forgot to add, "and simultaneously, dont forget to use our known strengths, namely our technology and our military, to vaporize the terrorists"
While I agree that living life in a panic is not the answer, I am not sure your solution is the answer either. It is certainly not realistic. 'The only major weapon the terrorists have is fear'? What about the carnage on Sept. 11? The other bombings in Bali, London and in Spain? Islamic terrorists have clearly told us what they want and they continue, every day, to back up those words with actions. As for this: '... it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip.' It's easy to say and believe things on the computer, while in safety. But would you *really* do this if confronted with the situation? You would actually wish to let people murder you? If this truly is your choice and it would affect only you, then I'd say, so be it. Unfortunately if a terrorist situation came up, it's highly likely that there would be other people involved - people who would not care for this 'solution' you have proposed, which is basically suicide. You spoke of reason, facts and being rational. I agree with these things. And the facts say that Islamic jihadists will never stop (as you also said.) The difference between the two of us is that I have no desire to commit suicide, nor do I desire to see people continue to die at the hands of these madmen. Therefore, I will do whatever is in my power to stop that from happening, whether it's supporting laws, educating myself about Islam, writing to newspapers and magazines when they put out false statements about Islam or terrorism, etc. And I ever end up being stuck on a plane with one of these 'holy warriors' who is ready to blow himself and everyone else to kingdom come, you can bet I wouldn't just sit there. I hope if you ever find yourself in that situation, that you will have someone like me there too.
Let's make this simple enough that even You will understand: Do what you want us to do, and Your culture will CEASE TO EXIST. It may take decades, it may take only years, but your culture WILL be toast- because you surrendered to the islamists, just like they want you to. Your RIGHTS will cease to exist. Your FUTURE will cease to exist. Your vaunted 'tolerance' will be swept away before the most intolerant force on the face of the Earth. Your grand-kids will worship a Rock in Mecca. IF they are not slaves. You are not being brave. You are handing over Western civilization in one of the most Cowardly ways possible. Have a Nice day.
"I have a different strategy. It is not for everyone, but I believe it is honest and politically safe. Let us take away the most powerful weapon the terrorists have: Fear. Be less afraid of terrorism. Make it your personal project not to fear terrorism, and not to let the fear that remains influence your life. Don't panic over newspaper headlines. Don't cancel your vacation because of terror alerts. Don't hold back your plane because there are some Arabs on it. Don't support hasty laws and careless political decisions, simple because we "have to do something"."
Fear? I watched the bombing in NYC up close and personal and went to work the next day. Within days the Stock Market was up and running as was the rest of New York City. You are projecting your fear and how YOU would handle it onto others as it's really yourself, the truth be told, who are afraid. I for one will NEVER submit. I have a couple of glocks, lots of ammo, and will not hesitate to use them. I can never imaging losing my freedoms and my country, just because I didn't want to be called a racist or islamophobe. I'm sure Europe will be admired in the history books for so doing.
I support any law which will help rid the world of these vermon - period. Now I have to do something which is to email my senators again and asking them why they're letting in even more Muslims. The highest yet since 911. At least we're getting the fence!
"Brave is sitting down calmly on a plane behind a row of suspicious-looking Arabs, ignoring your own fears, because you know those fears are irrational, and because even if there's a chance that they are terrorists, it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip." I think your real point is to show how superior to all of us who are afraid. You have a purer soul, a nobler nature. It's all very selfserving. I don't however think that you are superior. I don't even think that you actually believe your claptrap. It's natural to feel fear when you are in danger. All of us become afraid, including you. Your self-aggrandizing political correctness is just a big act!
Good God! A purer soul, a better nature? Carry on and ignore it, as though it were an unsightly social illness? Are you mad? The people of which we speak - this 'tiny minority' of extremists, and their enablers within their community at large - seek nothing less than to undo all the societal evolution of the past 1400 years. They seek to impose their fascistic religous will not only on the populace of the Middle East, but - as their own press releases tell us in no uncertain terms - all people, everywhere. If this strikes you as a bad idea, then perhaps it would seem reasonable to allow reasonable authority to take reasonable extra precautions to ensure your safety. Then again, if the premise of your children or wife being shredded by home-made bombs, or shot-up churches and temples and too-liberal schools, or cowed submission to the individual megalomania of imported religious teachers who regard Norwegians as animals on the level of dogs doesn't bother you particularly, then by all means: lean back, stare at the rippling Northern sky, and think fondly of philosophy. I'm a busy fellow and haven't got time to enumerate the multitude of ways in which simply sitting back and 'allowing nature to unfold' is a phenomenally bad idea. Instead, I will direct you to a link to a site that collects a range of news stories about this very issue on a daily basis, and allow you to be completely horrified, as I was three years ago, about the nature of the societal threat we - and our descendants - all face. www.jihadwatch.org In hope of imminent awakenings, I remain Geoff P.
Bjørn, I think your most important point (the one being missed here most often) is that stamping out terrorism or Islamism or Islam are tasks beyond human power. Mitigate, yes, eliminate, probably not.
So I think an interesting question for you and your interlocutors to think about would be this: if profiling or some more or less innocuous form of discrimination WOULD, in fact, keep us all safe, would you support it? This goes to the Muhammad Ali point made above: if it really were as simple as quarantining the snakes, would you do it? Surely there is some very minor inconvenience you would be willing to subject Muslims to if you thought that this mere inconvenience would solve the entire problem.
And then, you see, we just raise the ante: what if a little more was required? Where do we all stop buying in to the solution and what principle to we base that moral judgment on?
Personally, I think Islamic terror could be ended in the same way that Nazi terror (they were terrorists as well as being a conventional state at war) ended: by a ruthless, relentless campaign of destruction and privations wreaked upon their soldiers and civilians alike. I think this is how all wars eventually end--the combatants (one side or both) just can't stand the death and stench of it any longer.
In other words, I think a precipitated end of Islamic terror requires death and destruction on an unprecedented scale, and no, I'm not willing to go there. But I'll grant that circumstances may advance to a point where none of us have a choice. (cf Poland 1939)
In any event, I prefer the path you light out--they kill us, and we continue on as democrats, taking what precautions we can, in spite of it--and I believe that they can be worn out this way over the course of many decades.
However, this assumes that the clock does not run out on us in the meantime; and in this I refer both to the demographic trends, by which muslim majorities may extinguish our democratic ideals without any help from us, and to increasing muslim intimidation by which the exercise of our democratic rights may vanish into increasingly muted and unnecessary reminders of our obligation to be sensitive to the feelings of our abusers.
Thus, I think there is a howling absence from your catalog of bravery; namely, the courage to call out Islamic intolerance and violence (and to call it ISLAMIC--now THAT is brave!) and reject it wherever we see it; and the courage to protect the democratic values to which you appeal by preventing immigrantion by those who are dedicated to the proposition that all democracies must ultimately succumb, inshallah, to Islam.
All I have to say to Bjorn, is, enjoy Eurabia, and no, we won't be accepting refugees from Western Europe when the Intifada starts in five years. Have fun. God bless. And may the world forget I ever shared common ancestry with you, you frakking coward!
Bjorn, If you substitute the word "terrorism" with "nationalsocialism" in your speech and, despite the obvious anachronisms, locate it in the 1930s. Next suppose YOU would have written it then and now you would be a very old man reading it. Would you be proud of having written it? Is passivity the best weapon against an active and growing threat?
When you said "brave", did you actually mean "stupid"? It certainly sounded like you did. The fear response to a threat is both natural and healthy, and without it there would be no one alive to have this stupid debate.
@Jim from Philadelphia - well said.
Bjorn, I am shocked to see the countrymen of my ancestral home have become such cowering relativists. I thank the stars and heavens (but mostly my ancestors) above that I was born in America. It is being said by many that Europe has become a land of permanent children, who rely on the parent state to take care of them. All responsibility falls on the State. The only thing citizens of Europe are responsible for is to live comfortable, sheltered, and safe lives. It seems the very idea of taking responsibilty for ones own survival is very upsetting to a European. Better to construct a utopian politically correct world and hope for the best. Emotions like fear or anger are to be avoided and prevented at all costs. If one or many individuals die or are killed, they are not as important as the parent State's continued survival. Survival is not only something that has to do with individuals. It also has to do with one's own offspring or family tree. An individual who goes to war is not necessarily committing an act of selfless heroism. He is also helping to assure that his offspring and culture will survive into the future. By eliminating ones enemy, a soldier can help ensure the survival of his children and grandchildren into the future. This is the law, and reality, of nature. Bjorn is hoping that the terrorists will eventually become tired of waging war against the West. Maybe they will become children of the state as well, quit having children, and not worry about extending and protecting the lives of their offspring and culture. It's time to grow up, Bjorn. Curt
#46 Curt, you are absolutely right. Such is the result of the welfare state: life-long adolescents.
"Terrorism"--the Islamic incursion into the West and its drive to Islamizise it--will not cease until the West (Europe, United States) is under Islamic domination or the Mohammedans are once again defeated--as has occurred several times in history. As we would rather not live under Islam (at least here in the United States), the second alternative is preferable. Ah, but how to achieve it? A careful examination of how Islam was beaten back before--sent to sulk for centuries in its misery until stupidly uplifted by the West's gift of oil wealth--will give the answer. The defeat of Islam, because that is what this war is about, Islam versus the non-Islamic world, can be accomplished. A study of prior defeats of the Moslems by the West will yield strategies and tactics that can be applied again. I will not go into detail here and send Moslems scurrying to maps and history books so as not to be forced to repeat their mistakes of the past. The Reconquista, Poitiers, Vienna show us what went right for us and what we could have improved upon. Economic, military, diplomatic, and political means must be used to achieve the ultimate goal: the sound defeat of the Islamic forces and the return of Islamic populations to Islamic lands.
I'll butt into this discussion.
First off, it was huge amounts of fun to see all the references to Bjørns blog post around the web. It's also been huge amounts of fun to see how many of you did not get the point of the posting.
Because that's what happened - you actually didn't spend time at all to read the post.
Point number one:
"Do you think surveillance will put an end to terrorism? Read up on cryptography."
Point number two:
"There are many things we can do, and there's no reason to make it easy for terrorists to kill us. New laws can be useful, and so can money, and even sometimes invasions. "
Point number three:
"No matter how you want to fight terrorism, you also need to find a way to live with it. Live with the possibility of hijackings and plane bombings, of suicide bombers on trains and buses, of snipers killing random people in the street. Terrorism is here to stay, deal with it."
There will always be terrorism. There is a somewhat infamous saying that says something along the lines of "Nothing can stop a dedicated assassin who wants to trade his life with yours". That dedicated assassin cannot, however, bring down society. He can hurt a single person or a small group of people. He alone cannot unravel society and civilization as we know it - UNLESS we let him.
The nature of terrorism is that their weapon is NOT - as seem to be what many believe - that they can knock down a building or two. That's easy. Most readers of this blog should be, or is, competent enough to make their own explosives and bring down a big building - instilling terror in people. It's extremely easy to become a "successfull" terrorist. Except, of course, that you die in the process.
The main weapon of terrorism is to instill terror in people. It's to generate fear. If we choose to not let ourselves be terrorized. If we choose not to become afraid - then the terrorists have failed their objective. OK, they did knock down a couple of buildings - or they did blow up a couple of trains - which is horrible. If I don't cancel my airline ticket, and do not stop travelling by train - and even better - I don't even become afraid of neither flying nor travelling by train - the terrorists have failed to accomplish their goal. They have failed to make me afraid.
Loads of you call Bjørn a coward - most, if not all, of you failed to see his point. Cowardize is, like Bruce Willis, to be afraid of flying after Sept.11 . Cowardize is to be afraid of going onto the London subway after the bombings there. Cowardize is to be afraid of spanish railroads after the madrid bombings.
Now, we can debate whether Islam has become a so big nuisance that we should carpet-bomb most of the middle east. If so, it should be because the actual damage they inflict to our society is so big that we really would be better off if we did so. For me, that's still unfathomable.
We can debate and choose to take action against immigration from certain countries. There will be howls about racism. There will be howls about unfairness. There will be major problems with people that are in love, and wants to live with their loved ones. Especially as any measures taken thypically will be against "all" foreign countries - not just countries with a certain religion.
We can debate demographics, which are quite worrying in my eyes as well as in many other peoples eyes.
All the three above-mentioned points are, however, different debates than the one Bjørn focuses on in his posting. They're allmost off topic. Terrorism is here to stay. It'll always be here. We'll have to find out how to handle it, without letting our fear of it control our actions.
Somewhere around 3000-4000 people or so died in Sept.11 Somewhere around 40000 people die in car accidents in the US every year
What are you more afraid of? Terrorist attacks or driving in a car? Personally I'm not afraid of neither. I'm for some reason more interested in fighting terrorism than I'm in securing the roads. The reason - for my sake - is that I'm dead tired of people being so fscking _afraid_ of terrorism. They create stupid laws that makes my freedom more awkward. Heh? Do you know the proposed rules for airplane travel in Europe? You're not allowed to have more than 1dl of liquid with you in the carry-on luggage for airplanes! 1dl of water! aggh! I tend to bring 1.5liters of Pepsi Max! And I should not be allowed to? Damned terrorists who make people so fscking afraid! People that are afraid of terrorism limits my freedom - and that annoys me.
No to all the rest of you - reread Bjørns posting. Read it with open eyes instead of the closed ones you've previously read it with. Realize that his point isn't to roll over and let yourself be taken in the ass. Realize that he's not a cultural relativist. Realize that he wants to stop limiting your and mine freedom - and stop creating knee-jerk solutions that will just annoy the hell out of us, with no tangible benefit.
So let me get this straight.Political correctness is more important than life itself. You Sir, are an idiot.
You Euros are finished. You might as well cut your losses, pass out korans and start the mass conversion. Welcome to Eurabia.
Bjorn, you are nothing more than a suicidal mental patient. Has it occured to you that if the world was run under Islamic sharia law, political correctness and civil liberties would be airbrushed from history?
You will be crowned a martyr to political correctness!!
Her name is Brigitte Gabriel, and she's a Lebanese journalist who grew up a Christian in the Middle East. She has written the book, "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America." I get the feeling she is unconcerned about whether folks think she sufficiently hedges her critiques of radical Islam and surrounds them with caveats and P.C. phrases for the religion of peace. Why? Because she believes the risk is too great for the West to mince words and unwittingly end up facing an enemy we never understood.
This clip is nine minutes long, but it's worth it-- partly because it's my first adventure in video editing and it took me several hours, failures, and e-mails to Allah to get it done, but mostly because she's a great speaker.
Gabriel was asked the same question Esmay asked Michelle this week, though much more politely, at an event at The Heritage Foundation. Here are her answers (watch your volume; she gets riled):
The whole speech is at this link. About an hour long and awesome. http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/e836794a-e98c-4325-80a7-62b79ae81edc
This is a brilliant video - there's also a shorter youtube version at the site.
Action speaks louder than words!!!
Americans listen carefully to what she says and TAKE ACTION NOW.
Gosh I wish someone like you was around before World War 2. If the world then had taken advice like stated in your essay, then the Nazis would have taken over Norway and we probably wouldn't have to listen to your assinine opinions. You can fluff up your feathers and strut around all you want, act brave but fall short of acting. But it isn't going to scare the Islamofacists one little bit. Let's hope that no one takes you to seriously when it comes time for someone to pull Norway's rear end out of the fire.
Right from the start - more than one year ago -I knew you were a nutter Bjorn Staerk. You are quintessentially symptomatic for Europes disease. Change your moniker from bearstrong to winnieweak. Basically, people like you are a bigger problem than the paedophile worshippers.
Terrorists can only kill a few people at a time? Do you forget 9/11, do you forget Madrid, do you forget Bali, do you forget London? The statement that terrorists only kill a few people is a naïve understatement and a slight upon the victims of terrorist attacks. Also, the fear of terrorism is not irrational. To believe so brings undue risk upon those who believe it. To not view a fear of terrorism as real is a suicidal idea. This view is a form of denial, which you claim to dislike. In the end, you live under the haze of denial. Having suspicion of "Arabs" on a plane does not destroy an "open and tolerant society." It is possible to have suspicion, and not destroy an open and tolerant society. To separate these two as opposites gives a false choice. So, go ahead and ignore any fear and understate any threat. However, wishing it away accomplishes nothing. I prefer to live.
"I don't see much bravery anywhere, but least off all among the loudest of the anti-terror warriors. It's not brave to scream on your blog for even more anti-terror laws. It's not brave to be willing to torture innocent people because there's a chance they might be guilty..."
You're giving in to the Euro-propaganda Bjorn. The American torture debate isn't about innocent people, it is about rare cases such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the planner of 9-11 and a big wig in Al Qaeda.
Don't let your media elites wear down and manipulate you Bjorn.
"I wonder how people in Israel have dealt with terrorism, especially when the suicide bombings were at a peak a couple of years ago. The international media focused on the politics and the deaths, but what was the approach on the personal level? What did people tell themselves when they went on the bus, for instance? How many broke apart, how many made a successful effort to live "normally", and if so how did they manage it?"
Wishful thinking isn't going to get you anywhere. Israel is economically faltering and summer emmigration. One nuclear weapons and the state is going to be moribound.
Wishful thinking and optimism are neither rational thinking nor desireable.
The world sucks, and we have to do with it. Fuzzy bromides do noone good.
*have to deal with it
"[Being] brave is sitting down calmly on a plane behind a row of suspicious-looking Arabs, ignoring your own fears, because you know those fears are irrational, and because even if there’s a chance that they are terrorists, it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip"
No sir - being brave in that instance would be to confront the pilot of the plane and demand the removal of the suspicious looking Arabs from the flight.
That is being brave.
I value life itself, over "political correctness".
Rune, I more or less agree with your last paragraph.
But to reiterate my point, if Bjorn is really trying to say, "Don't let yourself be cowed," then surely his list of braveries should include the bravery to speak out against Islamic violence (and defend those who do), to put on Operas even though Muslims might not like them, to publish cartoons even though Muslims might not like them, just as we publish cartoons that Christians might not like, and to condemn every impulse in Islam that believes it can subjugate us.
After all, the right to freedom of expression is far more important than the right to travel comfortably on an airplane. Moreover, freedom of expression is under much greater threat. (Millions of people travel every day in airplanes with muslims aboard and they do so with near 100% impunity; by contrast, precious few publish articles or make speeches suggesting that Islam has an anger management problem, and most of them, if prominent at all, have their lives threatened.)
Look, even a nitwit like George Bush gets the point you're trying to make: if we stop flying and doing business as usual, they will have won. The phrase "they will have won" was a running joke in america after 9/11--it was a great way to justify any extravagance, but I digress.
Yes, let's agree to show a democratic spirit in our response to the maniacs. But if someone suggests that such is done only by passively exposing ourselves to threat, and not also (and more obviously) by actively getting into the line of fire by calling the bullshit and intimidation where we see it, then I wonder if he really understands his own point. Namely: there is something here to defend and we are not going to let it be destroyed by our own fear.
#61, Fandango:
"No sir - being brave in that instance would be to confront the pilot of the plane and demand the removal of the suspicious looking Arabs from the flight."
Sorry. That is not being brave. That is acting the fucking idiot who make train-travel more appeasing than airplane travel. That is acting like a fuckup who makes the airplane leave later, making sure that I don't reach my destination on time.
All due to being a fucking idiot who were afraid of someone who has already been through a hefty security check.
To be quite frank, I don't care how scared you are of intimidating looking arabs. I don't care how scared to death you are of flying. I don't care how much you fear terrorists.
They've been through the same security scrutiny as I have. If they want to create panic on the airplane - all they need to do is buy a bottle of tax-free alcohol and bring a lighter. Smash the bottle on something and bring flames to it .. and then wield the now pretty sharp bottle-stump as a pretty daunting weapon.
You know what? I prefer to be not-so-afraid of dying. I prefer to reach my destinations on time instead of some idjut delaying the plane. I prefer to stand up and fight the stupid dickhead wielding a bottle with my tiny little laptop-filled backpack as a shield if the time comes that I have to.
But please, stop delaying the plane just because you're a scared terrorist-whipped coward.
While I'm at it: do you guys know anyone who is afraid to fly? I fly all the time and frankly terrorism pretty much never enters my head. I'm too busy being pissed off by all the nonesense in the security line. (Last month, they made my two year old take off his shoes.)
I know people that fly all the time to far-flung destinations around the globe. I've had many conversations about different airlines and routes and never heard anyone complain about being afraid of muslims.
On the other hand, it seems pretty common to encounter an incident where someone is afraid to say something because of the potential threat.
SO is this all a moot point? Are there really any serious political moves afoot to quarantine muslim passengers or subject them to other kind of civil-rights-violating procedures? Is this really just a feel-good piece about flying and going about our lives (Hey, did I see a SwissAir advert on this page before?)? Or is it a proxy salvo in the argument about immigration?
Rune, I'm definitely with you on the last one: let's go back to the rules where practically anything except a gun was allowed. I used to travel with my leatherman tool all the time. I felt very secure.
A couple of guys with leatherman knives would have made quick work of the 9/11 flunkies.
Jim:
"But to reiterate my point, if Bjorn is really trying to say, "Don't let yourself be cowed,""
Well, that is what he's saying... loud and clear to anyone who has read his piece, and to anyone who has followed his blog for a couple of years.
"then surely his list of braveries should include the bravery to speak out against Islamic violence (and defend those who do)"
Well, take a look at:
http://blog.bearstrong.net/archive/weblog/001485.html http://blog.bearstrong.net/archive/weblog/001491.html
Both me and Bjørn (I know him personally, btw, so I know damn well where he stands) are pretty damn ultra-liberal when it comes to letting people think and speak their minds. 'liberal' here in the European sence, not the american sence.
"to put on Operas even though Muslims might not like them, to publish cartoons even though Muslims might not like them"
Why on earth repeat what every other blogger on earth already yappers on about already? Why let the blog-entries be dictated by the "current news on the day"?
Bjørn usually write things when he feels he has something new to contribute, or when he has something he wants to debate. Not when he wants to join the huge blog-quorus that's already singing and screaming about something.
This means he usually spends more than 10 minutes writing an article. Something I greatly appreciates. It means that every single article is worth reading - instead of being shotgun blast after shotgun blast of repeated drivel.
The muhammed cartoons was very well covered by Vampus (http://vampus.blogspot.net) - another very famous norwegian blogger. She published the cartoons herself. There was no reason for Bjørn to repeat what she had already done.
"But if someone suggests that such is done only by passively exposing ourselves to threat, and not also (and more obviously) by actively getting into the line of fire by calling the bullshit and intimidation where we see it, then I wonder if he really understands his own point. Namely: there is something here to defend and we are not going to let it be destroyed by our own fear."
The thing is - there is rational fear and there is irrational fear. It's irrational to be afraid of a couple of suspicious looking arabs. On the other hand, it's quite rational to be afraid if you observe something substantiated. And please, a bit more substantiated than wearing a bulky winter jacket even though it's hot for you. The security people already asked about the jacket. You don't need to be afraid of it.
And yes - there is something here to defend. One of the things I want to defend is the right to bring along a bottle of Pepsi Max on the airplane to quench my thirst. It seems that terrorists has gotten the airplane operators so afraid that they'll ban more than 1dl of liquid onto airplanes within europe. Thus - the terrorists won by making my life more uncomfortable. Guess what? Airplane travel didn't get a single bit more safe by doing this.
Stop being afraid. Please?
I agree, Bjorn. The only thing we can do to stop terrorism is wait until the terrorists get bored. It is a brave thing to not succumb to the bigotry of profiling, defending ourselves, or any of that nonsense. Who are we to value our way of life more than the way of life the terrorists would have us live? That's just arrogance, right? I can understand why we are hated. I hate us too! Perhaps we should be looking in the mirror when we are attacked and ask ourselves, "What is it about us that make them hate us?" When we have the answer, all we have to do is change that dispicable part of ourselves, and continue our lives in harmony with our brethrin. Peace out - Rock on, G-Dub
Rune, As you've surely gathered from my posts, your "stop being afraid" line wants an entirely different audience. And as I've said, I'm not sure the audience exists, except from some marginal group of weirdos who probably never fly anyway.
"The muhammed cartoons was very well covered by Vampus (http://vampus.blogspot.net) - another very famous norwegian blogger. She published the cartoons herself. There was no reason for Bjørn to repeat what she had already done."
I'm using a particular to illustrate a general idea. I don't expect anyone to be rehashing the cartoons or to be rehashing 9/11 air travel fears (which also got a little bit of coverage, you might recall). I'm suggesting that there might be a reason (other than the willfull ignorance and jerky knees of some posters) why Bjorn's piece is being misunderstood: He claims that bravely being true to our democratic values is the answer, but omits the single most important act of bravery required to support the single most threatened value. So that raises a question, like it or not.
Note, please, that I haven't attacked him or called him a coward. I'm suggesting a reason for the outcry and asking for clarification. (In point of fact, I agreed with the most salient points he raised, as you no doubt noted.)
Finally, your distinction between rational and irrational fear goes directly to my point: it requires more courage to stand in the face of a rational fear than to stand in the face of an irrational one. And, in the vast majority of cases, where there is a legitimate fear, there is a much greater risk to freedom than that presented by an irrational fear.
Are we going to start stripping civil rights from whole classes of our citizens? Still rather doubtful. Are we going to start repressing whole classes of expression because we have been intimidated into silence? Seems that this has already been accomplished. Thus, the dismantling of our values by fear has already begun to happen but not in the manner Bjorn discusses. Thus, I find it an odd omission. Others probably do as well, but they are reacting to it more emotionally (and rudely).
G-Dub, Rock Island, USA, 2006-09-30 You say... "I agree, Bjorn. The only thing we can do to stop terrorism is wait until the terrorists get bored." Islam has been terrorizing for 1400 years. How much longer are you going to wait before you do something about? When your head is rolling down the streets of Rock Island. Get a clue.
I like those "no comment necessary" entries. Dodge the difficult questions, that will work as well in the comment section as it does in the main post. But they are a bit diagnostic, aren't they?
Your problem is that you are afraid to exercise judgment. Some things require judgment, and some of those judgments are difficult. They still have to be made. A prohibition against making judgments is hardly a fundamental tenet of modern liberal Enlightenment philosophy. Failure to make judgments is cowardice. Make choices - decide what's worth fighting for and what isn't - and stand by those choices. Anything less is despicable, as well as impractical. One of the many lessons of September 11 is that there is no atrocity too great for the mighty warriors of Islamicism. Wait for them to get tired of it? Don't be a putz. You seem content with a view of the world which holds promise of nothing but an endless succession of increasingly barbaric atrocities by madman who will never give up, because their tactics work against victims like you. Not much of a liberal vision for the future, is it?
I'm in a hurry right now, rather than write something specific for this good post, I'm going to cut and paste a comment I made at Tigerhawks earlier, I hope it's not confusing: phrizz said: (unless he got his words mixed up, even then it gives a clue to his mindset) "They try to integrate with Muslims, they are accepting terrorism and bowing down to the sheiks." Yep, they are trying to intergrate WITH the Muslims, instead of the other way around. You know, the time honored way, where the immigrants intergrate WITH the inhabitants of the country that they migrate TO. Another clue: "You are the same flesh and blood they are - today's Germans are no more and no less capable of genocide than you or I." Yea, we all are from the same blood, but as you know the human race as a whole is a murderous, barbaric bunch. It always has been. Its not any different today, its the same blood. The culture in different areas of the world dictate how thick the membrane is between the barbarian and the civilized person. Or how he reacts to danger. Does he call the police, or does he pick up a gun and confront the danger? Even here in these somewhat United States, the culture differences are easy to spot. If you have been around this Republic or have put some study into it, you will know that Americans as a whole are made up of many cultures, but because of their "Americanization" (is that a word?) they are not like your average [e]uropean (old or new). When you cross over into the south and southwest of this Republic, you have no trouble seeing that these people are really friendly. But if you study people, like some do, you might pick up on something else. "These" people are survivors, the membrane that seperates them from the barbarians is thin, thinner than in other parts of this Republic and much thinner than some parts of the world. So, yes, some Americans are more capable of genocide than other Americans and Germans. Where I live, the most important thing is survival of the family, our children and our women. Nothing is higher than that except God. Our country comes right after our family and way before our lives. Yep, we are willig to die for our country and for our families, but we don't intend to. We intend to make the Islamics die for their Allah. They seem to want to get there so fast, we will be glad to send them. We will not be compared to nor suffer from liberal fools or people who will go into cultural suicide like the Jews went into the concentration camps. Yea, I have the blood of Norsemen, Englishmen and Scotsmen, but I'm a fourth generation Texan and I know that my State, my County, my City, my Friends, and my family will fight Islam and it's followers until they are destroyed and nothing more than a bad memory. Papa Ray West Texas USA By Papa Ray, at Sat Sep 30, 05:26:18 PM The post I responded to is Here. Thanks for your blog. Papa Ray West Texas USA
Bjorn's problem is that he wants to take terrorism seriously, but at the same time he wants to attack strawmen so he can feel superior. Hence, this entire comment thread.
"...it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip."
Screw that! I have two little girls, daughters, and if I thought that their safety was at risk, I would immediately take action to eliminate or reduce the risk to the extent possible. Their lives are infinitely more important than your highminded principles, and that has nothing to do with bravery. What you are doing is calling for inaction in the face of fierce attack. That's not brave. It is cowardly and lazy. Yes, I am an American and I realize that you Europeans think this is all about revenge for 9/11, but fighting back against terrorism and those who tolerate it has nothing to do with revenge; it is about eliminating risks. If I didn't do what I could and then one of my daughters was killed do to my inaction, I couldn't live with myself.
Walter L. Newton Colorado USA, 2006-09-30 It's called sarcasm, Walter. I thought it was obvoius.
You didn't answer my question. Would you have been proud to write the same back in the 1930s concerning the Nazis? How would you feel reading it now? There are sittuations where appeasement or pretending to ignore the threat just don't work.
#76:
My guess is quite simply that Bjørn, as all good Netizens, ignore you completely since you've already lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
ayn,
Great video. Just watched the 9 min. version. Brigitte Gabriel is impassioned and totally unafraid (not islamoPHOBIC). She hits the "silent majority of--hhrummph--'moderate'" Moslems where they can feel it. "Are you with US or against US? Are you Americans or are you Islamics? (See you can't be both--loyal to the US Constitution and the stuff that came out of Makkah and Madina.) Where do you stand? (Difficult for Europeans [Eurabians?] to understand. They have been and still are so busy bending over so far backwards, they're looking up their own--as--nevermind.)
BUT . . .
If this is the video that you edited ayn (the 9 min.), it comes across sharp and hits hard. That's Brigitte but also the editing.
If we had more people like Brigitte Gabriel and Michelle Malkin (how come it's all women that have the--ah--never mind) we'd be well on our way to get the bandwagon rolling, playing--let's see now, what'd be good? How about "The Battle Hymn of the Republic?" It's not secular and it ain't allah it's about.
You seem to haved missed the point entirely. This is not a question of "BRAVE" , its a question of "SURVIVAL". The survival of our civilisation is what is at stake and the only question we should be asking ourselves is what tactics and strategies are more likely to defeat the enemy. If you think that self sacrifies in order to prove and preserve our fairness and tolerance will defeat the enemy then you are sadly delusional. They will see this for what it really is - a sign of weekness, to be exploited to the full. The enemy only understands one thing - strength and power and will use our "fairness" and "tolerance" to destroy us. Anyway what you describe as brave , i.e. sitting on a plane and ignoring your natural fears is , in my view just another form of cowardice. Its a moral cowardice in that you dont have the courage to go stand up and speak the truth as it would be seen as policically uncorrect and absurdly you would rather die than have to do that. With vies like this I wonder if europe has become so morally decadent as to be in the terminal phase of its demise. You make ma sick - and that is a politically incorrect statement!!
hey man...you must be ill...mentally.
Looks like somebody must have posted this on some high-profile blog and asked everybody to spam with comments, regardsless of wether they read it or not. Shame. So much for some rewarding debate...
Bernt, Have you read the comments of all 79 other people who wrote in? Why do you call it spam? I read both the initial blog entry and the vast majority of the comments, and I would call it a vigorous debate on both sides. I don't know if I'd call it "rewarding debate", whatever that means, but it is vigorous nonetheless. In my opinion, vigorous debate is not a shameful thing.
There are some pretty interesting points to be debated here, but there don't seem to be people on any side much interested in debating them; rather, they just want to call each other names.
Too bad.
What we have to fear is the "progressive ideas" of folks like you.
Bjørn, I think your most important point (the one being missed here most often) is that stamping out terrorism or Islamism or Islam are tasks beyond human power. Mitigate, yes, eliminate, probably not.
This is an idea that gets thrown out a lot. And while it's true that we aren't ever going to eliminate terrorism, I feel compelled to say that it is very easy to mitigate Islamic terrorism by not letting Muslims into your country. Seriously, what do they provide that you can't provide for yourselves?
I am not an Islamaphobe. I have Muslim friends (I really do, that isn't just a cliche). If Muslims had never been allowed in this country, I would never have known them. But I would have met other people in their stead, and the Twin Towers would not have come down and thousands of lives would have been saved.
I know, it's discriminatory to not let people into your country based on their religion! Well, welcome to the real world. Let's face it, white westerners are the only people who give a fig about discrimination. I work in a black city, in a black and Latino dominated organization, and they have no compunctions about discriminating aginst "whitey/gringos" and each other in favor of their own. Of course I resent it and am crafting my exit strategy as I write this, but my point is that such discrimination is pervasive because it is simply human nature to prefer your own people. Whites repeatedly purge themselves of these tendencies through p.c. rituals, but no one else seems to. And very few whites seem to have the courage to stand up to non-whites on the issue.
Bottom line: in regards to discrimination there is a double standard and it is whites who are getting screwed. We are getting screwed out of jobs through affirmative action and our of our countries and our cultures through mass immigration. And this post is just more p.c. nonsense about how we can't discriminate back, even to save our own lives, because that would be somehow worse than death.
Seems to me that in this PC age, it takes infinitely more courage to speak out than to remain silent and acquiesce. If you speak out, you might be accused of being a racist. And most people would rather die than face that kind of shame. But if you keep your mouth shut, you're safe from that charge. You might die, but that's a small price to pay for not risking society's opprobrium. Isn't it?
Seems to me also that Bjorn is a typical Scandinavian. Nordic people are the ultimate go-along, don't-rock-the-boat people. Nothing terrifies a Scandinavian more than to stand out in a crowd, to go against the grain. (I know, I have a Scandinavian wife and have spent a lot of time there.) White guilt is rampant in the Nordic countries. They've heard all of the jokes and insults about "Aryans," perhaps deep down there is also a sense of guilt that they didn't intervene in World War II (in the case of Sweden) or that they cooperated with the Nazis (Norway, Finland, Denmark, in varying degrees).
Radical Islamists are smart to leverage that sense of guilt. They demand multicultural compromise, but in only one direction. The hosts must bend over backwards to accommodate their guests. But the visitors have absolutely no obligation to return the favor, and in fact spit on the hand of hospitality extended to them. A people that accepts such boorish behavior over time loses legitimacy.
An earlier comment mentioned that some Muslim "clerics" were denied visas to the U.S. Does the commenter know that absolutely no Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu clerics are ever admitted to Saudi Arabia? I doubt it. As Jean-Francois Revel said, “Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.”
The comparison with nationalsocialism here is pertinent. I don't give a S*** about whoever's law. Nationalsocialism seemed harmless in the beginning too. Many also thought that it could be just wished away.
Simple, true, nothing more needed to be explained. Download here:
http://www.brookt.com/political/temp/
You should be against honor killings. There aren't two "side" where that is concerned. Be glad you're not a woman...
Oh, I feel pretty confident Bjørn is not a supporter of honour killings. I also feel increasingly sure that people are not reading what Bjørn has written, instead believing whatever nut who has chewed the food for them. When it comes to screening on airports I think this guy - who should know what he is talking about - has said it best a long time ago: The trouble with profiling (outside of violating the equal protection clause) is that it establishes a pattern, which can be exploited by terrorists. If it's well known that young, middle eastern males are going to be scrutinized more closely than anyone else, then the terrorists are going to find an old female, or a radical young woman willing to put TNT in her baby's diaper, or an old man in a wheelchair... If you want to smuggle alcohol into Norway; where the limits what you can legally take into the country are laughably low, there is always the "walk behind a guy who looks like a pothead"-trick. Customs do profiling. And people know it. If you strip down all young Middle Eastern men, well - then the terrorists won't have too much of a problem choosing a Caucasian White guy instead. In case you didn't know... there are radical Islamists (and other fanatics) amongst them, too. So, Bluto concludes: The point is, to the TSA screeners, everyone is under suspicion until they pass security screening. That's the way it should be.
Oh, and by the way, the fact that Saudi Arabia sports a discriminating and fascist regime is no excuse for Norway - or the United States - to do the same.
I believe it is an American saying: Two wrongs does not make one right.
I am referring to the above: "And an 'open and tolerant society' - open and tolerant towards what? Honor killings, for example, because they happen to fit within someone else's culture? Of course not. I think the lesson here for you is to not trust the word of the blogs that linked to this. There are more than two sides here, at least I'm not on either of them." As far as honor killings are concerned there are not two sides. They are not defensible in any culture.
All your fancy words will mean nothing when the day comes that muslims detonate a nuclear device in some part of the world. You are a typical European liberal idiot : You talk of courage, but would shit your pants once you get the crap beat out of you by a gang of muslims. You talk of tolerance, but would probably cry when muslims install a loudspeaker in their mosque next to your house and yell out their prayers at 8:00 AM. You talk of peace and love towards Islam as you hear stories of how people you once knew have gotten raped, beaten, and intimidated by muslims simply for standing up for themselves. You preach bravery, but would probably be the first one to leave a plane if you spotted muslims that looked like terrorists and scared the piss out of you. You talk about living with terrorism, but would most likely be the first one to advocated genocide against muslims if one of them ever killed your entire family. You are a typical European liberal. LYING, DISHONEST, COWARDLY, AND LIVING IN A FALSE WORLD WHERE YOU TELL OTHERS THAT IT IS GOOD THAT THEY SUFFER IN THE NAME OF TOLERANCE. THE SAME TOLERANCE YOU WOULD LOSE IN ONE SECOND IF YOUR LIFE, YOUR FAMILY, AND YOUR CHILDREN WERE TO BECOME VICTIMS OF THE ISLAMIC IDEALOGY YOU DEFEND. Stupid sucker. Go preach your garbage to idiots who are fond of being molested by goat herding cave dwelling muslim garbage. The civilized world does not believe one single word of your idiotic rambling and defense of a culture that no sane person of any other culture would dare defend. Stupidity is clearly a European liberal method of learning. You mastered it well.
By the way, profiling works. In Beslan, Australian pygmies DID NOT slaughter men, women, and children in a school. ISLAMIC CHECHEN MUSLIMS DID. In Thailand, Martians DID NOT SLAUGHTER Buddhist monks and slit their throats, INVADING ISLAMIC MUSLIMS AND ASIAN MUSLIM RECRIUTS DID. In America, it wasn't ancient Romans that slaughtered nearly 4,000 American citizens on September 11th. IT WAS SAUDI ARABIAN MUSLIMS. In Bali, it wasn't Bill Gates the murdered those Australian vacationers, IT WAS MUSLIMS. In Spain, it wasn't Napoleon that planted the bombs on trains that resulted in the deaths of all those train passengers, IT WAS ARAB MUSLIMS. In England, it wasn't the American Indian that killed so many people in the subways or tried to blow up 20 Airplanes, IT WAS ARAB MUSLIM INVADERS. BUT YOU KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT PROFILING IS BAD AND MUSLIMS ARE INNOCENT VICTIMS. You keep doing that while they attack other people around the world or genocide entire populations like they have done throughout history. The only difference is that the populations that were slaughtered by muslims in the past at least had the courage to fight back and recognize the enemy. YOU ARE TOO SCARED TO EVEN ADMIT THE TRUTH. That is why .... YOU ARE LIVING ON BORROWED TIME AND THE MUSLIMS NOW OWN ALL THE CLOCKS. Stupid liberal European idiots. History has taught you nothing. Peace can never be made with Islamic people who have for centuries proven that the best thing they are good at is exterminating people just as stupid and defenseless as you. Suckers. STUPID IDIOT EUROPEAN SUCKERS. Enjoy your future deaths, I will not weep one tear for idiots that do not even You are like deers sitting in the road as a truck comes and strikes you down, the entire time, you are so scared of the headlights that you sit there hoping that you won't die. Rome wasn't built or destroyed in one day and Europe won't be conquered overnight, but with cowards like you advising others to deny the truth and say nothing, you can bet that the chances for the destruction and conquest of Europe by muslim savages is that much better. I piss on you cowardly Europeans with no spines. My European ancestors piss on you. All the suffering and death heading your way is well deserved. All one has to do is look at Africa and see how muslims have slaughtered 37 million African villagers in the past 30 years simply for being non-muslim. The African villagers have an excuse, most of them are uneducated and defenseless. WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE? oh yes.... cowardice and liberalism.
The author of this article asks that people not call him abusive names. But what names are sufficient to do justice to the idiocy that he displays, saying that it is "brave" passively to allow oneself to be victimized by terrorists? The most significant point is his notion of complete Western helplessness. That notion is based on his automatic acceptance of the presence of Muslims in the West. The obvious reality, invisible to all Western liberals, is that if there were no Muslims in the West, there would be no Muslim terrorism in the West. Therefore the only way to end permanently the constant threat and reality of Muslim terrorism is to stop all Muslim immigration and initiate a set of policies leading to the steady outmigration--both forced and voluntary--of Muslims from the West. For more on this, see my article at FrontPage Magazine (you can easily google it) "How to defeat Jihad in America."
to Sebastian: unpolite, but true. Sad that someone has to pull out "honor killings" to argue... Is the hate of West, Jews, christianity, brainwashing people, children (!), aggressive, irrational, inadequate, primitive reactions to caricatures, Pope reactions etc. etc....something less?? Obsession- radical islams war is a must see for all these fools..if they are not able to use their own brain. Sorry for my English.
To say in plain words: nor communism (socialism) nor fascism (less mortal) has been the greatest threat to western values, democracy and freedom. It shows that islamofacsism it is. Communism in second half of 20. century has been dull, incompetent, grey, destroying peoples lives and happiness...but there was a way to get out!..now it starts to be really an ultimate situation.
Tp Bjoern: You are not bad guy, but you are just insane. Try to follow: I am sitting in a plane..with a row of suspisuous looking guys, WITH MY 10YEAR DAUGTER..and I am so BRAVE to show no fear, because..death is a part of life anyway :-). Either you are apart from your family, either you are "brave"..but definitelly you are SELFISH. If you cannot consider your family, please think that there are OTHER FAMILIES, at lest as important as YOU. Thanx.
Sorry to see this thread got so out of hand.
I've been reading Bjørn's stuff for years. He's one of the brightest bloggers around.
Here's some advise for other commentors:
READ the essay on its own merits before you comment.
Then read it again.
Myself, I often need to read it three times, before I reluctantly have to admit that he's got a point. I like to believe that this is not because I'm stupid, but because I'm stubborn.
Unfortunately, I sometimes comment before that third read. Luckily, I did not this time. Unfortunately, most of you did.
Taco,
Great name.
I think the reason Bjorn pissed so many people off is that he just told us we have to live with something we don't want to live with, and implied that we are cowards for being angry and scared.
He has a point, but he is only making his point after making certain assumptions and thus refuses to address the underlying issue. In other words, yes, he is right that if I were to board a plane, the brave thing to do would not be to panic because there is an Arab sitting behind me.
But the point that he isn't getting is that I and millions of others resent being put into this position, especially because it is so damn unnecessary. There is no rational reason for letting Muslims into our countries and putting ourselves at risk for this sort of a thing. Seriously, we gain nothing tangible from multiculturalism; that is why we talk in such nebulous terms about it. We call it "enriching" precisely because we can't point to a single real benefit that comes from it, except maybe a greater variety of restaurants to choose from on a Saturday night. It is an intellectual fad at best. At worst, it is the religion of our decline.
To be really really cynic i have found nothing more enriching with Islam then make love with pretty, understanding and islam hating/ignoring ladies in Marocco during my surf trip..:))
btw i have to recall the words of my beautiful and beloved lady: "Fucking system, fucking religion"... in other means Marocco is one of the most "liberal" countries in Arab world. Anyway, God bless her.
Bjorn is nothing more than one of those MAKE BELIEVE INTELLECTUALS. They sit behind their computer chair and preach their idea of how the world should be. Sure, most people want peace and most people want freedom, but NOT ALL. Idiots like Bjorn simply refuse to believe that there are criminals in the world. Like all cowardly Europeans who are too scared to confront the truth and would rather pretend that people who mass murder people are simply .... MISUNDERSTOOD. Somehow, if you ignore those bomb carrying muslims on your plane, their anger will turn to joy and smiles. They won't kill everyone on board because they sense your love. Bjorn is simply a faulty product of a mother that abused CRACK, METAMPHETAMINES, ALCOHOL, AND TOXIC GLUE FUMES AT THE SAME TIME. By playing "devil's advocate" or trying to understand the other side, he somehow thinks that makes him a better and more understanding person. It doesn't, in fact, it makes him look more like an idiot than anything else. Perhaps Bjorn would care to explain to people of the world why criminals that rape and then murder children should be treated like royalty. People, you have to remember, Bjorn comes from a country where the rape statistics have jumped up nearly 40% in the past decade because of muslim immigration. In Sweden and Norway, there are areas that women are scared for their lives. Who can these beatiful Norwegian and Swedish women rely on to protect them? Piss head cowards like Bjorn who would sit by, WORSE, RUN AWAY, as soon as a girl is being harrassed by a muslim? What ever "intellectual" excuse you come up with to defend this coward, this piss colored chicken hearted European liberal, you can't deny that underneath all the "intellect" lies the heart of a YELLOW BELLIED COWARDLY LIAR. Yes, Bjorn is nothing more than a liar. Is he actually trying to convince anyone that sitting on a plane with muslim terrorists and not doing anything about it is an act of courage? Surely, this COWARD PISS YELLOW NORDIC VAGINA is kidding. What next? When you see a rape, WALK AWAY? Hey Bjorn, how about some of your other rules in life? 1.) When you witness a child is being molested, DON'T TELL ANYONE. WALK AWAY. 2.) When you witness a murder. WALK AWAY AND SAY NOTHING. 3.) When you are on a plane with muslim terrorists. SIT DOWN AND DO NOTHING. Sorry, you already stated that one. 4.) When you see a bank robbery and see the robbers, JUST WALK AWAY AND SAY NOTHING. Pretend like it never happened. Bjorn, what does your name mean anyway? Does it translate to C O W A R D because you sure talk like one. No matter which way you twist your words or the truth, the plain fact of the matter is that all you suggest is that people bury their heads in the sand and ignore the truth while sticking their ass in the air in the hopes that the muslim invaders somehow don't do what they have been doing for centuries, which is SLAUGHTERING INNOCENT PEOPLE AND DESTROYING ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS. When you learn nothing from history, you are bound to repeat it. Looks like Bjorn and his friends want their country to follow in the footsteps of the Byzantine empire. Good luck idiot, your thinking already got you half way there.
THIS IS WHAT BJORN LIVES WITH AND WANTS THE REST OF THE WORLD TO LIVE WITH AS WELL. . . (Note: Updates to this post here: The Norwegian Government - Covering Up Immigrant Rapes and here: Rapes: Nothing to do with Islam?) Numbers released in January 2005 indicate a sharp rise in the number of rape charges in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city: Thomas Anderberg, responsible for statistics at the Malmö Police, says there was a doubling of the number of reported rapes by ambush in 2004, following what was already a decade of steadily increasing numbers of sexual crimes. - I think that’s great news, says Anna Gustafsson, head of the Domestic Violence Unit at the Malmö Police. She suggests that the increase is due to the fact that women who otherwise wouldn’t press charges for rape now choose to contact the police. In other words, Gustafsson claims that we are dealing with a “technical” increase, not a real one. However, national statistics reveal that reported rapes against children have almost doubled in Sweden during the past ten years: According to Swedish Radio on Tuesday, statistics from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention show that the number of reported rapes against children is on the rise. The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes against children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004 compared with 258 in 1995. Legal proceedings continue this week in a case involving a 13 year old girl from Motala who was said to have been subjected to a group rape by four men. (Note: These four men were Kurdish Muslims, who raped the girl for hours and even took photos of doing so) The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5 – 6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower. And it’s not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malmö or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malmö only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Sweden’s major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita among developed countries with income about 6% above the OECD average. By 1997 it was at fifteenth place with an average GDP per capita 14% below average. Malmö has a heavy concentration of Muslim immigrants in particular. According to some estimates, it will be a Muslim majority city
Bjorn,
"... it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip."
If you do not survive, then neither does the open and tolerant society. Your wish for everone to live in freedom and mutual understand is admirable. It truly is, but it's tragically impractical. Islam is relentless and will not be placated. Consider this dialog -- we Westerners are talking to ourselves here and the primary subjects of the conversations (Muslims) are conspicously absent? Why? Because there IS NO dialog with Muslims. With Muslims there can never be anything more than the collision of two monologues.
BJORN STAERK - PROFESSIONAL COWARD SAYS : "I do not believe we can make the threat go away with outside force. Not with police work, not by invading terrorist states, not by solving any social problems, nor by making the world more peaceful and wealthy, and not - certainly not! - by giving them what they want. We can reduce the threat, we can make it difficult for terrorists to succeed, but the threat is not going away. The risk of terrorism will always be there, until they choose to remove it. " In other words, this moron thinks terrorists will stop because they are bored and want to go to night school instead in order to become teachers, social workers, and maybe psychiatrists. Actually Bjorn thinks that these terrorists will open up stores that deliver flowers to handicapped children. Imagine this kind of mentality during the Nazi invasion of Europe. Oops !!!! That kind of mentality already existed in Europe during the Nazi invasion. That is why Hitler just waltzed into parts of Europe with little to no resistance. All Hitler had to do was send troops to countries with cowards just like Bjorn and Nazi victory was guaranteed. I wonder what would make Bjorn think different? The rape of his mother? Probably not. He will most likely ask what his mother did wrong to instigate the rape. The rape of his sister and girlfriend? Probably not. He will tell them that maybe they dressed to indecently. They should not have worn those big coats in the winter that left their faces exposed. His own rape? No, he probably fantasizes about a group of muslim immigrants raping him. European liberals are notorious homosexuals with really sick fantasies. Most of them are child molestors and therefore share common value with Islamic terrorists. After all, 50 year old Mohammed raped Aisha when she was only 9 years old. When he wasn't busy raping little girls that he took as wives, he no doubt also raped little boys as other muslims do today in 3rd world countries. European liberals and Islamics share many common values and it is no wonder that some times they come to each other's defense. Bjorn, I would have loved to meet you in order to punch you in the face, but I was taught not to beat up on the mentally handicapped and will therefore not do it. There is one thing I would do though. I would piss on you on behalf of brave European people in the world. I would piss on you on behalf of all those that suffered from Islamic muslims and dared to fight back. I would piss on you for all those people that you insult by suggesting that they lie down and allow themselves to die in order to be viewed as tolerant of Islam. I would piss on you because obviously, MY EUROPEAN PISS WILL CLEANSE THE MUSLIM SPERM THAT IS ALL OVER YOUR BODY.
Sebastian you are right, but too emotional, i am like this as well sometimes :)). I bet, that you will be accused of "extreme right" (fascist) views and you will be declared as "unable to lead decent, correct:-),inteligent, rational" discussion. I generally agree with you in politics, except that I am not so much "hardcore". Like when you say: "European liberals are notorious homosexuals with really sick fantasies"..not completely my opinion...))Sorry, than you put to your undoubtly true opinions devilish smell of ***fobia ( ***=WHATEVER, homo-,islamo-, xeno-). And thats bad, because even you do not mean it so, you are giving arguments to the dark,filthy side...Cheers and Peace. :) : all- sorry for my English.
:D. Aarneson - I agree 100%ly.
Taco: I have read Bjoerns essay 10times. He is either too young single, mistaken, selfish or ...mentally ill. Sorry.
Theoretical mathematical example for intellectuals: You have 10 of "A"s and 100 of "B"s(= infidels). "A"s want to rule over "B"s, "B" are just passive. "A"s do not reproduce themselves with "B"s, "B"s don´t have any limits to do so... But, this not of much importance anyway. "A"s are reproducing themselves three times faster (at least) as "B"s. And they are "fighting", too. "A"s consider one (self)killed "A" versus murdered "B"s (0-infinity) as a success and they are HAPPY! If one "A" dies, at least ONE another "A" replaces him (through immigration).
Question: If "42" is an IDEA of "B" and "Allahuakbar" is an IDEA of "A"---WHO WILL REMAIN ON THE EARTH? :)
Richard: I find it strange that you claim to have read Bjørns piece 10 times, and still haven't got his point. Why don't you try to argue the article instead of continuously using ad hominem attacks?
Not a single one of your comments contain a single argument about the piece in question - just silly personal attacks.
The only "argument" you present is this:
To Bjoern: You are not bad guy, but you are just insane. Try to follow: I am sitting in a plane..with a row of suspisuous looking guys, WITH MY 10YEAR DAUGTER..and I am so BRAVE to show no fear,
And I'll give you my answer. It's way braver to show no fear and just ignore them - than to act like an idiot and delay the flight just because of you being a nancy - delaying all the other passengers.
If they actually DO something bad - that is not just look scary and speak in a foreign tongue - then you can react. But delaying flights because someone looks scary is cowardly, stupid, racist and DAMN ANNOYING to those of us who wants to reach a connecting flight.
"But delaying flights because someone looks scary is cowardly, stupid, racist and DAMN ANNOYING to those of us who wants to reach a connecting flight."
Rune, we can assume that none of the passengers aboard the planes that were crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon managed to make their connecting flights. Well... at least during preflight they weren't annoyed by a bunch of bleating nancys! Right?
Okay, who knows if there was any early hint of trouble from the terrorists on those planes. But the point is, you think the statistical probability of an Arab on your plane being a terrorist is insignificant and therefore to pay any attention to is nothing but paranoia and/or racism. Which is really only saying, "Odds are MY number won't come up on this flight or any other flight I happen to be on, so it's foolish to make a fuss." The thing is, somebody's unlucky number IS going to come up sooner or later, for a whole planeful of somebodys that is. What should we tell them over the cel phone as their plane is spiraling downwards? That they are a necessary sacrifice to preserve an open and tolerant society?
I think we need to obstain from personal headslaps, particularly those directed at the man who is taking the trouble to manage this forum because it enables a very necessary conversation.
Well... at least during preflight they weren't annoyed by a bunch of bleating nancys! Right?
[macho sarcasm] Damn right! [/macho sarcasm]
But the point is, you think the statistical probability of an Arab on your plane being a terrorist is insignificant and therefore to pay any attention to is nothing but paranoia and/or racism. Which is really only saying, "Odds are MY number won't come up on this flight or any other flight I happen to be on, so it's foolish to make a fuss." The thing is, somebody's unlucky number IS going to come up sooner or later, for a whole planeful of somebodys that is.
From my point of view it's pretty damn simple. The chance of me dying because of terrorists taking over an airplane is smaller than the chance of me dying while driving a car to work.
Yes, someones unlucky number WILL come up sooner or later. Planes will be bombed. Planes will be hijacked. Planes will be shot down by missiles. All those things will happen in the future, as well as in the past. Planes are still a damned safe and convenient way to travel. It's safer than travelling by car. Faster too - unless the security checks get too time consuming and stringent - and unless a bunch of wackos are going to cry "bwhaha. I'm afraid. That guys LOOKS like a terrorist" every other flight.
I do however think that the "planes are bombs" incident of 9/11 are a thing of the past. 9/11 will be remembered - by passengers refusing to be hijacked - and by pilots refusing to let the airplane fall into enemy hands.
Let's continue this "what will happen" thing. Not only will planes be bombed, but so will busses. So will tube trains/stations. So will boats. Cars. Ambulances. Police cars. Fire trucks. You name it - it'll be abused. We should try to prevent it - but not by creating all sorts of paranoid security checks.
"The chance of me dying..."
Yes, that's exactly what it's not about -- you alone. Your risk assessment of this problem is skewed because you're looking at your own odds, not the collective risk. It's that western cowboy thing -- jus' me an my horse.
If we relax security (or I should say, fail to tighten it) then it's true that most likely you'll be fine and will have a smoother time getting from here to there, but MORE people will die. It's just that it will most likely be people you don't know and love.
All of you Europeans that side with muslims talk so logical, so calm, so peaceful, so correct. When you are behind a keyboard and just have a computer monitor in front of you, that is when you are the most intelligent and logical person on the planet. But when the time comes and you are actually sitting in a plane seat when all of a sudden a few muslims slit the throats of your fellow passengers, I am willing to bet that every single word you ever typed about being fair to muslims and not judging them will be forgotten in less than one millisecond. Right before your plane crashes and you are about to die, you will become "enlightened" . All the stupidity you ever typed about being morally superior to those Americans will suddenly ONLY WHEN YOU ARE ON THE PATH TO DEATH WILL SOME OF YOU SEE THAT YOUR IGNORANCE ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS WAS ALWAYS WRONG. Only when your children are murdered. Only when your families are butchered.... Only when your rights are gone and you have to obey Sha-Ria Law. Until then, you will continue to live like blindmen lost in the desert. You will continue to underestimate the enemy. Basically, either you or a loved one needs to die in order for you to understand. I don't woory too much, You will forget that your sworn enemy has been mass murdering people long before you ever rxisted. The way things are going in Europe....
Dear Sebastian, Not that long ago houses were raided where I walk the dog, because the police had suspicions of terror plans. An extremist group, which had members in my neighborhood, was allegedly planning to kill several Belgian political figures, including far right wing super star Filip Dewinter. The goal, once again - allegedly, was to provoke a civil war, a war these people wanted to use to their own means: grasping power and declaring an independent state "free of gays [...]". Have the police been raiding in your neighborhood lately? Of course, the terror suspects in the case mentioned above weren't Muslims. They were neo-Nazis. A couple of months ago a young man went nuts in central Antwerp. An African woman was looking after a Flemish two-year old girl. They both got killed. A Turkish woman reading a book was shot because she wore a headscarf. Was a robbery behind it? A family dispute? An honorary killing? No. Was it totally at random? No. The 18 year old shooter wanted to kill as many foreigners as possible. That was his goal. Where did he get his ideas from? God knows. But it would not surprise if it was from "True Europeans" like you. The way things are going in Europe, indeed. I'll let you know this, Sebastian: if it ever comes to a civil war of the kind the neo-Nazi group wanted, and the "European" side is made up of people like you; I'll take my chances with the Muslims. I'd rather fight with the Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa than with the SS. Kind regards, Øyvind
I'd like to propose the most ambitious engineering project of all time -- We put a huge plastic bubble over the the Middle East and surrounding Muslim countries. Then we set off thousands of hydrogen bombs miles underground all around the perimiter to crack the entire land mass free of the tectonic plates. Finally, we put some huge oil-fired rocket engines on the underside the crust and blast the whole fricken region into outer space. Salaam, salaaam.
The world would be a substantially saner and safer place.
: Mr Aeeneson: I have less ambitius "plan": 1) Dear fellow citizens of Europe of Arab/muslim origin please respect that will respect you only if you respect our home culture. It means, that your conflict "freedom" (to have shareea, honor killings,..) will be limited first. We are all europeans, we all have to respect majority=christian values. We refuse "multiculti" society which shows to be a highway to hell. 2) If you do not respect our values please move whereever you want. You are free to move, you can take all your possesion, your family members which are loayal to our culture will not be discriminated in any way . 3) If you support terrorists then point 2) applies. If we do not hear your voices against them - you are suspicous and you are on the way to the point 2)...:-)) i do no want this to be controlled..at the moment )) 4) If you openly speak against our constitution then point 2) applies. 5) If your choice is hypocricy (speaking and acting different) then again point 2) applies. 6) If all does not help then we have to built the WALL (whatever you imagine under this term). 7) My personal opinion: Western World, try get rid off oil dependancy as fast as possible. Any other idea with bombs and oil-fired rockets? :-D
To Run Kristian Viken:
"From my point of view it's pretty damn simple. The chance of me dying because of terrorists taking over an airplane is smaller than the chance of me dying while driving a car to work."
Think again, try to think. Flight 93, jumping down from 2 Towers...do you really think you can compare this to - potentially yours -car accident? You can´t be serious. You really think it is the same - because it end with "death" , with the end of your physical life?? You are mixing death and DEATH - only concerned on your own poor life. How pathetic and unreasonable. Try to understand, I am not able to describe your wrong way of thinking any more.
After reading most of the comments pro and con Bjorn's position, Your comment Oyvind, Mechelen is the one that needs commenting on the most.. It isn't one or the other: Moslem or Nazi. It isn't between fascists--Nazi and/or Islamic-- or accepting-your-fate (fatalistic, "allah wills it") Europeans ready to leave it all to the Moslems. What is wrong with preserving your own culture? It wasn't so bad, what we all came up with after going from "Voelkerwanderungen" through dark ages, a flowering of religious art and intellectual enlightenment to having countries more or less democratic. That wasn't so bad, was it? Now you want to thow it all away, accept what the Islamics are foisting on you: theocracy, dictatorship of the long-dead Mohammed via his koran that came directly(through Gabriel, archangel that is) from the lips of allah.
Because you are telling yourselves, "Its either neo-Nazis or Moslems, so I'll go with what appears to be the lesser of two evils, the Moslems," you are in a quandary Don't give up so easily Europeans, especially you Scandinavians. How could the blood of fierce Vikings have turned to water? How could the people of the long ships with dragon bowsprits have turned into Islam-accomodating milk-toasts? Your Vikings molded Russia from the indeterminate mass it was before. Your ancestors served as mercenary protectors to the Byzantines. From you sprang the Normans who mixed with Anglo-Saxons and Celts and descendants of Danish and other Norse raiders gave us an England that was the fount of literature, art, and science.
There unfortunately will always be the xenophic fanatics who want to go after anything that looks "foreign." That is not the way to do it. We do not want to go and hurt or kill people of another culture just because they are not "like us." We do not hate people, but we do hate the idea of becoming slaves of Islam--eithert by conversion or by dhimmitude. So what to do?
Stop the stupid "asylum-giving" to anybody that wants to get on the dole in your "paradises-on-earth. That is the closest to paradise there exists: you do not have to work, the more children your women pop out, the more benefits you get, so you can spend all your time doing what you have to to make more babies with however many wives or "temporary" wives you may have. Not a bad deal. I mean, it looks tempting . . . So, stop it! These people aren't escaping from persecutors in their Islamic hell-holes. They want to get a piece of the cake--before they take it all. Under Islamic rule, you people--unless you convert--will be the ones paying the taxes, and so the dole will go on and on. Oh Vikings, where have you gone?
You feel guity for being "Aryans?" I don't mean the Nazi type of Aryan (that was nothing more than the anti-Jew). Don't let anybody play on your imagined guilt--be it for colonialism, not standing up to the German Nazis sufficiently, whatever. You owe the Moslems nothing. Preserve Western culture. Don't give up without a fight. No indiscrimate killing of Moslems in the streets, though, please. That is not the way to do it. Keep 'em out and kick 'em out if they won't become Swedes,Danes, Norwegians, etc. If they are loyal to Mecca and not to countries that gave them asylum, kick 'em back to wherever the came from.
I know we aren't doing that here yet, but that is because the government is light years behind what the people feel. It takes a while for the government to be changed to reflect the feelings of the American people. All legal, elections, pressure on elected officials and representatives, Senators, etc.,and all that good stuff. Corporations control the government here? Then economic pressure can be applied on these. This is not the forum to discuss that, what with the oil companies etc. having us by the cojones.
The point is, I reiterate, the choice is not between Nazi or Moslem, it is between Nazi/Moslem or your own culture--democratic, free-thinking and art-encouraging.
There are two, no three more comments that need commenting on. One is D. Aarnesons proposal of what should be our (Man's) next venture into space. I am such a non-politically-correct creature, I like that engineering challenge D. Aaarneson proposes (and don't think that I can't hear you saying behind my back "You would, you non-humanitarian." [or most probably "You Moslem-hating son-of-a-bitch."])
The second comment that I want to comment on is that of the delightful Richard the Czech surfer's tale of Moroccan womanhood. The feeling about the government and the (pseudo) religion (it's a politcal ideology, Silly-Billy) is one that will save those living under Islam and via them the rest of us (we can hope, can't we?). I also like the way you explain complicated mathematics to us who are somewhat dense, Richard, Czech rep.
And Sebastian, you truly are (or should be) the TRUE EUROPEAN. You got the brains and the guts needed to "Stop the Insanity!" that is Europe becoming Eurabia. So, stop it already Europeans.
Lesli White.
You´ve hit the point perfectly.
It is not about ISLAM against NAZI/COMMIE, it is just ISLAM/NAZI against WEST. Hope/believe that ISLAM/DEMOCRATIC exists, being sure that ARABIC/DEMOCRATIC exists. NAZI/COMMIE/WEST is of course problem as well, nowadays very exxagerated, minor, being misused against the REAL problem. However i HATE these stupid creatures (fascists and COMMUNISTS), I say: FUCK OFF you ALL trying to parasite on this issue.
: Lesli
consider this lady mentioned has had a face and body of Halle Berry)), god bless her..
However few corrections /hopefully consistent/: NAZI/WEST problem is slightly exxagerated, COMMIE/WEST problem completely underestimated,..ok, this is WEST, now EU. I want to say, that extreme right as well as extreme left is a sort of excuse for "liberals" to ignore raising islamofascist terror.
Then again: I do love people of different race and/or religion. But pls..no brainwashing.
Well said, Lesli.
I'm partly Norwegian myself (from many generations back) and it leaves a hole in me to think that the bold spirit that I used to take some ancestral pride in is... what HAS happened to it anyway? Has it been domesticated by socialism?
It looks like there won't even BE a Norway that is predominantly Norwegian within a century or less. Maybe we should carve another one out of the Pacific Northwest. We've got the evergreens, the fjords, and the blondes.
I'll let you know this, Sebastian: if it ever comes to a civil war of the kind the neo-Nazi group wanted, and the "European" side is made up of people like you; I'll take my chances with the Muslims. I'd rather fight with the Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa than with the SS. Kind regards, Øyvind DEAR IDIOT Øyvind, Mechelen A few white Eurpean morons that shot a few immigrants does not mean the entire European culture is crazy. So far, you have already judged me without even reading what I have written. Why should I even bother to explain it any further. Most likely you are one of those "immigrants" yourself. Either that or you are wrapped up in that stupid anglo-saxon guilt that tells you it is allright that a 60 year old muslim man rapes your 5 year old daughter because your ancestor commited some suppossed crime against his ancestors. People like you will never get it... Actually... I correct myself. PEOPLE LIKE WILL GET IT. IN FACT, WHAT YOU WILL GET WILL BE A RAZOR TO YOUR THROAT BY THE VERY MUSLIM CRIMINALS YOU DEFEND. By the way, CALLING ME A NAZI SIMPLY BECAUSE I WANT A EUROPE FREE OF RADICAL MUSLIMS WHICH ARE THE SCOURGE OF THE WORLD DOES NOT MAKE ME A NAZI. To refresh your memory, Øyvind, Mechelen, YOU PROFESSIONAL IDIOT : . . . In Thailand, Martians DID NOT SLAUGHTER Buddhist monks and slit their throats, INVADING ISLAMIC MUSLIMS AND ASIAN MUSLIM RECRIUTS DID. In America, it wasn't ancient Romans that slaughtered nearly 4,000 American citizens on September 11th. IT WAS SAUDI ARABIAN MUSLIMS. In Bali, it wasn't Bill Gates the murdered those Australian vacationers, IT WAS MUSLIMS. In Spain, it wasn't Napoleon that planted the bombs on trains that resulted in the deaths of all those train passengers, IT WAS ARAB MUSLIMS. In England, it wasn't the American Indian that killed so many people in the subways or tried to blow up 20 Airplanes, IT WAS ARAB MUSLIM INVADERS. BUT YOU KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT PROFILING IS BAD AND MUSLIMS ARE INNOCENT VICTIMS. You keep doing that while they attack other people around the world or genocide entire populations like they have done throughout history. The only difference is that the populations that were slaughtered by muslims in the past at least had the courage to fight back and recognize the enemy. YOU ARE TOO SCARED TO EVEN ADMIT THE TRUTH. That is why .... YOU ARE LIVING ON BORROWED TIME AND THE MUSLIMS NOW OWN ALL THE CLOCKS. Stupid liberal European idiots. History has taught you nothing.
http://www.oyvindstrommen.be/ MUSLIM OWNED EUROPEAN SITE. LEARN HOW TO BE A MUSLIM SLAVE. Read the garbage in that site. It makes MILLIONS of excuses for muslims and describes a history where muslims are practically angels while every other culture in the world is an evil one. I love this line : "So spare me all talk of what Muslim countries did in the Middle Ages. Shut up about the history of “dhimmitude.” We, my ancestors and countrymen, my forebears and confreres in “Western Civilization,” could show those Caliphs a thing or two about Jew-hatred. Indeed we have. Some of the “dress code legends” defenders have gone so far as to claim that the Nazis got the idea of special identifiers for Jews from the Muslim world. But European countries - the ones that permitted Jews at all - have a contemporaneous history of dressing Jews funny. The Nazis needed to look no further than the history of their own cities. This is not to say that religious minorities don’t suffer persecution in contemporary Muslim societies. It’s not to say that the contemporary Arab and Muslim obsession with Israel is benign or reasonable. It’s not even to say that that obsession has not led to a generalized antisemitism among many Muslims. They do. It’s not. It has. But the reference to “dhimmitude” is an attempt to inflate real, concrete contemporary problems into something deeper and less tractable." THIS ASSHOLE IS A MUSLIM. THIS ASSHOLE MAKES EXCUSES FOR MUSLIM VIOLENCE AROUND THE WORLD THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAMOPHOBIA OR NEONAZIS. Since when does the killing of Buddhist monks in Thailand have anything to do with NEONAZIS? This asshole is a muslim in denial of current history.
Of course it isn't, Lesli. I know that. But my point remains: If a war is brewing, like I constantly hear, and one said is made up of eloquent Islam-critics like Sebastian above... well, then I'll take my chances with the Muslims. Any day.
And standing of for my culture? That's precisely what I'm doing when I'm speaking out against the new fascism. And it doesn't matter if that racism is Muslim racism or European racism, it doesn't matter if fascism clads itself in the robes of Hizb'allah or in the suits of Vlaams Belang. It doesn't matter, whatsoever.
The Vikings - whom some seem to want the Norwegians of today to copy - were raping, plundering, pillaging and burning monasteries. Norse culture can fortunately not be reduced to the Vikings alone, we were traders and farmers too, not only bandits. And we had the sense to realise, all those years ago:
Mock not the traveller met On the road, Nor maliciously laugh at the guest: Scoff not at guests nor to the gate chase them, But relieve the lonely and wretched,
The sitters in the hall seldom know The kin of the new-comer: The best man is marred by faults, The worst is not without worth.
One side, that is.
Oh, and by the way, if any of you were really interested in knowing what I think we should do to stand up for the socalled Western values, I have written about it: http://www.oyvindstrommen.be/?p=70
You are nothing but muslim garbage yourself. "So called" western values you say? Tell me MOHAMMED "OYVIND MECHELEN" OSAMA BIN ARAFAT HUSSEIN, what values are you interested in? Dhimmi slave child rape? Forced conversions to Islam? Stoning of women? Sha'ria Law? Killing priests and burning churches? How about suicide bombings? Or better yet, how about crashing planes into two towers? No, how about bombing hotels in Bali? I got it, how about planning the bombing of 20 airplanes in Britain?............ You know, all those lovely traits that aren't part of the "so-called" western values today but are STILL VERY MUCH A PART OF MANY MUSLIM COUNTRIES? If you are European, which I doubt, you are nothing more than a garbage can muslim, then you would never mock WESTERN VALUES - the bringers of civilizations, modern medicine, science, art, and many other "so-called" inventions including the computer that a DIRTY MUSLIM LIKE YOU SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED NEAR. Like I typed before, YOU CAN NOT ARGUE WITH THE TRUTH. ISLAM AND MUSLIMS ARE THE SCOURGE OF THE WORLD..................................... They are are attacking Buddhist monks in Thailand. They are attacking school children in Russia and in the Philippines. Muslims HAVE GENOCIDED NEARLY 37 MILLION AFRICANS in the course of nearly 30 years. Tell me, how are NAZIS involved in this in any way? How about those white supremacists that you seem to blame for everything theses days? The simple truth is, YOU ARE A MUSLIM YOURSELF SO BLAMING YOUR KIND IS OUT OF THE QUESTION. However, I give you some credit. YOU DISPLAY A GREAT TAQIYYA SKILL. "Taqiyya" is the muslim tradition of lying to the infidel in order to advance Islam's agenda. You are doing a great job. Continue lying your ass off you GARBAGE CAN MUSLIM. In the meantime, make sure to ignore the next time MUSLIMS BOMB INNOCENT PEOPLE IN INDIA or some other part of the world that has nothing to do with NAZIS, White Supremacists, or any other imaginary villain you create. Screw you and your MORAL REVISIONISM AS WELL AS INCREDIBLE LYING SKILLS. Garbage can muslim.
MUSLIMS KIDNAP, SLAUGHTER, MURDER, RAPE, AND ABDUCT CHILDREN IN RUSSIA, IDIOTS CALLED "OYVIND MECHELEN" BLAME SPACE ALIENS AND NOT CHECHEN MUSLIMS : Thousands of people have been abducted by the war-torn republic's kidnapping machine. Tales of the survivors read like relics from a barbaric past. As awkwardly as a newborn foal struggling on spindly legs, Lena Meshcheryakova is learning how to curl her lips up at the corners to make a smile. Drifting just beneath the surface of her 5-year-old world are the memories of a darker place: the cellar in Chechnya where she was held prisoner by kidnappers for nine months. When she was freed at age 3, she had forgotten how to smile. She could barely even speak. But she knew how to pray like the devout Muslim Chechen men who had imprisoned her. The words she kept shouting out were "Allahu akbar!" (God is great!) Lena, kidnapped from her Russian mother's home in Grozny, the Chechen capital, was a victim of Chechnya's most voracious industry, the trade in hostages and slaves. Thousands of people have been gobbled up by the Chechen kidnapping machine, which has ravaged Russia since 1994. The stories of survivors are like the relics of some wild, half-forgotten era of warlords and lawless barbarism. Victims have been kept in earthen pits or small cells that are often scrawled with the initials of hundreds of earlier captives. They have been used as slaves to dig trenches or build large houses for relatives of the kidnappers. The kidnappers have been known to mutilate their captives, even children, severing their ears or fingers. Gangs have sent videotaped recordings of mutilations and beheadings to relatives to terrify them into finding the ransom. Russian authorities have used the gruesome videos to feed anti-Chechen sentiment and boost public support for Moscow's latest war in the separatist republic. When the kidnapping industry reached its peak a few years ago, there was even a relatively open "slave market" in Grozny, near Minutka Square, where the names and details of human livestock circulated on lists for interested buyers. Gangs often traded hostages or stole them from one another. In the years between Russia's first war in Chechnya, from 1994 to 1996, and Moscow's launch of a new war against Chechen rebels last fall, kidnapping was one of the biggest sources of enrichment for criminal gangs in an economy that had little else to offer but oil theft, arms trade, counterfeiting and drug smuggling. The highly organized gangs hunted for victims among the wealthy clans from Chechnya and neighbouring republics in southern Russia. Foreigners and Russian television journalists were in high demand. There were even professional go-betweens who took a commission on ransom deals, visited victims in their cells and dictated the despairing letters that captives sent to relatives pleading for the ransom to be paid. Nearly a thousand hostages are still being held or are dead, according to Russian Interior Ministry figures. Most of the victims were kidnapped in Chechnya or nearby. But dozens of people were seized in Moscow and other cities and travelled under guard to Chechnya in trucks with hidden cells, buried under potatoes or furniture.
Piecing Together a Child's Lost Months In her new hometown of Prokhladny, near Nalchik in southern Russia, Lena Meshcheryakova is rediscovering a childhood world of smiling suns painted on kindergarten doors, posters with cotton ball sheep and lunchtime milk ladled from an enamel pail. Her mother, Tatyana, 44, is gradually putting together the jagged puzzle of what happened to Lena in the lost nine months of her captivity. Back in her Grozny neighbourhood, Tatyana Meshcheryakova, a kindergarten director, was resented as a Russian woman teaching the children of Chechens. She thinks that her family was a target for Chechen extremists because of it. At 5:30 a.m. on Oct. 9, 1998, she awoke to the sounds of the neighbourhood dogs barking. Then four armed men were in her room. They took away her child and a pair of inexpensive gold earrings. The initial ransom, $15,000, might as well have been a million dollars for a woman who hadn't been paid in four years. Nine months later, it had fallen to $1,000, and neighbours, colleagues and friends helped scrape together the money to buy her child's life. Before Meshcheryakova was reunited with Lena, doctors warned her to show no emotion and to get no closer than a handshake, in case of infection. "But I decided to hug her, and when I did she was just skin and bone," Meshcheryakova says. The child had lost all her hair. "She was a pitiful sight, all covered in scabies, her skin hanging loose. She had deep bedsores and could barely move. She weighed 9 kilograms [20 pounds] at 3 years of age." Lena couldn't tell her mother the story. It finally emerged in painful scraps. She spoke of people named Ruslan and Shamil, who carried machine guns, and a bad-tempered woman called Larisa. Lena's ear was ripped, and she had a deep scar on her finger. "Larisa hit me with a knife for losing a slipper," Lena explained to her mother. She was terrified of people in camouflage and burst into tears whenever she saw a cellar. When her mother asked why she was always sitting with hands behind her back, Lena told her she was wearing handcuffs. She would greedily pounce on any crumbs that fell to the floor and lick the last tiny scrap from her plate. Russian Soldiers See a Cause to Fight For The kidnapping industry reached its crescendo in the lawless chaos after Russia was defeated in the first Chechen war. The kidnappings gave Russian soldiers a cause to fight for - which they lacked in the first war - and made it easy for them to hate all Chechens. Despite the fact that Russia has captured most Chechen territory, there were still 73 kidnappings in southern Russia near Chechnya in the first half of this year.
MUSLIMS MURDER AND KIDNAP LITTLE CHILDREN IN RUSIA EVERY DAY. They can not find work because they refuse to work. Muslims in most countries DO NOT WANT TO WORK. They want welfare and money handed to them so that they can create more cockroaches just like them. Then, they have to teach their cockroach children how to kill. Suicide bombing is one method, but the best method is to abduct and behead other innocent people. Another popular method is of course TERRORISM. Bombings, improvised explosives, and anything that can catch fire. France's riots in 300+ cities where muslims burned everything to the ground is another example. THE BEST THING ABOUT ALL OF THESE EXAMPLES IS THAT THERE ARE NO "WHITE SUPREMACISTS" INVOLVED AT ALL. Muslims are committing these crimes because they are doing what they do best : DESTROYING EVERYTHING IN THEIR PATH. ******Isn’t it odd that the very Muslims who claim the Islamic terrorists can't be Muslim because they kill Muslims never seem to be all that interested in supporting the effort to stop them?***** SOME INTERESTING FACTS : 1.) More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. 2.) More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. 3.) Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years 4.) 19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals put to death in the last 65 years. MUSLIMS MURDER PEOPLE. IT IS THEIR JOB, IT IS THEIR RELIGION. IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. THEY KILL CHINESE, JAPANESE, WHITE, BLACK, HISPANIC, AND OF COURSE OTHER MUSLIMS. The religion of peace.... MY ASS IT IS!!!
It's all about Iraq, isn't it? Yep, it's all about Iraq and... India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and... ...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Qur'an, Sura 9:29
GARBAGE MUSLIMS INFEST ENGLAND AND ATTACK CITIZENS : A PETROL bomb launched at a Muslim-owned dairy on Wednesday night may have been in retribution for alleged attacks on three residents involving pitchforks and lead pipes. Since Monday, violence involving Asians and white youths has raged on the streets of Dedworth in Windsor, with Medina Dairy at the epicentre. On Wednesday night, at least 30 police officers manned streets surrounding the premises of the dairy in Shirley Avenue, Dedworth, as the feud escalated surrounding the dairy and its prayer room. At 10.30pm an Asian man who had been praying in the dairy's Technor House, said: "A scooter drove past earlier in the night and threw a petrol bomb at the dairy. It exploded on the wall. "After that a car drove past three times and the last time he wound down the window and said he would be back with a gun." Story continues ADVERTISEMENT Riot vans, police horses and plain-clothed officers stood their ground, waiting for further attacks. Scores of white teenagers lined the streets while members of the staff from the dairy stood guard outside the property. Chief Inspector, Jim Templer, deputy commander for Windsor and Maidenhead said: "I would like to reassure residents of Dedworth that we know this behaviour has a serious impact on the wider community." The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) was also present and police reinforcements were called in from Oxford, High Wycombe and Milton Keynes. The forensic unit of the police also discovered a suspected petrol bomb and cordoned of part of Hanover Way, opposite Shirley Avenue at 9.45pm. Fighting started on Monday night outside the dairy resulting in a 46-year-old mother of two alleging she was beaten with a lead pipe. The woman's daughter allegedly had her car smashed by what she told Express was gang of young adults, allegedly from Medina Dairy. The woman, a secretary from Dedworth who did not want to be named, had gone to check on her 15-year-old son after he had been involved in a previous altercation with men at the dairy. She said: "Before I had chance to think, there were 20 men coming from the Islamic centre, charging at me and my daughter with pitchforks, baseball bats, lead pipes and blow-torches. One of them hit me on the back of the legs with a lead pipe. "I told my daughter 'we have to get out of here otherwise we are going to die'." Then the ganag allegedly turned on a car now known to belong to the daughter and used pitchforks and other weapons, including a grease gun she later handed to the Express, to smash the car window and body-work. She said: "It was my daughter's car, her pride and joy. They smashed through the windscreen with a pitchfork and then continued to smash the whole car up. "I have not been able to find a reason at all for why they did this. I asked the police why there are weapons kept in a place of worship but they didn't answer me. "These were grown men coming for two small women. We did nothing to incite this. I think it was reverse racism." She added: "As they were attacking us they were all smiling - they were delighted to be hitting me and destroying my daughter's car. I thought they were going to kill us - they were fanatical." The woman say she was unable to clearly identify any of her attackers, claiming the police told her it was not worth reporting. "The men were all wearing similar white clothing and were all shaven-headed, so I couldn't pick anyone out. The police said it would be very difficult to identify anyone, so they may not get anything done." On Tuesday, the violence escalated with gangs of Asian and white teenagers drawing battle lines in the Vale Road road area of Dedworth. That night, a 23-year-old Slough man was arrested on suspicion of common assault. Two 16-year-olds from Windsor were also arrested in connection with carrying offensive weapons. There are accusations that members of staff from Medina Dairy have been intimidating people as they cut through Shirley Avenue from the recreation ground next to St Edward's Royal Free Ecumenical Middle School. Lorna Habgood, a mother of two, from Dedworth said: "The security guards from the dairy are aggressive and abusive to mums collecting their kids from school. They won't let anyone down Shirley avenue because they say it's their land." Argument has raged for more than two years over the dairy's use of Shirley Avenue - a public road - which residents say is often blocked by the dairy's workers and lorries. Further anger has erupted over Medina Dairy's application for an 'Islamic education and community centre' in one of their buildings in Shirley Avenue. Now it seems outrage has hit boiling point with the property already being used as a prayer room without hearing the outcome of the application to use it as one. Linda Bund, from Vale Road, owner of Take a Break cafe on Dedworth Road said : "I am not opposed to anyone learning or practicing religion, but using premises off Vale Road causes chaos. "It's all very well having a disagreement over planning issues but attacking women and intimidating people is not on, it's disgusting. We are not prejudice at all in my family but it is outrageous and I don't like the bad feeling it's creating." Cynthia Endacott, (Clewer north: West Windsor Residents' Association) said: "They do not have permission to use that building as a prayer room. The police have done nothing and the council have done nothing either. "I am very concerned about there being a permanent prayer room. It is a residential area and I would not be in favour of any sort of place of wor-ship in such a place." Sardar Hussain, managing director of Medina Dairy, claimed it was his security guard who was initially attacked and said: "I want to work co-operatively with the West Windsor Association. I wish to be more involved in the community here in West Windsor if given the opportunity. "I have friends and colleagues of many religions. I am a strong believer that people of all religions should try to co-operate and play their part in communal life." Slough MP, Fiona Mactaggart said: "At any time Islamophobic attacks are unacceptable. In this holy month of Ramadan it is particularly distressing for the Muslim community to be victims of hatred. "I am determined that all other commmunities in this area should stand by them. "I have contacted the local police to ask them to make tackling the dangerous violence and anti-social behaviour a top priority." GARBAGE MUSLIMS PRETEND THAT THEY ARE THE VICTIM. THE TRUTH IS THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS THE CRIMINALS. ALWAYS THE CRIMINALS!! EVERYWHERE THEY GO. CRIME AND ISLAM - ONE AND THE SAME.
Øyvind,
"...Scoff not at guests nor to the gate chase them..." The Havamal also says that guests should be quiet, courteous and respectful. But what you have sitting in your hall, taking up more and more seats, are not "guests", but permanent residents who are never going away. And they intent ultimately to subdue or evict you and convert your hall to a mosque. Party's over at that point.
More to Øyvind,
I went to your site and waded through much of what is translated to English there, but never did find what you "think we should do to stand up for the socalled Western values." It's mostly a long critique of neo-fascism, except "Today's issues need to be discussed from today's situation," which basically goes on to say that we should not judge Muslims by looking at their history. My only reply to that would be that you don't need any historical perspective whatsoever in order to view Islam with trepidation.
An overall comment on your blog and as it relates to this discussion is this -- If you insist on thinking that the biological imperative to preserve and protect your own house is "fascism" and equate it with the rants of nutcases who want nothing but to dominate other people, or, that being proactive and forward-looking in defending your culture makes you a Viking marauder, then your social democratic society as a whole needs to have a big group therapy session to get in touch with its "inner man." Islam is, if nothing else, a virile force, and it's going to bugger you if you stay bent over with your head in the sand.
The evil Islamist must be made to leave Britain. If not they must be shot or put in concentration camps.
Bjørn: Better luck with Islamdebattog.bearstrong.net/ v3.0.
Should be:
Bjørn: Better luck with Islamdebatt v3.0.
Sebastian:
I think it would be beneficial if you read what I mean by "socalled" before you respond to it. At least the mister from Oregon had the sobriety to check out my blog, and I'll also commend him for knowing more about Håvamål than most of those who abuse my cultural heritage.
Anyway, I'll give you a friendly hint. It's the word "Western" in the "Western values" that is socalled, not the word "values". That means I'll stand up to whoever threathens those values, regardless of whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims, Westerners or non-Westerners. And that, my dear true European, means I'll stand up to you and a whole bunch of other "true Europeans", too.
Aarneson:
If that's what you've read out of my blog, I'll be arrogant enough to pick out a quote for you. Maybe that can make my opinions on both fascism and other things a tad clearer. If not I'll try to be clearer next time around, I promise (and if you take some Norwegian lessons that might help too): While it is doubtlessly true that one problem of today’s political life is the reluctance to identify fascism as what it is, another and maybe more important problem is that the other political parties have given the far right something close to a monopoly in addressing some central issues. Perhaps the monopoly has resulted in a situation where it is difficult to express scepticism towards Islam or worry about ghettofication or concern for women’s rights amongst immigrant groups without stealing the words, the slogans, and even the very ideas of extremists?
Bjørn:
Taco has a point. It might be time for another bug fix.
Øyvind: Taco has a point. It might be time for another bug fix.
Hey, I'm still waiting for someone to install the 2.0 upgrade. Not sure why they hesitate. I fixed several major memory leaks, redesigned the decision algorithms, and replaced the 2-bit 320x240 graphics engine with high resolution true color. What more do they want? Wizards? Should I add wizards, is that it? Or 3D, maybe? Multiplayer support?!
Oyvind, You are worse than the worst muslim radical. You are their mouthpiece. Their tool. Their support. THEIR PROFESSIONAL LIAR. Islam and the modern word are COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE. They have been for hundreds of years. You refuse to accept the truth. Worse, you refuse to learn from history. When you look around the world and see so many conflicts that always have muslims against some other nationality, don't you ever ask yourself, "Something is wrong here, why are muslims killing so many people around the world. This is getting out of hand. Why isn't Islam that peaceful religion that my friends are telling me it is?" You say that if there ever was a conflict that you would side with the muslims? Really. Would you side with the muslims in the Thailand conflicts? How about in the Philippines? How about in Britain? How about in Spain? or how about in Russia? OYVIND, PROFESSIONAL IDIOT AND DUMBER THAN ANY DUMB MORON. IS EVERYONE GUILTY IN THE WORLD AND MUSLIMS ARE JUST ALL INNOCENT VICTIMS? Sure looks like it from your perspective.
Oyvind,
I'll agree with you that it is difficult to voice a _relatively_ moderate opinion without blending in with the shouting of extremists, in blogspace or on the street or in any other forum. Unfortunately, that obscures the issue. I made a joke about blasting the muslim world into space and I regret that because this needs serious attention.
There is so much value in what has evolved in the nordic countries up to today. It would be a shame to lose it to either extreme. In my opinion, you're tilting too far toward accommodation of a force that does not share your social democratic values at all and will work to undermine them. And they will succeed in the end, based on demographic trends alone. But they are already starting to win because you simply don't see the long-term threat.
BTW: Learning to read Norwegian would be great, I think it might be more profitable to learn Mandarin in this century, though.
D. Aarneson:
Indeed it might. Norwegian is maybe a tad easier, though - for an English speaker, that is.
In some ways, D., demography is the art of the devil. I mean numbers can tell us everything, and yet it does not tell us anything at all. One of the problems of demography is that it often takes a current trend and continues it into the future, well, it's hard to do estimates on the future. Another thing it does not tell us is who these people are.
In Belgium there was just elections. Flanders did, just barely, not get its first mayor of Turkish decent. He lost, in fact, because the Turks instead of voting for his socialist SPA voted for the Catholic Democratic party CD&V. He lost his backyard, so to say. Those results illustrate a number of points.
Myself, I live in a city full of socalled second and third generation immigrants, of Muslim background. And I'm not worried about that. Most of them are more Flemish than I will ever be.
So then I worry about extremism instead; and extremism comes in many shades, and many forms. When 30% of the people in Antwerp vote for a party which was founded by holocaust revisionists and has genuine fascists in its midst... that worries me. If that worry makes me stupid, well, then I'll take the chances not only with Muslims, but with stupid too. But in fact, I think we need to confront the conservatism of Muslim groups first and foremost: because that's were we find the suppression of women, the gaybashing, the suspicion towards non-Muslims, etc. And in some, but not all, ways... that's also were we find the roots for the Islamist rebellion.
I have to add that I though illiteracy was more common in the Muslim world than in the West, one of many problems we'll have to face. But, if there's an exception to the rule he's called Seb, as he's still not able to read what I have written.
Bjørn:
What about WYSIWYG? Nah... that sounds more like version 1.0. to me.
Seb:
"Really. Would you side with the muslims in the Thailand conflicts? How about in the Philippines? How about in Britain? How about in Spain? or how about in Russia?"
Yeah. How about it?
I think it all comes down to which Muslims you are referring to. And, for that matter, which Spaniards, which Brits, which Russians? As Naser Khader says, the world isn't black and white. That's why I think ID v.3.0 might need to use insects as a model for its 3D machine vision. Also, that would be one hell of a bug fix.
Oh Oyvind I am so sorry that I cannot type your special O......... "I think it all comes down to which Muslims you are referring to" ..totally agree..there are always some nice Muslims...btw- have you studied "logic" someway? What you are saying is true, but irrelevant.
Øyvind,
Things I've read tell me the Muslim presence in Belgium is causing tremendous friction and not everyone there is as sanguine about the sitation as you are.
What I don't understand is why anyone would volunteer for such problems. Why wish it on your children and grandchildren when there is absolutely no need? Why take one of the most significant flowerings of human culture ever to have appeared and deliberately seed it with weeds and thorns? You quoted the Havamal and obviously have reverence for your past. What about some respect for your future, as a people? You don't seem to think that preserving the integrity of the heritage given to you for future generations is worth very much. You're creating a Norway that will not be for Norwegians.
Sola falmer inn i vest
D. Aarneson: I live in one of the Flemish cities with the highest immigrant population, mainly people of Moroccan (Berber) background. When I moved there, a Moroccan guy living in Molenbeek, a ghetto reputed for being both crime-infested and a breeding ground for extremists, warned me against Mechelen. I have not had a single negative experience, with the exception of some kids smashing the left mirror of my wifes car at night, which doubtlessly can be but in connection with a nearby park where youngsters frequently gather, drinking beer. When I speak to other people in the city, it turns out they tell me the same thing. In short, I would not believe everything I read. It might be influenced by the agenda of whoever writes. That said, yes, there are frictions. Some of them are quite typical, historically speaking. There were frictions surrounding the Italians in Belgium, the Flemish in Wallonia, the Irish in Britain and the Norwegians in the United States, too. Some of the problems are results of a lacking integration, where the Americans have been more successful than Europeans for number of reasons. Some of them are results of racism, and racism goes both ways. There are numerous factors in play, and I could write a book about the many different factors involved. Yet, when I see the problems, I would have to be blind not to notice one thing: Muslims and people of a Muslim background are often my allies in the fight against them. Quite a few Flemish are not. The integrity of my heritage, D. Aarneson? The favourite wife of Harold the Fairhaired, the king who gathered Norway, was of non-Norwegian heritage. She was Sami. Snorre Sturlason, the famous Norse (Icelandic) sagawriter wrote warmly on Asia, and spoke of Odin as an Asian chieftain. Henrik Wergeland, one of the most well-known and well-respected Norwegian writes, fought for the right of Jews to come to Norway (the Norwegian Constitution banned access for Jews until the 1850s, and access for Jesuites until the 1950s), and declared himself to be "a true believer in Allah". Bergen, which is "my" city, has a dialect rich with Dutch and German words, and placenames like "the German Docks", "The Scottish Street", "The Dutch Street". In a Church in Gudbrandsdalen there's a painting of God. He looks Chinese. In fact, Norway has always been a country in contact with the rest of the world and Norway has always had its immigrants. And Antwerp... why did Antwerp flourish culturally? To a very large degree it was for one simple reason... because it welcomed immigrants, people that were scorned and hated in most of Europe. You'll still see them in the streets of Antwerp. They still haven't visually integrated. I'm talking, of course, of the Jews. And when you speak of weeds and thorns, I have to ask, "who is that?". Is that my friend from the study days, Kadafi? Didn't seem to be much of a thorn to me. Is it the guy who lived next to me in the student apartment building, and who cooked the most delicious dinners? Is it the guy who taught me how to play the accordion? Is it the fruit salesman down the road, or the three guys running a shoarma place and speaking Dutch with a heavy accent showing their obvious connection to... the Netherlands (rather than Flanders?). Is it the ethnic Arab politician running for the Socialist Party, or the ethnic Turk running for the coalition of Christian Democrats and Flemish Nationalists (sic)? Preserving the integrity of my culture? When I oppose the neo-fascists of today's Europe, that's precisely what I do, D. Aarneson. And when I stick up for what I believe in, regardless of whether the people who disagree are Muslim or non-Muslim, European or non-European, when I stick up for what I believe in... that's precisely what I do.
"When I moved there, a Moroccan guy living in Molenbeek, a ghetto reputed for being both crime-infested and a breeding ground for extremists, warned me against Mechelen. I have not had a single negative experience...."
Well this is a bit like Mr. Viken saying earlier that the airlines are safe because the chance of HIM persoally encountering terrorism is acceptably low.
"I would not believe everything I read."
Yes, and not everthing you should be informed about is printed. For example in L.A. a common driver's nightmare is the worry about getting lost on the road and wandering into the wrong area late at night (by that I mean a Latino area). You could be in serious trouble if you make that mistake. And fatal incidents which are clearly a result of this do occur and are seldom reported as such in the big press. How do I know? Because my friend's neighbor is an ex-L.A. sheriff and he says so, and my wife's relatives in L.A. say the same. But like your Muslim friend who warned you against moving into a Muslim area, maybe they don't know what they're talking about and I should dismiss them.
I do not know much about LA, and I try not to discuss American society in every debate I take part in. It's my own little protest against the obsessiveness with the US many Europeans share. Your description of LA, however, leads me to believe that it isn't really Islam that's the problem, like some people insist. As far as I know, there are few Muslims amongst them Guatemalans.
While I know little about LA, I do know a tad about Norway, and I do know a bit about Flanders. From what I do know I can conclude a number of things. First of all, a lot of what I hear and read about Norway and about Flanders is bullshit. Utter nonsense. It is simply not true. It does not fit with the reality I see. But then the question comes: does it fit with data? After all, maybe I'm the blind one?
Let me take one just example. I doubt that you have read this report, but I would not be surprised if you have read others like it. It is, in any case, an illuminating example of why we should not always trust the image we're presented.
The 14. August Vlaams Belang (VB), the Flemish anti-immigrationist and separatist party, published this article on their website. It's an article about people feeling unsafe, and one of the cities mentioned is Mechelen. Mechelen is in fact the worst example. The article also makes a major point of an increase in crime from 2004 to 2005. It's an excellent piece of propaganda work.
But, as it happened, new updated data was released the day after, here in Het Laatste Nieuws. There we read that crime had once again decreased, and that - in fact - there has been a very significant decrease from 2001 on, with the exception of the increase in 2005. Do you think VB mentioned any of this? No, they did not. Of course they did not.
I did however stumble upon this debate between apparent VB-sympathisers. It appears they disbelieve the data. No, that can't be true, they say. The data aren't real. The general rule for a VB sympathiser? If the statistics say there's an increase in crime, there's an increase in crime, if the statistics say there's a decrease in crime, there's an increase in crime, too.
So, does that mean that Mechelen does not have a problem with crime? Of course not. But it does mean that the problem is not getting worse. And that's not only in Mechelen, since 2002 there are fewer armed robberies in Belgium, fewer rapes, fewer handbags, fewer breaking-and-enterings, fewer car thefts, even fewer bicycle thefts (Source: Federal Police). Less crime. If you read the website of Vlaams Belang, our local "true Europeans"... you would've never thought.
D.Aarneson said: "Well this is a bit like Mr. Viken saying earlier that the airlines are safe because the chance of HIM persoally encountering terrorism is acceptably low."
No it is not. Posting circumstancial evidence vs a statistical judgement on risk is two completely unrelated subjects.
Furthermore, the thing is, terrorist attacks will continue. The point of Bjørns article is to point out this - and that we have to deal with our fears. I merely pointed out the idiocy of being afraid of flying and making airplane travel way less dependable, affordable(*) and comfortable - without any real gain when it comes to airplane security.
Fear of flying is irrational. The extreme amounts of security measures now imposed on airplane travel is irrational. Come november and the new EU "security measures" and it'll probably be so unreliable, expensive, slow and non-comfortable that I'll prefer to travel by train.
(*) The extra security measures will have to be paid by someone. Probably the ones travelling by airplanes.
Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values. “You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point. “Rationality is gone.” Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby. His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence. For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.
Well it doesn't sound like anyone here is being moved from their a priori positions. We just go on and on. I'm new to this on-line forum thing, but an arena like this where I take a punch, and then stand and wait while you take a punch, then you wait and I take a punch... that's not the same as a live boxing match with a real outcome. Nothing has any visceral impact. Maybe I'll just go down to the pub and argue with somebody in person.
I have learned that the situation in Norway and in greater Europe is a little more complicated than I knew before. But still feel like many others on this side of the Atlantic who can only look across the pond and wonder why, that Europe (sadly, Norway included) is making a virtue of suicide.
Just my opinion. I hope that it's NOT true. Best of luck in any case. I'll be listening from time to time.
With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam,” Oh Oyvind is married to a muslim ? The reason he is so carefull with his words ? Lianne Duinberke, 34, who works at a market in the racially mixed northern section of Antwerp, said: “Before I was very eager to tell people I was married to a Muslim. Now I hesitate.” She has been with her husband, a Tunisian, for 12 years, and they have three children. Many Europeans, she said, have not been accepting of Muslims, especially since 9/11. On the other hand, she said, Muslims truly are different culturally: No amount of explanation about free speech could convince her husband that the publication of cartoons lampooning Muhammad in a Danish newspaper was in any way justified.
Yeah, that has to be it, no? Smart "New York Times Company". Well, if you'd like to know... no, my wife is not a Muslim.
Yeah, that has to be it, no? Smart "New York Times Company". Well, if you'd like to know... no, my wife is not a Muslim.
A Wake-up Call : Almost all terrorists are Muslims It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims. Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims. Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim. What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement." Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture? These images, when put together or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing. For it would be easy to cure ourselves if we realize the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realization and confession. We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture. Let us listen to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the sheikh – the Qatar-based radical Egyptian cleric – and hear him recite his fatwa about the religious permissibility of killing civilian Americans in Iraq. Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians. This ailing sheikh, in his last days, with two daughters studying in "infidel" Britain, soliciting children to kill innocent civilians. How could this sheikh face the mother of the youthful Nick Berg, who was slaughtered in Iraq because he wanted to build communication towers in that ravished country? How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter? In a different era, we used to consider the extremists, with nationalist or leftist leanings, a menace and a source of corruption because of their adoption of violence as a means of discourse and their involvement in murder as an easy shortcut to their objectives. At that time, the mosque used to be a haven, and the voice of religion used to be that of peace and reconciliation. Religious sermons were warm behests for a moral order and an ethical life. Then came the neo-Muslims. An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry. We can't call those who take schoolchildren as hostages our own. We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image. We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women. We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges.
For a long time the reaction of Muslim community to the depredations of Islamic terrorists had been muted, with the public opinion in Islamic nations generally condoning or even sympathizing, if not actively supporting, the “cause” of such terrorism. Very often Western imperialism, particularly the U.S. domination had been found fault with for justifying acts of terrorism. Osama bin Laden, the archpriest of Al Qaeda terrorism, which brought Islamic terrorism in sharp global focus had been a kind of folk hero in many countries. For instance, bin Laden’s image occupied large graffiti space on the walls of Dhaka. Muslim intellectuals’ response to such acts of terrorism in the past had been pedestrian at best. Invariably they repeated the litany that Islam was a benevolent religion and left it at that without condemning the killing of the innocent. There were glaring examples of such conduct in many cases before and after 9/11. But this attitude appears to be undergoing a subtle change all over the world for sometime now. In India ever since the burning of a coach carrying saffron supporters of the Hindu Right at Godhra railway station and the violent Hindu retribution on Muslims that ensued, appear to have created a cathartic effect on sections of Muslim leadership. They appear to have realized the zero sum game of Islamic terrorism would cause more damage to the Muslim community than others. Increasingly they have been quick to publicly condemn acts of Islamic terrorists in India. Even the recent bomb blasts in Varanasi were quickly denounced as un-Islamic acts by some of the Muslim clerics. This slow change has been noticed not only in India but also all over the world. In the infamous case of the publication of a cartoon ridiculing the Prophet in a Danish newspaper, the reaction of European Muslims was muted till the embers of violence were stoked mass reaction in countries like Pakistan, where Islamic radicals hold sway in many minds. The Organisation of Islamic Countries also passed a comparatively mild resolution condemning the publication of the cartoon. The reaction of Danish Muslims was even more sober. They sent a delegation to Pakistan to moderate the public opinion on this issue. In this context, an article titled “A Wake-up Call: Almost all terrorists are Muslims” written by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel, published recently in the London-based pan-Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat offers interesting insight into this realisation that is coming into the Arab world. [Even now anybody writing such an article in India would be branded as anti-Muslim by the very vocal ‘secularist’ lobby, let alone Muslims]. In many Arab countries glorification of Islamic terrorists had been part of the political rhetoric. It became intricately interwoven with legitimate struggle for rights of Palestines to have their own state. This appeased the guilt feelings, if any, in supporting acts of terrorism as a means to an end. But the vocalisation of contrarian views in Arab media now is perhaps due to the realisation that unless voices are raised against Islamic terrorism, the Muslim community at large would be the losers in the increasingly competitive world. In his article, Abdel Rahman starts with a statement, explosive by Indian secularist standards: “It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.” He goes on to say that the hostage-takers of children in Beslan, and North Ossetia, were Muslims. “The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.” Not only that; he rubs it in saying that those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. Osama bin Laden was a Muslim. “The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.” Calling it a pathetic record and an abominable "achievement" he poses the question whether it tells “anything about our societies, our culture and ourselves?” Calling these images as shameful and degrading, he appeals to the Muslim community to put “an end to a history of denial” He asks Muslims to “acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury, signifying nothing.” According to him “Self-cure starts with self-realization and Confession. We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.” In this context, Abdel Rahman cites the fatwa of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Qatar-based radical Egyptian cleric on permissibility of killing and calling for the murder of civilian Americans in Iraq. Abdel Rahman’ poses the telling question how “this ailing sheikh, in his last days, with two daughters studying in ‘infidel’ Britain,” can solicit children to kill innocent civilians? “How could this sheikh face the mother of the youthful Nick Berg, who was slaughtered in Iraq because he wanted to build communication towers in that ravished country?” The columnist articulates the dilemma of many an ordinary Muslim who abhors killing innocent civilians as much as any Hindu or Christian. His question “How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?” touches upon the core dilemma of modern Muslims in handling religious extremism of the Islamic variety. Abdel Rahman’s call to Muslims is very emotional: “We can't call those who take schoolchildren as hostages our own. We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds.” According to him these were the people who have “smeared Islam and stained its image.” He ends his article with an introspection: “We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women. We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges.” Non-Muslims should nurture and encourage this emerging vocal segment of Muslim intellectuals and opinion makers who are still a minority, to come out boldly against Islamic terrorists and their fellow travellers misusing religious freedom and public places of worship for spreading extremism. It is sad to see saffron politicians trying to cash in on the anguish among Hindus after the Varanasi temple blasts and use it as an election ploy. While public outrage against such despicable acts of violence in the name of religion is understandable, politicising every act of terrorist violence for gaining access to Hindu or Muslim vote banks would only polarise society. This would only strengthen the hands of extremist fringes and terrorists to increase their flock.
In many respects, the 9/11 attacks did not completely change the character of Islamism. It remains primarily local. All Islamists hate the United States, considering it the symbol of all that is evil in the world. But British Jihadists evidently blow up the London Underground instead of traveling to New York and blowing up subway stations; even Iraqi Jihadists, including foreign fighters inspired by anti-Americanism, concentrate more on killing Iraqis of the wrong denomination than on killing Americans. And two possible trends that would have made the attacks even more of a watershed moment did not occur. It was entirely possible for the attacks to scar not the vast majority of Muslims, but a near-unanimous one. In such a case, the focus of Muslim cultural identity in Europe may have been greater integration, despite Europe's uniformly integration-discouraging governmental policies; any radical fringe could have then turned to non-violent direct action. I suspect a big reason this trend did not happen is Bush's virulent response, and governments' not cracking down on subsequent anti-Muslim hate crimes, but it could have also been due to other reasons, such as the lack of a civic tradition in Islam. The other possible trend is massive radicalization. At present, the most biased neoconservatives say that 1% of all Muslims are Jihadists; the American response, combined with overt racism in Western countries, could have easily turned that number to 15%. The clash of civilizations fundamentalists on both sides have been hoping for did not happen, is not happening, and will almost certainly not happen. Even Samuel Huntington's more denouement-based conception of a clash of civilizations has not materialized. So in fact, 9/11 did not change the level of support Jihadi extremism enjoyed among Muslims. Its significance lies in changing the nature of that support, from merely hating the West and being drawn to fundamentalism as a reaction, to admiring and seeking to emulate Bin Laden. In that respect, it really did change everything in the Islamic world, for never before had there been a coherent violent Islamist ideology. Even if that ideology is still based on its believers' cultural isolation and oppression, it is still an ideology that serves as inspiration to many extremists. And certainly, this is an ideology that only rose after the watershed moment of Islamism that was 9/11. Alon Levy alon_levy12@hotmail.com Alon Levy was born and raised in Tel Aviv, Israel, went to college in Singapore, and is now studying mathematics at Columbia's graduate school. He lives in Morningside Heights, Manhattan, and considers it more a home to him than any of the countries he used to live in. When he doesn't try to solve problems in abstract algebra, he blogs about politics and occasionally mathematics at Abstract Nonsense.
Yesterdays news: 99 dead in suicide bombing. Iraqis? Palestinians? Chechens? Al-Qaeda? Nope. Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_carried_out_by_LTTE) Even today, not all terrorists are Muslims.
:Eric - yes and today, not all murders all comitted by norwegians..http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6059564.stm. Hail to your logic, man..)))
:-D - Eric sorry to be fair...when Islam will rule over Norway..no one would care about so called "whales" (probably infidels)- they will be already "annihilated",..like you, my dear fellow.
Anyhow - i would suggest that norweigan "Political Correctness Supervisor Manager" should be invited to this discussion to ban everything which is racist, xxxxxxfobic and unweighted...God Save North! ))....No slow down. Please you islamoprotectors can you find any argument against what was written by Sebastian, true European??
Bruce Bawer's blog October 17, 2006: Last night I watched a webcast of a panel, held earlier in the day at UN Headquarters in New York, called “Cartooning for Peace.” It wasn’t as bad as the title and venue might suggest, but given the recent Muhammed cartoon crisis, which dramatically demonstrated the scale and nature of the threats now being posed to free speech by Islamic jihad, the discussion was still a lot more toothless than one would have liked. One would have hoped that the panelists – eight or ten cartoonists from around the world – would have used an event like this to declare their unqualified solidarity with their Danish colleagues who are still in hiding as a result of the Muhammed cartoon crisis and to defy the violent extremists who seek to curb everybody's freedoms. Nope. Still, one panelist, while not explicitly mentioning the Danish crisis, gave a straightforward talk about the importance of free speech. Several others deplored the limitations on cartoonists’ freedom of expression in various countries; one cartoonist emphasized the lack of free speech in the Arab world. And one cartoonist, in response to a woman's question about Theo van Gogh – whom she described as having been killed as payback for making an “offensive” film, the apparent implication being that the murder was somehow defensible – responded with a ringing defense of van Gogh’s film and condemnation of his murderer. A second woman, who seemed to be there in an official capacity, cut him off, saying with curt condescension that she did not share his view of van Gogh and that in any case this was off-topic (!). There was the predictable US-bashing. More than one American cartoonist was at pains to make clear that he/she looked askance at the rise in patriotism in the US after 9/11. On the other hand, it was a pleasant surprise to hear one cartoonist (not American) remind everybody that while cartoonists around the world can bash Bush all they want, many of them cannot freely criticize their own leaders, as American cartoonists can. All in all, the cartoonists left a better taste in one's mouth than did smarmy, smooth-talking Under-Secretary-General Shashi Tharoor, who in his concluding “summary” sent out a message that was sharply at odds with the spirit of the cartoonists' actual remarks. Tharoor did not explicitly mention the Danish cartoons, but they were clearly at the center of his remarks. He began by speaking of cartoonists’ “ability, perhaps their responsibility, to be confrontational. But,” he added, “as we are all aware there is a balance that must be struck. It’s one thing to administer bitter medicine and quite another to poison a patient.” Want to talk offensive? This is offensive: equating a cartoon with murder. By comparing cartoons to poison, Tharoor is implying that murders committed in supposed reaction to the Danish cartoons were in fact the fault of the cartoonists, not the actual murderers. Tharoor: “The best cartoons provoke thought and even emotion, but they don’t seek to provoke intolerance or violence.” Again, the implication here is that the Danish cartoonists were “seek[ing] to provoke intolerance or violence.” To implicitly blame on those cartoonists the intolerance of jihadists for Western freedoms, and their eruption in violence in an attempt to further a jihadist agenda, is disgraceful. Tharoor: “Our experts have told us that what is acceptable varies, that the balance is different in different places, and they must understand something of the symbolic and cultural references of their audiences if their work is to be effective rather than simply offensive.” In fact, the “experts” did nothing of the kind. They deplored the limits on freedom of expression in various countries. None took the position that these limits should be accepted or respected. None argued for cultural sensitivity. Tharoor’s “summary” turned reality on its head. Incredible. Tharoor: “Since contemporary technology can transmit cartoons from one cultural context to another where they might be considered offensive, “the responsibility of cartoonists is perhaps greater than it has ever been before.” In other words, cartoonists’ responsibility not to offend is greater. But cartoonists, or anyone else with an opinion to express in a free society, can't be held responsible for the easily triggered “outrage” of others. To take Tharoor’s position is to allow people who are either genuinely outraged – or ready to pretend to be outraged – to act, in effect, as censors. That’s a one-way road to a Taliban planet and worldwide sharia law. Tharoor: “The bottom line, I suspect, is that all of us, cartoonist or not, make decisions every day about the words that cross our lips or the images we project. People of good will and good intentions seek to understand the consequences of their actions and they try to the best of their ability to act in such a way as to leave the world no worse and perhaps even better than they found it.” Does Tharoor understand the consequences of the words crossing his lips? Does he see that a society in which writers, artists, and others engage in constant self-censorship out of fear of somebody’s reaction somewhere is a society that’s no longer free? Tharoor: “Indeed free speech is a right, and if we are offended by what we hear or see the onus is on us to register our complaints or to make our protests without violence and without inciting violence…violence is never a legitimate response.” Great – yet everything he said before this has served to legitimize anti-free speech violence. Tharoor: “So the bottom line therefore is a very thin blue UN line. None of us can afford to neglect our responsibilities to our neighbors, to the world we share, and for the impact our actions might have. The balance between freedom and responsibility is surely a delicate one.” The UN has no business drawing lines, thin or blue or otherwise, that delimit freedom. Is Tharoor suggesting that the UN’s authority now overrides the First Amendment?
You are a fucking idiot. Never Breed.
That's all.
That was directed at the fool that posted this blog. People like him should not be allowed to breed, they are one of the reasons the world is turning to shit. While dark, fecal colored filth invade Europe, raping and commiting crimes at our expense, these morons (like said Blogger) will point out their barbarian ways and try to justify them. We don't need people like this blogger, if this blogger had his way, we would be living in huts while worshipping Allah and gang raping our daughters for showing flesh.
Non-White crime has risen in Norway and Sweden, why put your people through this? Do you not care about your own people? Do you hold Islamists and other filth in such high regard you allow them to do whatever with your country and people? You are filth, a disgrace and obviously not a Son of Odin.
: ReveredBing- who you are after all? this is a problem of all blogs, discussions...there are too many "TOTALTRUTH-HAVING" people, either on one or another side. You are basically telling the truth, but because you only hate..you are in contrary giving the arguments to other side..Please try to think and give decent (even emotional) argumens(like Sebastian), not just hate, thanx. Sorry for my engleesh.
after second reading: you ReverendBing you are stupid fascist idiot not worth to respond. No discussion.
Richard: I pointed out that the statement "Almost all terrorists are muslims", made previously in this discussion, was false. For further examples, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_organisations. So what, exactly, is your argument?
At least Rev. Bing is an honest fascist.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/11/europe/web.1011muslims.php "A lot of people, progressive ones - we are not talking about nationalists or the extreme right - are saying, 'Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the '60s and '70s,'" said Joost Lagendijk, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party who is active on Muslim issues. "So there is this fear," he said, "that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again." So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government introduced a primer on those values last winter for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: Embrace our culture or leave. Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence. Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts. Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese-born activist in Belgium, said that for years Europeans had emphasized "citizenship and human rights," the notion that Muslim immigrants had the responsibility to obey the law but could otherwise live with their traditions. "Then someone comes and says it's different than that," said Jahjah, who opposes assimilation. "You have to dump your culture and religion. It's a different deal now."
"Rationality is gone." Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby. His worry is shared by centrists across Europe, angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence. For years, those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now, those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.
Moslems find Americans and Europeans selfish, immorally and greedy. Americans and Europeans consider Moslems as arrogantly, violent and intolerant. Both parties find of each other that they have no respect for women. And 11 September, the Arabs had nothing to do with it. From a large-scale research of the American Pew Research Centre becomes clear that a majority of the Moslems in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan does not believe that the attacks of 11 September have been carried out by Arabs. That opinion is shared by 66 per cent of the Moslems in Great Britain and 42 per cent of their brothers in Germany . Research: the relations between Moslems and non-Moslems are very bad The research was held among more then 14,000 Moslems and non-Moslims in thirteen countries, but not in the Netherlands . Most important conclusion: the relations between Moslems and Westerners are simply bad. In Germany the relation between Moslems and Westerners is most negative. Almost three quarter of the Germans subscribes to this opinion. In France the judgment about the relation was negative for 66 percent and in the United States 55 per cent. Blaming Both camps blames each other for the bad relations. By far most of the questioned Moslems find that the problems around the Danish cartons of the prophet Mohammed can be blamed because of a lack of respect for the Islam by the West. The Western persons questioned blamed the ' intolerant ' Moslems. In Germany, Spain and Great-Britain a majority of the persons questioned finds that the way of life of conservative Moslems is in conflict with the modern Western traditions. Moslems do not see that fundamental antagonism: only 36 per cent of the Moslems in Germany and 25 per cent of the Moslems in Spain find both ways of life incompatible. Radicalised From the research it becomes clear that the British Moslems have radicalised most and the French Moslems are most moderate. Thus a positive picture of Jews has 71 per cent of the French Moslems, whereas at Moslems in Great Britain, as well as at their brothers in Germany and Spain , a strongly anti-Jewish sentiment dominates. Earlier this year it became clear from a research of the British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph that one of every five British Moslems is ' sympathetic ' for ' the feelings and goals ' of the perpetrators of the attacks in London, where 56 deaths fell http://eurabia.blogse.nl/log/moslems-11-september-not-the-work-of-arabs.html
: Eric Yes, I have checked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_organisations. So what, exactly, is your argument? (you say)
My answer: Being "an unhonest fascist" :-) (correct Oywind?) ...My argument is, that vaste majority of deadly terrorist attacts are carried out by muslims, it is not about "academic list" at wikipedia. My 2 cents.
An instinct for pacifism surely goes some way toward explaining the left's curious unwillingness to sign up for a war to defend its core values. A suspicion of black-and-white moral distinctions of the kind President Bush is fond of making about terrorism--a suspicion that easily slides into moral relativism--is another. But there are deeper factors at work. One is appeasement: "Many Europeans feel that a confrontation with Islamism will give the Islamists more opportunities to recruit--that confronting evil is counterproductive," says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born, former Dutch parliamentarian whose outspoken opposition to Islamism (and to Islam itself) forced her repeatedly into hiding and now into exile in the United States. "They think that by appeasing them--allowing them their own ghettoes, their own Muslim schools--they will win their friendship." A second factor, she says, is the superficial confluence between the bugaboos of the Chomskyite left and modern-day Islamism. "Many social democrats have this stereotype that the corporate world, the U.S. and Israel are the real evil. And [since] Islamists are also against Israel and America, [social democrats] sense an alliance with them." But the really "lethal mistake," she says, "is the confusion of Islam, which is a body of ideas, with ethnicity." Liberals especially are reluctant to criticize the content of Islam because they fear that it is tantamount to criticizing Muslims as a group, and is therefore almost a species of racism. Yet Muslims, she says, "are responsible for their ideas. If it is written in the Koran that you must kill apostates, kill the unbelievers, kill gays, then it is legitimate and urgent to say, 'If that is what your God tells you, you have to modify it.' " A similar rethink may be in order among liberals and progressives. For whatever else distinguishes Islamism from liberalism, both are remarkably self-absorbed affairs, obsessed with maintaining the purity of their own values no matter what the cost. In the former case, the result too often is terror. In the latter, the ultimate risk is suicide, as the endless indulgence of "the other" obstructs the deeper need to preserve itself.
How do you like this?
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=531
: Chuck Farley Not much, boring and nothing new as well. There will be always weirdos like this guy (Finkelstein). To sum up - it sucks more than having dome information value.
Galileo was jailed for suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun.
The only way of resolving the situation is by addressing the real problem. However, I suspect that this isn't going to happen without a major disaster. Take an honest look at recent history if you can. You guys are a sect for pseudo-intellectuals.
Here's a puzzle: Why is it so frequently the case that the people who have the most at stake in the battle against Islamic extremism and the most to lose when Islamism gains--namely, liberals--are typically the most reluctant to fight it? It is often said, particularly in the "progressive" precincts of the democratic left, that by aiming at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and perhaps the Capitol, Mohamed Atta and his cohorts were registering a broader Muslim objection to what those buildings supposedly represented: capitalism and globalization, U.S. military power, support for Israel, oppression of the Palestinians and so on. But maybe Ms. Newman intuited that Atta's real targets weren't the symbols of American mightiness, but of what that mightiness protected: people like her, bohemian, sexually unorthodox, a minority within a minority. Maybe she understood that those F-16s overhead--likely manned by pilots who went to church on Sunday and voted the straight GOP ticket--were being flown above all for her defense, at the outer cultural perimeter of everything that America's political order permits. This may be reading too much into Ms. Newman's essay. Yet after 9/11 at least a few old-time voices on the left--Christopher Hitchens, Bruce Bawer, Paul Berman and Ron Rosenbaum, among others--understood that what Islamism most threatened wasn't just America generally, but precisely the values that modern liberalism had done so much to promote and protect for the past 40 years: civil rights, gay rights, feminism, privacy rights, reproductive choice, sexual freedom, the right to worship as one chooses, the right not to worship at all. And so they bid an unsentimental goodbye to their one-time comrades and institutions: the peace movement, the pages of The Nation and the New York Review of Books, "the deluded and pathetic sophistry of postmodernists of the left, who believe their unreadable, jargon-clotted theory somehow helps liberate the wretched of the earth," as Mr. Rosenbaum wrote in the New York Observer in 2002. Five years on, however, Messrs. Hitchens, Bawer, et al., seem less like trendsetters and more like oddball dissenters from a left-liberal orthodoxy that finds less and less to like about the very idea of a war on Islamic extremism, never mind the war in Iraq. In the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows, formerly Jimmy Carter's speechwriter, argues that the smart thing for the U.S. to do is declare victory and give the conflict a rest: "A state of war with no clear end point," he writes, "makes it more likely for a country to overreact in ways that hurt itself." Further to the left, a panoply of "peace" groups is all but in league with Islamists. Consider, for instance, QUIT!--Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism--a group that, in its hatred for Israel, curiously fails to notice that Tel Aviv is the only city in the Middle East that annually hosts a gay-pride parade.
The left are Quacking like a islamist. In this context, the LEFTS kind of Islamist-supporter is very dangerous. And the hateful sentiments growing in the public are indeed also a result of their contribution.
Europe's Immigration Quagmire The continent needs more realistic policies that recognize both immigration's economic benefit and the dangers of Islamism. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-ali22oct22,0,2348954.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail In a worst-case scenario, the warnings of the owl will not be heeded. The optimism of the ostrich will be abandoned. The monopoly of force that is now exclusive to states will be challenged by armed subgroups. European societies will be divided along ethnic and religious lines. The education system will not succeed in grooming the youth to believe in a shared past, let alone a shared future. The European states will find themselves limiting civil liberties. Europeans will come to accept the de facto implementation of Sharia law in certain neighborhoods and even cities. The exploitation of the weak, women and children will be commonplace. Those who can afford to emigrate will do so.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-ali22oct22,0,2348954.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail First, controlled or planned immigration. Second, an intervention, sometimes proactive, in Europe’s neighboring states or in failed states with conditions that force people to migrate in large numbers.This plan will consist of aid, trade, diplomatic pressure and military intervention, if necessary. That's taboo in Europe at the moment. Finally, in a best-case scenario, the EU will implement an assimilation program guided by the lessons learned from our failed attempts at multiculturalism. In a best-case scenario, EU policymakers will invest in girls and women, protect them from violence and punish those who try to limit their freedoms. All it requires is political courage
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/403
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/676 There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah. "Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers." "His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter. And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."
The issue is not about being brave, or not. This is a matter of honesty and truth. Muslums, all muslims, are dishonest about their religion and their prophet. I used to think it was denial or ignorance. It is worse. On over 100 sites I have tried to ask them about the accounts of hate, violence, torture, plunder, enslavement, rape and wife-beating in the Quran and hadiths - they don't want to talk about it. They don't care. I have provided references and links to the Quran and hadiths that clearly indicate these happened (According to Islam's own traditions) and - nothing, zilch, nada. Yet Muslims will write SAW or PHUM (Praise be unto him) after Mohammed's name, even after knowing these things. Figure out, if you can, what that means. So if MOhammed murdered, tortured, enslaved, plunder and traped, and he is a great moral example for Muslims..... Do the math. OH yes, he also said it was ok to lie to advance Islam. I have also lost count of the times I have been censored, deleted and banned. Last week I was signing in to my GUardian "Comment is free" account, and I got a message saying that I had posted inappropriate comments and was "out". Yes, only in Islam can quoting islamic sources get you in trouble. The fact is that slowly our freedoms are being taken away and being replaced by an intolerant, violent ideology, and many people in the West are helping them. These epople, usually on the left, have no understanding of what islam is or what it means to live in an Islamic society. They are driven by guilt and hate - a strange but lethal combination. Things are going to get worse, and worse, until one day sopme brave man or women gets up and says the truth about Islam. We must, for the sake of everybody - including Muslims - be honest about the hate and violence in Islam. We must tell them the things they don't want to hear. That's it... John kactuz, aka kactuzkid Ola Kim.... Voce mora em Sao Paulo? Passei mais de dez anos em Sampa - muitos anos atras.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4001 The violence by Muslims responding to comments by the pope fit a pattern that has been building and accelerating since 1989. Six times since then, Westerners did or said something that triggered death threats and violence in the Muslim world. Looking at them in the aggregate offers useful insights. 1989 – Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses prompted Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a death edict against him and his publishers, on the grounds that the book "is against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran." Subsequent rioting led to over 20 deaths, mostly in India.
You're right about a few things. The fear does make us stupid. However that shouldn't require us to take reasonable steps. That includes a secondary search of a nervous or hostile muslim, arabic or british or american, than a jain, a medal of honor winner or an 80 year old grandmother with a hip replacement. And notice I said muslim, not arabic. If you want equate that with racism so be it.
Anarchists were not supported by a large community around the world. They lived in a world of relatively limited resources of death and destruction. The anarchist movement was relatively limited in size and ability with limited ability to engage in asymmetrical killing. By the 1920's the strength of anarchism had played itself out as an influential force in history. Islam was a potent military force from its early years and remains a powerful social and political force. The world wide islamic movement is supported by national governments and a sizable percentage of muslims. And no, the only weapon islamic terrorists have is not fear. it is an unlimited arsenal of explosives that weren't even developed in the late 1800's to early. the idea that it demeans us to question the many because of the few simply makes us unable to combat the threat unless you don't believe there is a threat. The idea that simply not being fearful is a weapon against present terrorism is at best naive and at worst blind. "what more can they do to us?" they can keep killing us unless we act.
"Then someone comes and says it's different than that," said Jahjah, who opposes assimilation. "You have to dump your culture and religion. It's a different deal now." No one is asking anyone to dumpt there culture except for those parts that at odds with the culture immigrants moved to. If I move to Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Iran I would eb expected to respect the culture their and to abide by their rules. An immigrant to the west should expect the same.
Norway..already lost :(
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/12/latest-dhimmi-news-from-norway.html
Bjørn, this is the first time I read something you've written, and it was a pleasant suprise! I fully agree that we have to learn with risks. We can never make the world a safe haven.
But you ARE wrong when you claim that terrorism is 'just there', and that it won't go away until the terrorists 'change their mind'. This claim implies that terrorism is just about crazyness - which is clearly not the case:
- Jewish terrorism - before the state of Israel came into existence - was there because the zionists wanted the British to go home, and it disappeared when the Zionists got their state.
- Just as the root cause of Palestinian terrorism today is the lack of Palestinian independence.
- Just as the root cause of the terrorism in Northern Ireland is the political conflict there
- Just as the terrorism of the Basks in Spain is about the Baskish wish for independence
- ..and the world-wide terrorism of Al-Qaida? Has probably also to do with politics: The domination of USA and Israel in the Middle East. (though I admit that the case of Al-Qaida is more complicated, since they haven't given any list of demands yet)
All these terroristic activities have different causes. But they HAVE causes, all of them, they don't just pop up all of a sudden, without any reason. So therefore it WILL help to work towards political solutions. But in the meantime - it takes time to work out political solutions - we have to learn to live with it. And of course do some policing.
Bjørn, this is the first time I read something you've written, and it was a pleasant suprise! I fully agree that we have to learn with risks. We can never make the world a safe haven.
But you ARE wrong when you claim that terrorism is 'just there', and that it won't go away until the terrorists 'change their mind'. This claim implies that terrorism is just about crazyness - which is clearly not the case:
- Jewish terrorism - before the state of Israel came into existence - was there because the zionists wanted the British to go home, and it disappeared when the Zionists got their state.
- Just as the root cause of Palestinian terrorism today is the lack of Palestinian independence.
- Just as the root cause of the terrorism in Northern Ireland is the political conflict there
- Just as the terrorism of the Basks in Spain is about the Baskish wish for independence
- ..and the world-wide terrorism of Al-Qaida? Has probably also to do with politics: The domination of USA and Israel in the Middle East. (though I admit that the case of Al-Qaida is more complicated, since they haven't given any list of demands yet)
All these terroristic activities have different causes. But they HAVE causes, all of them, they don't just pop up all of a sudden, without any reason. So therefore it WILL help to work towards political solutions. But in the meantime - it takes time to work out political solutions - we have to learn to live with it. And of course do some policing.
Where's Gunnar on this? Has he found a new bone to gnaw? I doubt he's changed his mind, but I miss his hysteria. King Nut in a well-furnished bowl.
Physics tells us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Olav has a point - you won't stop bombers by bombing them.
>> Where's Gunnar on this? Has he found a new bone to gnaw? I doubt he's changed his mind, but I miss his hysteria. King Nut in a well-furnished bowl. Gosh, Jeff, could you be referring to me? I'm flattered. If so, here's my answer: I've been working hard. There is a lot of software to write and so little time. In fact, I was just creating a blog component, and so I was scanning 5-10 blogs to get ideas for the features that I want to support. BearStrong was one of them. Still can't believe someone remembers me after all this time. Bjorn, I think you missed a couple of big points. Unfortunately for you, they invalidate your whole posting. 1) People cannot and should not be able to discriminate against someone simply because they are muslim. However, people can and should take action when people act in a threatening way. For example, in the case of the 12 immans, they were deliberately acting like terrorists. There is no right to threaten other people. 2) The 2 people you mentioned actually have no power. The right to property must be upheld. These two people don't own the plane. They simply complained. It was the employees of the airlines who made the decision. Based on natural law, they and only they can decide who they accept as passengers. This plane is not owned by the government and is not public. The owners of the airplane have the absolute right to liberty with respect to their property. No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service. 3) You imply that the war on terror cannot be won, and will only stop when the terrorists themselves tire of it. This idea can easily be falsified by substituting Nazis or Japanese warlords for terrorists. The actual undeniable truth is that wars are only won when the enemy has been defeated.
Bjorn, what's up with your blog? All my paragraphs ran together. There was no post button. What the hoot software are you using? Gunnar
Bjorn, what's up with your blog? All my paragraphs ran together. There was no post button. What the hoot software are you using? Gunnar
Olav Elgvin, Yes, terrorists may all have causes, but not all causes are just. Nazi terrorists would like to establish the fourth Reich. In order to reduce this terrorism, should we help them in this desire?
Gunnar: I'll answer for Bjørn. :-)
Maybe he'll correct me ;)
If I understand things correctly, Bjørn is quite simply 'out of words' at the moment. Which is what that big sign on the top of the page is saying.
He'll probably be back later.
Your idea of fighting terrorism by removing your fear is foolishly naive to the extreme.
People in Iraq are apparently a lot less fearful than the average Westerner of terrorism, otherwise they would all flee the terrorist onslaught of their fellow Sunnis and Shiites. They go about their everyday routines with lots of courage.
Does that make any impression on the large number of suicide/homicide bombers blowing people up as they go about their daily activities.
Nope. Looks like you need to think of a new idea.
-- Just as the root cause of Palestinian terrorism today is the lack of Palestinian independence. -- they have their state, and a fine, functioning state it is, too! - NOT!!
Oslofyr, >> Bjørn is quite simply 'out of words' That I can understand. As a software engineer, I'm more concerned with being "out of bug fixes". :)
NWO-Rune: "If I understand things correctly, Bjørn is quite simply 'out of words' at the moment."
He's probably just run out of fresh hobby horses.
Børns idea of fighting terrorism by removing your fear is foolishly naive to the extreme. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1602515.ece http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007020472,00.html
Long before the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, we had bombings of public and private buildings, even one at the Olympic games.
Islamic revolutionaries? No. Palestinians? No.
Christians. The Atlanta Olympic bombing and the related attacks on health clinics in Alabama were the work of Christian radicals, not swarthy, robe-wearing Middle-easterners. The long history of brutality, of lynchings, of church burnings and bombings, was done by Christians in the American South, a region that prides itself on its religious fervor. The selective assassination of doctors is not being done by Al Queda but but by adherents of faith that talks a lot about non-violence.
Intolerant fundamentalists are by no means foreign. We have and will always have them, no matter what creed they adhere to. And they will strike when they feel cornered and marginalized, creating damage through fear (Bjorn's essay on What went wrong alludes to this).
Intolerance, suspicion, fear and hatred will make this worse: openness, tolerance, and education will alleviate it. Wonder which way we will go?
There are many things that I think are important enough that I do not want my society to compromise them for the "war on terror."
I do want people to have trials, and not to have suspects detained indefinitely without a trial to determine whether the detention was just.
But non-discrimination just isn't that much of a priority. So some Arabs incorrectly get delayed in their flight. Big whoop. We shouldn't be letting large numbers of Muslims into our country anyway, because the majority of Muslims have values that are not the same as ours and have little wish to assimilate. This is a problem whether or not they commit terorism.
Non-discrimination is also just another word for blindness - taking a blind eye to the fact of human diversity (diversity meaning that not all groups are the same).
This article is useful in that he fleshes out ideas I've heard expressed by many Liberals and Libertarians. They are willing to put up with the loss of a few thousand people every decade in order to be able to consider terrorism a minor nuisance. The weakness to their argument is barely mentioned though: "Only with nuclear weapons might terrorists come close to the threat posed to us by cars." So, what happens when they DO have nuclear weapons and we are losing 100,000 per decade? What if they take the attitude that they will keep upping the scale of the attacks until we do what they want? Perhaps they won't do this, but if they DID, would the author still take the same position?
Without moderate muslims chastising terrorism there is little hope for progress. Here in the UK, the majority of muslims (about 65%) think the 7/7 bombs were the work of the government. Maybe 1% of the rest of population share this view. Very few muslims blame Wahhabism or the Muslim Brotherhood for the rise of extremism. These are scary facts.
ERRATUM: Actually its not the majority, its about 1 in 4 muslims who think the state was involved. The article's here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23399399-details/One+in+four+Muslims+thinks+the+state+was+involved+in+77+attacks/article.do