Militants in Europe Openly Call for Jihad and the Rule of Islam

[drdon326]

On working-class streets of old industrial towns like Crawley, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester, and in the Arab enclaves of Germany, France, Switzerland and other parts of Europe, intelligence officials say a fervor for militancy is intensifying and becoming more open.

In Hamburg, Dr. Mustafa Yoldas, the director of the Council of Islamic Communities, saw a correlation to the discord in Iraq. "This is a very dangerous situation at the moment," Dr. Yoldas said. "My impression is that Muslims have become more and more angry against the United States."

Hundreds of young Muslim men are answering the call of militant groups affiliated or aligned with Al Qaeda, intelligence and counterterrorism officials in the region say.


snip

While some clerics, like Abu Qatada — said to be the spiritual counselor of Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 hijacking team — remain in prison in Britain without charge, others like Sheik Omar, leader of a movement called Al Muhajiroun, carry on a robust ideological campaign.

"There is no case against me," Sheik Omar said in an interview. Referring to calls by members of Parliament that he be deported, he added, "but they are Jewish" and "they have been calling for that for years."

.................................................................

more regarding this peacful movement http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/international/europe/26EURO.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=">here

[library_max]

1. Hey, whaddya know!

George W. Bush is a uniter not a divider!

He just never told us who he was planning to unite, and against whom.

[Mistress Quickly]

3. They were united

against the west before Bush.

[library_max]

9. Really? Militants in Europe were calling for Jihad and the Rule of Islam?

Who? When? Where?

[Mistress Quickly]

10. Um, throughout history? n/t

[library_max]

11. Very specific, thank you. /eom

[Mistress Quickly]

14. ok

the Islamic Barbary States (Barbary Pirates, Thomas Jefferson "Millions for Defense, not a penny for tribute") in the 1600's to 1800's:

http://www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/barbary.htm
snip>>>
The Barbary Coast of Northern Africa consisted of the four states of Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli, and Tunis. The "Barbary Pirates" had for centuries captured vessels sailing the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. They occasionally raided coastal villages to capture Christian slaves, such as a village in southern Ireland, which was said to have been entirely captured by Muslim raiders.

Earning their living by blackmail, tribute, piracy and slavery, the Barbary Pirates received yearly sums of money, ships, and arms from foreign powers. Those who payed their tribute were allowed to sail unmolested along the Barbary Coast, and trade in the African ports. Those who did not had their ships seized and their crews held for ransom or sold into slavery. In 1662, England agreed to pay an annual tribute, in return for free passage along the Barbary Coast.

Religion was a factor, just as it is now. The Barbary Pirates were Muslims. Those they preyed upon were exclusively Christians, and if not released through the payment of tribute, faced slavery or worse. Those few who converted to Islam escaped slavery, and were treated as equals. If any Christian dared to blaspheme Allah, he risked being impaled or roasted alive. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, serving at the time as European Ministers, asked the ambassador from Tripoli why his government sanctioned such savagery. He replied that the Koran stated that non-Muslims were "sinners," and Muslims had a "...right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners."

end>>>

the invasion of Eastern Europe in the 13th and 14th centuries:
http://www.interware.it/tsr/Cultura/Kosovo/english/matteo3.htm
snip>>>
The Battle of Kosovo Polje (which in Serb means Field of Blackbirds) was fought in 1389 and saw the Christian armies, led by the Serb Prince Lazar, the Bosnian King Tvrtko and their Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Albanian allies challenging the invading armies of Emir Murad and his vassals. That battle was a draw--both Prince Lazar and Emir Murad were killed-- but in later battles the Christians were defeated and most of the Balkans were conquered. Originally, Ottoman rule was definitely more rational and tolerant than that of any contemporary European state. Any conquered prince or village chief, if he converted to Islam, would be accepted as an equal of the Ottomans and would see his own wealth and power increase, at the expense of those who remained Christians.

end snip>>>

The invasion of Western Europe in the 700's:
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr23.htm
snip>>>
The invasion of Western Europe by a non-White Muslim army after 711 AD, very nearly extinguished modern White Europe - certainly the threat was no less serious than the Hunnish invasion which had earlier created so much chaos. While the Huns were Asiatics, the Moors were a mixed race invasion - part Arabic, part Black and part mixed race, always easily distinguishable from the Visigothic Whites of Spain.

Although the Muslim armies were collectively known as the Moors or Saracens, they were in fact divided up into their own factions. Nonetheless, together they very nearly conquered all of Spain, and were only turned back from occupying all of Western Europe by a desperate White counter attack in France. The story of this seven hundred year long race war is without doubt one of the most arduous ever fought by the Whites in defense of their continent.

By 709 AD, the Muslim armies had conquered all of Northern Africa and stood on the southern side of the Straits of Gibraltar, with only the Visigothic fortress of Ceuta, situated on the African side of the straits of Gibraltar, still remaining in White hands.

end snip>>>

[library_max]

25. So let's begin by calling "throughout history" a bit of an exaggeration.

Regarding the Barbary Pirates, they were hardly a bid by Muslims to take over the world and convert it to Islam. They were just pirates.

Regarding the Balkans, that's a pretty small chunk of the world during a pretty specific time frame to support such an expansive argument. All kinds of people have marched west through the Balkans, starting with the original Caucasian people. Of dozens of invaders throughout history in that area, only a handful have been Muslim.

Regarding the invasion of Western Europe in the 700's - well, on top of the fact that you're reaching back more than a thousand years to support a claim of "throughout history," could you possibly have cited a more racist, right-wing source? Didn't the Klan have a webpage on that subject?

[walmartsucks]

27. Funny, I thought that example made it obvious

You asked for sepcific examples and when they were given your response was, "oh, well, that was one isolated incident that happened hundreds of years ago" or some such. Well, what do you think an example is? It is one or a few instances designed to give one an idea of the broader picture. And just because the source is right wing does not mean it is inaccurate.

[library_max]

33. "Muslims have been united against the west throughout history."

That is the issue we are controverting. So the fact that one can come up with only three examples, two of which were refuted and the third having occurred more than a thousand years ago, does leave the claim somewhat unsupported, even if you insist on believing what you read on white supremacy sites.

[The Magistrate]

28. Be Serious, Mr. Max

Moslem expansion is one of the great facts of history, and to deny it cannot be a part of serious discussion. From the initial eruption out of the Arabian peninsula, through the various empires of the Turk and Tamerlane and the Moghuls, it was second only to the periodic unity of the Mongol riders as a shaping influence on Eurasia. That it received a final check before Vienna in the mid seventeenth century, and was then replaced by European mechanization and expansion as a dominating influence does not eradicate it from history, or from the minds of some who dream of reviving past glories.

[library_max]

32. I am quite serious, thank you.

There have been various empires at various times in human history. The proposition before the house, however, is "Muslims have united against the west throughout history." One might as well use the Roman Empire and the two world wars to prove that "Italians have been the enemies of the British throughout history," a more obviously absurd claim.

[The Magistrate]

34. One Problem With Your Attempted Reductio Ad Absurdum, Sir

Is that Italy was allied with England in the Great War. Others could be pointed out, as you leave out huge swathes of history in leaping from Roman invasions to the twentieth century, but that one will suffice.

Empires based on religious expansionism are not so common as you seem to suppose, at least not without employing some highly specialized definitions few today would regard as religious. There is something unique in history about Islamic expansion, that is absent from, say, Roman or Chinese efforts in the distant past, or the more ephemeral efforts of Napoleon and Hitler and Stalin, or the commercially driven expansions of the Western colonialists in the machine age. Charlemagne's drive into northern Europe is probably the nearest Christian example, along with such lesser and later efforts as the Crusades into the Levant, and the Tuetonic Knights into the Baltic regions, but even if taken together, there are dwarfed in scale by the efforts of militant Islam down the ages.

To state that Islam has sought to conquer the West almost from its inception is hardly a mis-statement of fact, although it is also true that Islam drove as hard and far and fast to the East as to the West. Europe stood in danger of conquest by Islam well into the seventeenth century, a thousand years after the birth of Islam, and the history of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in central Europe, largely comprises the rolling back of that tide of conquest.

[library_max]

35. Regarding Christian empire building,

What about European colonialism worldwide? What about the "White Man's Burden" and Manifest Destiny? What about the Crusades?

You seem to believe that there is something unique about Islamic imperialism. You are entitled to that opinion, and there is nothing in the facts that obviously refutes it. But it is just an opinion, not a fact in itself.

Regarding leaving out "huge swathes of history," that was precisely my objection to the earlier poster's examples, in addition to specific objections to specific examples.

Do you agree, then, that Islam has been united against the west "throughout history"? Well, in that event, you have a right to your opinion, but it is very far from proven as fact.

Regarding Italy and England you are, of course, making my point for me - that this or that "example" does not support a sweeping statement "throughout history."

[The Magistrate]

36. You Are Not Very Good At This, Sir, Are You?

Pointing out where you have made a serious mis-statement of fact hardly supports any point you may have been attempting to make about sweeping statements, unless the point you sought to make was that your own statements need not be taken too seriously.

My advice would be to inform yourself better about the things you wish to comment on, rather than to simply assume that if it was not done by Europeans, it cannot have been too bad....

[library_max]

37. Possibly it would be just as well to keep the personal jabs to ourselves.

What you pointed out was that the Italians and the English have not always been enemies, even though they have been so at readily-identifiable times during history. That was my point exactly - that this or that example does not suffice to establish a united enmity "throughout history."

Also, speaking of informing ourselves, are you aware that, during Arabic "religious expansionism," Arabs have consistently avoided imposing their religion on conquered people by force? This is why, for example, there are millions of Coptic Christians in Egypt, a country which has been majority Islamic for over a thousand years. Whereas, on the other hand, the "commercially driven" imperialism of the rest of the world by European powers, especially Spain, frequently featured forced religious conversion of all the natives. One would be very hard pressed to find a significant population of, say, Argentinians or Ecuadoreans practicing the same religion they practiced a thousand years ago, like the Copts do in Egypt.

And "dwarfed in scale"? European (Christian if you like, why not?) imperialism has encompassed all of North, South, and Central America, the Caribbean, all of Africa, all of Oceania, and significant portions of Asia at one time and another. What has Islamic "religious expansionism" ever done to dwarf that in scale? Colonize other planets?

Thank you very much for replying, by the way, because I was in a hurry when I posted the first time and let the editing period elapse before I thought of better arguments. Next time, perhaps it might be better not to presume that people who disagree with you are prejudiced or ignorant of the facts. Sir.

[The Magistrate]

38. A Few Small Points, Sir

Since you will continue this....

A sizeable base of non-Muslims subjects was essential to the fiscal stability of the early Moslem rulers, as there are Koranic limits to taxes on believers, and additional levies that can be charged upon non-believers. Later rulers found more creative solutions to the problem, so that Moslems learned to groan under taxation as well, though it always remained heavier on non-believers.

My specific reference was to European colonialism in the machine-age, intended to convey the great expansion that marked the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Sixteenth century Spanish predatory colonialism did indeed feature forced conversion: these were not typical of the latter expansion by powers such as England and France, that have come to define the term into the modern era. Though certainly missionaries followed the flags, there was no great attempt by the English to prosetylize in India, or by the French in Cochinchina or North Africa, or in venues like Senegal and Africa.

Imperial conquest aimed explicitly at spreading Christianity was a medieval phenomenon that, even including the late medieval Spanish efforts in the New World, affected far fewer people, and far less territory, than the Moslem conquests that extended through North Africa, Southern Europe, Central Asia, and the northern portion of the Indian sub-continent. The Spanish in South and Central America claimed far more ground than they actually controlled, to say the least, and the population was sparse indeed by compare to the old Roman lands over-run by the early Moslem conquerors, as well as the Persian plateau, and the Indus valley.

As for your continued attempt to salvage the Italy v. England matter, you would be well advised to let it go: you made a genuine mis-statement there, and that is that. In doing so, you illustrated nothing. If you wish to upset the proposition that Islam has been largely hostile to the West, and sought to conquer it when it could, you would be better advised to come up with instances of friendship and pacific relations between the two. That would be more difficult, of course, as such are sparse, and mostly local.

[library_max]

39. Oh come now.

Once again let me repeat that you are entitled to your opinion but you ought not to express your opinion as if it were established fact. You have a very neat explanation of why Arab imperialism permitted and encouraged indigenous religious minorities while European imperialism, by and large, did not. It allows you to continue to conclude that Arab imperialism was fundamentally religious and European imperialism was not, excepting Spain in the "late medieval" (!!!) 16th Century. (NOTE: most authorities consider the Medieval period to have ended in the 13th or 14th Century). It does not, however, compel me to agree with you, or make my contrary position untenable.

Since there are no reliable data regarding the populations of the Americas, Africa, etc., prior to colonialism, you can get away with claiming that they were sparsely populated and insignificant compared to central Asia if you like. Comparing the amount of the world that is nominally Christian and speaks a European language with the amount of the world that is nominally Muslim and speaks Arabic satisfies me that my view of the matter is at least as legitimate as yours.

Regarding Italy, it was in fact allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary at the beginning of World War I, although it declined to enter the war on their side and eventually shifted to the Allied side. The Triple Alliance, perhaps you've heard of it. I wrote quickly and didn't go into detail, but I did know what I was talking about. If this is the straw you choose to cling to, so be it.

Thank you for telling me how I must frame my own argument. Strangely enough, periods of peace and amity between any given cultures are not as thoroughly documented and well-known as wars. Periods in which, say, Turks did not invade Austria are not known as the un-war of this or that or the un-battle of the other. So it's a little difficult to produce recognizeable examples on demand. It is sufficient to me to point out that in 1400 years of Islamic history the wars between Islamic nations and western nations are enumerable, and not by any means all started by the Muslims.

The proposition, by the way, is that the Muslim world has been united against the west throughout history. Read up the string and you will see that this is so. Now if you wish to support that proposition, you would do better to go year by year, or at least decade by decade, and provide evidence of unity throughout the Islamic world against the west. But of course you can't, because the proposition as such is nonsense. For which reason I don't blame you for trying to shift it around, or trying to place the burden of proof on the negative (me), but you can't expect me to cooperate.

[The Magistrate]

43. You Will Soon Be Down To China, Sir

Enjoyable as this is, you really ought to refresh your recollection of the first rule of holes....

Let us begin with your initial combination of distortion and mis-statement: you seem to be implying my statement concerning fiscal reality in the early caliphite is somehow contrived, whereas it is in fact a well-known feature of their governance, and you seem to be under the impression that the acts of Spain in the 16th century are the model of European imperialisn in its decisive expansion during the industrial age, ignoring the fact that prosetylizing played no part whatever in the Engllish Raj, or the acquisitions of the rather determinedly secular French Republic. What you will not look at is the difference between leading motivations in the expansions: one was more driven by desire to spread the word of god, and one more driven by desire for plunder, in the sense of securing raw materials and markets, and military bases.

Your second distortion and mis-statement is to pretend that only Central Asia was raised in order to contrast population overrun with the Americas. The Moslem conquests, however, ran over North Africa, the modern Middle East, including Egypt and Persia, as well as Central Asia (always a rather sparsely settled local), and the northern half of the Indian sub-continent. All of these areas you ellided are long populated and farmed, seats of old civilizations, and contained by far the greatest portion of humankind alive at the time. There is no doubt of that whatever. Scale is best judged at the time a thing occurs, and your claim of refutation by current conditions begs the question regarding the religious motivation of modern European imperialism, which you have failed to demonstrate was religious in nature, and understandably so, because it was not. Large portions of the Moslem world came under such domination in the nineteenth century, after all, and were not Christianized, nor taught to speak English or French, or Dutch or Portuguese, for that matter.

To treat a couple of minor points. It is a pleasure to see you finally showing some awareness of the Italian situation in the Great War. Signing on to the Triple Alliance was not an act of belligerency, and if you were aware of the actions of Italy in repudiating its obligations under it, haste is a poor explaination for framing what you clearly concieved to be a slashing riposte so poorly. For extra credit, you might answer which side Imperial Japan took in that war, and under what alliance, and what was its principal campaign. The great bulk of Spanish acquisition in the Americas occured in the early portion of the fifteen hundreds; if you wish to consider that decisively post-Medieval, you are free to do so, but it would be a tricky thing to support on any objective criteria. It would be a pleasure to see any reputable authority who maintained the medieval period ended in the thirteenth century, which would end the period before the Great Mortality, or for that matter, considered the period to have ended in the fourteenth century, before the end of the Hundred Years War or the Wars of the Roses, both events of the fifteenth century.

There is no need to thank me for pointing you towards a possibly more effective means of pressing your argument: you were clearly struggling, and there is no discredit in kindness. You will still find such periods scanty, and a period where a power is too weak to press a desired conquest does not really fit the bill of peaceful relations. You are correct that wars between Islamic powers and European ones are innumerable, and that not all were instigated from the Moslem side.

The fact of the matter remains what it is; after the death of Mohammed, Islamic rulers sought to conquer the world, striking west, north, and east out of the Arabian Peninsula. They enjoyed a great deal of success, and persisted in the effort, in various forms, until decisively checked on all fronts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. An attempt and desire to conquer the West was as much a part of that as an attempt and desire to conquer the East. It is one of the great facts of history, and it surprises me anyone would spend much time trying to argue against it.

[library_max]

46. Oh well, what's the use?

You won't speak to the topic. You won't stop presenting your opinions as established facts. You won't mitigate your arrogance in lecturing me as if I were your student.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I acknowledge that there was a period of Arab expansionism, dwarfed both in scope and in lasting effect by subsequent periods of European imperialism. In the teeth of facts to the contrary, you continue to assert that Arab imperialism was all religious and that European imperialism was mostly not. I submit that religion played a crucial role in the treatment of Native Americans, Africans, Indians (people of India), etc. as non-persons, but I can't "prove" that any more than you can "prove" that Islamic toleration of religious minorities was purely an administrative matter.

The relevance of this argument to the modern day is that you apparently wish to blame all the conflicts between the Islamic world and the west on Islam and Islamic "religious expansionism," while I think that's a ridiculously oversimplified view of the matter. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

[The Magistrate]

47. That Is The Spirit, Fellow

It is not much use at all; better you had realized that earlier, though of course, much less fun for me if you had....

We have not touched on the modern world, meaning the latter portion of the last century and the present day, at all, and so your imaginings concerning my views are just that, though you are welcome to them just the same.

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

[library_max]

48. Doesn't all the condescension and abuse

strike you as just a little childish? This especially considering that I have been nothing but respectful toward you throughout this argument - at worst, reflecting a little of your own tone back at you on occasion. Perhaps you've forgotten, but you once let me in on your little code, and I know what you mean by "fellow." Insults and personal remarks do not dignify your argument, however stilted your diction.

You may, if you wish, believe that repeating your points over and over just as if they had not already been refuted constitutes winning an argument. Combined with pompous condescension and personal abuse, it is certainly anything but "charming."

[The Magistrate]

49. Then You Will Understand, Fellow

That you have tried my patience towards exasperation.

You have refuted nothing. You have not come even close to demonstrating European colonial expansion in the machine age was motivated by religion, nor have you come even close to demonstrating that Moslem expansion was motivated by something other than desire to spread the authority of Mohammed's creed, nor have you come even close to demonstrating that Islamic rulers have not through the centuries intended conquest in the West, and set busily about it when they possessed power to do so, and sought to maintain their conquests there as long as they could. That is a sufficient summary of the roll; it would be tedious to enumerate each particular failure.

My only reason for bothering is that the historical record is something valuable to me, and seems to me something worth safeguarding from distortions meant to suit any particular current ideological need. The past is best faced squarely, without fear or favor, and with each apportioned fair credit for their own sins....

"If a man will continue to insist two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument that can stop up his mouth."

[library_max]

50. No matter how many words you stuff into it,

your opinion is just your opinion. No matter how much attitude you put behind it, your opinion is nothing more than your opinion.

Have I not "proved" my points to your satisfaction? In the first place, the original assertion is yours - that the Muslim world has been united against the west throughout history. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative. And you've proved nothing either, because conclusions drawn from history are not matters of fact, they are matters of opinion, and opinion can't be proved. I've supported my opinions at least as well as you've supported yours, but you're rather purblind to anything that doesn't fit in with your arguments.

I find it fascinating that it's somehow my fault when you take refuge in name-calling and snide remarks. And it astounds me to confront an arrogance so vast that it equates its own opinion with two plus two equalling four.

[The Magistrate]

51. That Was Quick, Fellow

You just keep saying that as often as it takes to achieve the self-hypnosis necessary for belief....

"My god, man, slap yourself and think!"

[Saeba]

52. Sorry, Sir, but I missed your point…

I don’t see what is unique about Islamic “expansion”.

From an external point of view, there is not really difference between Christians and Muslims, except maybe that the first are more expansionist and “efficient”.

As far that I’ve learned, empire building is always driven by greed. It’s true about Christians, and also about Muslims. It’s amazing as head of state, and church (all religions), have more appetite for material control than for spirituality. BTW, proselytism was abundantly used by European powers as justification, and tool, of colonialism.

Anyway, your statement “after the death of Mohammed, Islamic rulers sought to conquer the world, striking west, north, and east out of the Arabian Peninsula” can be true, but until now I’ve seen principally Christian rulers seeking to conquer the world, striking west, south, and east out of Europe (and USA presently). I’m always waiting for Muslims…

And currently there is an example about a Christian nation invading a Muslim one, but I don’t see any example of opposite case.

[The Magistrate]

53. Motivation Matters, Sir

The expansion of Islam was driven mostly by the desire to spread the creed of Mohammed; there was certainly desire for loot, and other baser motives involved, but the religious motivation was predominant. European expansion in the industrial age was driven mostly by the desire for monetary gain; for raw materials, markets, cheap labour, and for military bases to protect same: certainly missionaries followed the flag, as the phrase went, but that was not the aim of the governments and financiers who propelled these ventures.

The difference has importance, and for two related reasons. First, greed is more easily deterred, or convinced the game is not worth the candle, than is devout belief in a sacred cause, which tends to dismiss as unworthy calculations of whether success will be easy or hard, or profitable or costly, and to plunge ahead in the conviction the diety will provide success. Second, the attachment to the conquest is lighter in the case of greed than it is in the case sacred fervor: it is easier for the subject people to throw off a greedy conqueror than a holy one, and a greedy conqueror broods less on lost ground than a holy one. It would be hard to find a dozen people in a England who dream of restoring the Raj in India today, little more than half a century after England was evicted from the place, for instance, yet fundamentalist Islamic literature can be found pining for the restoration of Moslem rule in al'Andaluse, half a millenia after this was broken finally, and the attachment of the Jewish faith to the land of Israel, conquered from its earlier inhabitants as a sacred charge, has endured a far longer time than even that.

As for the question of efficiency, it seems to me that each of these two groups was simply the most efficient at conquest in its day. The Mongol riders certainly gave the Moslems a run for the money in that regard, but Mongol conquest always proved ephemeral, wide-spread as it was, whereas Moslem conquest endured, and in most instances endures till this day. There has been remarkably little roll-back from its furthest extensions: Spain, the Balkans, and India south of the Indus, amounting to less than a fifth of the total area conquered. Europe certainly became better at the battlefield wielding, and global projection, of military force, than any other culture in the world, beginning about the early eighteenth century, and proceeded to expand with great energy and efficiency. It is hard to assess the duration of their conquests, for while direct ruling authority has not lasted long, the world has been shaped to a system, of economic and political life, fashioned in the West, that controls and determines much, whatever the form of political authority may be in any particular locale. That system, for better or worse, looks likely to last a long time.

[Mistress Quickly]

31. Look, I only scratched the surface

and specifically stuck with Europe, because that was the question. I didn't even BRING up Asia, Africa, etc.

I could have gotten all the info from one website, but looked for 3 different ones because I wanted to cross source.

But you take a look yourself, and let me know:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Muslim%2C+history%2C+war

[Cyrano]

2. What's really scary

about the call for Jihad is that it will give Bush the excuse to nuke half the world and claim it was either us or them. And yes, I think the son-of-a-bitch is crazy enough to do it.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scurrilous]

6. Islamofascist?

Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=10434

[forgethell]

7. Well, well.

The way I used the term was specific to the terrorists, not all Islamic people, not all Arabs. I feel the term is appropriate in the context used, but if you don't, you know what to do. I'm willing to abide by the decision of the moderator.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. Islamofascist maybe appropriate for Al Qaeda who have a goal

of establishing an inslamic empire. It isn't appropriate at all for Palestinians who are primarily nationalists. Many of them are christians.

[forgethell]

16. Can you give me

a lissting of all the Christian Palestinians who have been suicide bombers? How about just regular, "i-getting-out-of here-first" bombers? How about plane or ship hijackers? Is there even one? I don't know. This is a serious question.

[Tinoire]

4. Yep. Sharon and Bush are going to "fry in Hell"

for "involving us in a permanent war with the Arab world. They are making it much worse."

Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg


Bush, Sharon and their evil, writhing supporters who are deliberately fuelling this madness, may they all fry in hell.

[The Magistrate]

12. It Is An Interesting Article, Ma'am

One of the most distressing features in it, to my view, were the persons who expressed some confidence Europe would be conquered by Islam in the future; this reflects such a radical disconnection from reality that it is hard to conceive of any way to deal with it.

It does seem to me to be a mistake for people on the left to lose sight of the fact that the fundamentalist radicals of Islam, while they may be opponenets in some sense of colonialism, are dyed in the wool reactionaries and theocrats, who are in no sense our friends....

[Vladimir]

13. You are 100% right

one the last point, but let me assure you that in Britain at least, the kinds of clerics this article is referring to are very much in the minority. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the threat from them is negligable. It serves the intelligence agencies well to pretend otherwise though, because it helps keep the people afraid of the 'other'.

[The Magistrate]

29. Of Course They Are A Minority, Sir

And a decided one at that. That ought hardly need stating in a sensible discussion.

But it is a mistake to conclude from a tendency's minority status that it is powerless to cause difficulty, or is certain to remain so small in proportion through the future. Someone here, who's name escapes my recollection just now, has a signature line from the old Colonial revolutionist Mr. Sam Adams, to the effect that what is needed is not a majority of the people, but a dedicated and determined minority willing to kindle fires. While a majority is needed for electoral success in a democratic process, history is replete with examples of what a very small minority can accomplish by ruthless action, and of great political oaks sprung from tiny acorns indeed. It takes very few people to wreak great havoc, and their very insignifigance in number may act to aid them in the accomplishment.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. No, we mustn't lose track of that

Democracy is not something that is on the table in much of the Islamic world. The ideology of Islamic fundamentalism is no more consistent with democratic principles than that of it Christian counterpart or white supremacy.

The far right in developed nations puts out sophistry based on a false dilemma that it is a choice between colonialism and repression on one hand and submitting to terrorism and Islamic fascism on the other. Yet these are but different species of the same right wing genus; they are those who advocate for the natural or divine right of some people to rule over others.

In the end, we must defeat both Bush and bin Laden, both Likud and Hamas. Between now and then, we must not be lured into believing that it is a hard choice between one and the other. As progressives, we should fight against those who would impose on the world a hierarchy based on religion, race or wealth wherever we find them.

[Forkboy]

18. Excellent post,as always,Jack

[The Magistrate]

30. Well Said, Mr. Rabbit!

These reactionaries are all alike, beneath the skin, and all are the enemies of humankind and its progress. Yet when confronted by a group of enemies, it is generally necessary to engage them in turn, and sometimes adviseable to make some use of their quarrels with one another.

My leading concern in this matter is the effect on electoral politics in our own country. People here percieve that they and their country have been attacked by the fundamentalist radicals of Islam, and want these demolished. They are not mistaken in either that perception or that desire. The criminals of the '00 Coup have certainly taken this and twisted it to their own ends of Empire in Iraq, and indeed, the most promising line of attack against this venture is that it damages the fight the people really want to be made. It seems to me that if the left allows itself to be seen opposing the fight against fundamentalist radicals of Islam, it will be so out of tune with the views of the people of the country that its marginalization will be complete, and past any hope of recovery.

[forgethell]

17. You are right!

It does seem to me to be a mistake for people on the left to lose sight of the fact that the fundamentalist radicals of Islam, while they may be opponenets in some sense of colonialism, are dyed in the wool reactionaries and theocrats, who are in no sense our friends.

In fact, I think a case can be made that they are trying to colonize Europe. If so, then they would be no better than any other colonialist.

[JIHAD3001]

19. new Islamic countires

No 'western' country will become an Islamic state unless it chooses to become one. It is not like Muslims are going to invade England. If England becomes an Muslim county, its because the magority of people there are Muslims and that is the way they want it.

[forgethell]

22. What about the Christians who are left?

When they become dhimmis, can you say they were not colonialized?

[library_max]

40. What about 'em?

In your thought experiment that's never actually going to happen, these countries are becoming majority Islamic. How does it make them "colonialized" if the majority of the population decides that it prefers Islam to Christianity? It may interest you to know that Islamic nations have a much better history of tolerating religious minorities (e.g. the Coptic Christians of Egypt) than Christian nations have had. Why is it acceptable to you for Muslims to be a minority in a Christian country but not for Christians to be a minority in a Muslim country?

[tinnypriv]

20. Good old Captain Hook

Always good for a laugh.

[reel progressive]

21. israel should bomb them

terrorists calling for jihad against britain are a threat to the state of israel's existence ,,, israel has a right to defend itself against them

[tinnypriv]

23. Shit

Better get a bomb shelter.

[reel progressive]

24. war is hell

nt

[Forkboy]

26. hey,it's hellboy!

[newyorican]

41. live hard, die young

leave a beautiful corpse...

[bemildred]

42. Well, it's nice they don't have to skulk around. nt

[legin]

44. Exellent

can't be any worse than the fucking crap culture/civilisation that I got at the moment.

[dudeness]

45. its the old 'two way street "adage

to coin a favourite neocon phrase..its a battle for "hearts and minds"..extremists exist and profer on both sides of the political and ideological sprectrum..a call for jihad by Islamis extremists is the equivalent of a call to a "war on terror' by our neocon leaders..one side hoping to expand a religious philosophy..the other a colonial or imperial philosophy..we..like many other innocent victims sit somewhere in the middle..