• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Al-Qaeda-linked terror plot targeting Europe foiled

A true measure of effectiveness is when your opponent starts to complain.

And I've had an awful lot of that. 'Sick', 'nauseous', 'pig ignorant', 'pompous ignorant ass', 'weirdo', 'racist' and 'xenophobic' 'liar' have been a colourful selection of insults thrown at me by those too frustrated to debate properly. (I'm sure there have been others but I sadly can't find them.)

And when it's that lot in the 'peace and love' brigade showing their true colours, you should wear them as a badge of pride!


________________________________________

Names and invalidation for everyone else: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...targeting-europe-foiled-6.html#post1059017587
 
Last edited:
Are you kidding me? What evidence do YOU have that they're succeeding? What government have they toppled? Where have they managed to replace the law of the land with Sharia?

oh, i don't know. Iran comes to mind. theTaliban-era Afghanistan. Gaza. Large sections of Somalia.

If that is true then you all have a real weird definition of "winning". What exactly have they won so far?

it is definitely true that their goals here are at once shorter and longer term than we tend to see. if i may recommend a piece, Frantz Fannon (though he was a horrible sympathizer) wrote a book called "Wretched of the Earth", which does a fair job of describing the mind-set of an individual terrorist, vis-a-vie what they 'achieve' through terrorism.

you may have noticed that the Stated Goals of Al-Qaeda, for example, seem somewhat ethereal and fluid. Now Osama Bin Laden claims to be fighting Global Warming? At one point (at least) he also was fighting for Educational Policy, at one point his movement and the Palestinians were foes within the Islamic world, then (it became advantageous to do so) he declared that he was fighting for them as well. At one point he offered his services to Saudi Arabia to attack and destroy Saddam Hussein, soon thereafter he was fighting to avenge Saddam's humiliation at the hands of the Americans.....

the what for is less important to them than the against whom. for all that it seeks to impose strict sharia law, Islamist Fundamentalism has strong strains of nihilism in it's adherents.

You can't stop terrorism. All you can hope to do, and we have been doing exactly that, is to prevent as many attacks as we can.

'terrorism', eh, perhaps, perhaps not. in WWI both sides used chemical weapons against each other, and would surely have put biological and radiological into widespread use had they the capability. the effects, however, were so awful that the nations involved generally agreed to utterly destroy the next one that tried it on them. It is US policy, for example, that if you use chemical weapons on us, we will take that as an invitation to nuke you. no nation has used a chemical attack against us since.

but the WoT is (deliberately) misnamed. it is a war on Islamist Fundamentalism; and that we can win; though it will take time.
 
oh, i don't know. Iran comes to mind. theTaliban-era Afghanistan. Gaza. Large sections of Somalia.

Um, yeah, thanks and all, I already knew that. But we were discussing the alleged "winning" the terrorists have been doing in Western countries. :)



it is definitely true that their goals here are at once shorter and longer term than we tend to see. if i may recommend a piece, Frantz Fannon (though he was a horrible sympathizer) wrote a book called "Wretched of the Earth", which does a fair job of describing the mind-set of an individual terrorist, vis-a-vie what they 'achieve' through terrorism.

you may have noticed that the Stated Goals of Al-Qaeda, for example, seem somewhat ethereal and fluid. Now Osama Bin Laden claims to be fighting Global Warming? At one point (at least) he also was fighting for Educational Policy, at one point his movement and the Palestinians were foes within the Islamic world, then (it became advantageous to do so) he declared that he was fighting for them as well. At one point he offered his services to Saudi Arabia to attack and destroy Saddam Hussein, soon thereafter he was fighting to avenge Saddam's humiliation at the hands of the Americans.....

the what for is less important to them than the against whom. for all that it seeks to impose strict sharia law, Islamist Fundamentalism has strong strains of nihilism in it's adherents.

In other words, I'm definitely on to something when I say they haven't "won" anything concrete. They have made zero advances so far, other than to make a few scaredycats over here freak out.


'terrorism', eh, perhaps, perhaps not. in WWI both sides used chemical weapons against each other, and would surely have put biological and radiological into widespread use had they the capability. the effects, however, were so awful that the nations involved generally agreed to utterly destroy the next one that tried it on them. It is US policy, for example, that if you use chemical weapons on us, we will take that as an invitation to nuke you. no nation has used a chemical attack against us since.

but the WoT is (deliberately) misnamed. it is a war on Islamist Fundamentalism; and that we can win; though it will take time.

I really don't see how we can win it. I see how we can definitely prevent Islamist Fundamentalism from taking over the West, but I don't see how we can eradicate it from the world. The more we try, the more recruits they'll keep getting both here and abroad..

If the last decade has taught us anything at all, it's this. The terrorist threat today is exactly the same, if not higher and more widespread, than it was on the eve of 9/11. If this doesn't tell you that we're doing something wrong, I don't know what does. At least we've gotten better at preventing attacks. That's something, I guess...
 
Last edited:
Here's what doesn't make sense to me. If their goal is really to take over the world, why engage in terrorism at all?

to make the continued support of 'apostate' Middle Eastern regimes too expensive for the West, forcing us to withdraw. at that point those regimes will be weakened to the point where they can be toppled and replaced with Islamist ones. these can then be unified under one banner, and turned outward; while an on-going campaign in the West keeps us afraid, weakened, divided, and more ready for overthrow and dhimmitude ourselves

According to you, demographics will take care of everything in no time at all.

it will do alot of work for them over the next few decades in a few areas. Islamists have proven willing to use democratic processes (Gaza, Lebanon) to take power, though it seems to turn into a 'one-man-one-vote-once' kind of thing. they will absolutely take advantage of this in the West where they can, just as they take advantage of our sensitivities and the fact that many of us cannot speak Arabic now.

Ric claims that they'll be the majority in a mere 50 years. So why risk it all with terror attacks? All they've accomplished with that is alienating the local population to the point that they're now starting to lash out. It just seems like the worst strategy EVER.

because it's less about the strategy than it is about the attacking.

It has more appeal for a small minority only.

really?

Supportforsuicidebombingbyage.jpg


Fully a quarter of Muslims between the age of 18 and 29 polled as supporting suicide bombing in America; in France it's nearly half.

The vast majority of young Western Muslims are like any other Western youth. They want the same things. Go to school, hang out with friends, get a job, get married, have a couple of kids. We need to keep some perspective here. The danger is real and must neither be ignored, nor minimized. But not every young Muslim man born in the West is a potential Jihadist.

until we, in the West, pay for him to be radicalized.

It's not just the right wing anymore. This rising anti-islam momentum is coming from all sides. I'm all for protecting our values and cultural identity, but I don't want to fall into any excesses as we've been known to do in the past. When you see the ultra-tolerant Dutch also losing patience and actually giving legitimacy to a an extremist they used to despise not so long ago, you know that something is definitely changing. I hear that an anti-immigrant right-wing party in Sweden of all places is also gaining voters.

Some of it tends to be very PC, but a few caustic op-eds have also popped up mostly in a couple of French newspapers I read. I've caught a few heated debates on French TV as well. Like I said, the momentum started in France with Sarkozy's focus on national identity.

and it's going to get worse. the much-maligned Mark Steyn predicted precisely this, years ago.
 
to make the continued support of 'apostate' Middle Eastern regimes too expensive for the West, forcing us to withdraw. at that point those regimes will be weakened to the point where they can be toppled and replaced with Islamist ones. these can then be unified under one banner, and turned outward; while an on-going campaign in the West keeps us afraid, weakened, divided, and more ready for overthrow and dhimmitude ourselves

I don't see them making any headway in toppling moderate Middle Eastern regimes either. :shrug: And also Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria which are known sponsors of terrorism immediately crack down when those same people they help wreak havoc on the West and/or Israel even try to do the same at home. Why do you think the US has been having so much trouble finding countries to send released Gitmo prisoners to? Their own countries don't want them back.



it will do alot of work for them over the next few decades in a few areas. Islamists have proven willing to use democratic processes (Gaza, Lebanon) to take power, though it seems to turn into a 'one-man-one-vote-once' kind of thing. they will absolutely take advantage of this in the West where they can, just as they take advantage of our sensitivities and the fact that many of us cannot speak Arabic now.

The only way they can change anything in the West is to completely tear down our Constitutions. You say this could take decades. I say it's very unlikely to happen. When push comes to shove, we lash out in very ugly ways. Like I said, it's already starting.


really?

Supportforsuicidebombingbyage.jpg


Fully a quarter of Muslims between the age of 18 and 29 polled as supporting suicide bombing in America; in France it's nearly half.

You have to put yourself in a Muslim mindset to understand those results. I'll try and explain the French, since it's the population I know best. Depending on how the question was worded, it is more than likely that what immediately came to mind when asked about suicide bombings was Israel. French Muslims are definitely not friends of Israel and they will always feel that the Palestinian struggle is a just one.

This however does not in any way shape or form mean that these young people would actually join the fight themselves and start strapping bombs to their chest. It just means they understand why their "brothers" in Palestine and elsewhere feel they have no other choice. The number of French born Muslims who become radicalized is abysmally low compared to the numbers in the UK and Germany. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the current anti-Muslim wave doesn't change all that.


and it's going to get worse. the much-maligned Mark Steyn predicted precisely this, years ago.

I believe it's going to get quite ugly as well.
 
Last edited:
Arcana-
]Here's what doesn't make sense to me. If their goal is really to take over the world, why engage in terrorism at all? According to you, demographics will take care of everything in no time at all.

That's a good point and one that others have suggested. The war will won by Muslims anyway, why not just wait them out? Why get Europeans in a twist and have them respond just as you're saying they are? The answer is "I don't know". Perhaps it's impatience. That they want to it happen in their lifetimes. Perhaps they want to make themselves appear victims and thus get get greater public sympathy and more recruits. If terrorism doesn't continue then there is the threat that more Muslims will become Westernized and Islam, in the way the Islamists see true Islam, will be lost. The latter would be my guess if thinking from a militant Muslim perspective.
Ric claims that they'll be the majority in a mere 50 years. So why risk it all with terror attacks? All they've accomplished with that is alienating the local population to the point that they're now starting to lash out. It just seems like the worst strategy EVER.

That's right. It's a risky tactic but keep in mind that Islamic westernization is a threat to the Islamists and not seen as a good thing the way we do. And they have those who certainly argue the Islamic case such as Degreez above who says its all about peace. "See, it says so right here in the Koran!" This is from the same "It's all about oil" crowd. Remember them?

It has more appeal for a small minority only. The vast majority of young Western Muslims are like any other Western youth. They want the same things. Go to school, hang out with friends, get a job, get married, have a couple of kids. We need to keep some perspective here. The danger is real and must neither be ignored, nor minimized. But not every young Muslim man born in the West is a potential Jihadist. In fact, most are not.

Definitely most are not but keep in mind bin Laden's “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will take the strong horse”. The Islamists are the strong horse because they'll use indiscriminate terror to get their way whereas those raised in a typical western environment will not. However they can more easily revert to Sharia as it's part of their religion anyway. They won't need as great persuasion. And keep in mind that Islamic terrorism is directed against peaceful Muslims as well. They are also victims and must accede to the terrorists will. Will they fight back to defend Western values? Some brave souls do, and we should give them every bit of support we can.
It's not just the right wing anymore. This rising anti-islam momentum is coming from all sides. I'm all for protecting our values and cultural identity, but I don't want to fall into any excesses as we've been known to do in the past.

Right. You will stop at certain 'excesses' butthey won't. You don't have the stomach for it and they do. Most will probably just leave, as hundreds of thousands of others are doing already.
When you see the ultra-tolerant Dutch also losing patience and actually giving legitimacy to a an extremist they used to despise not so long ago, you know that something is definitely changing. I hear that an anti-immigrant right-wing party in Sweden of all places is also gaining voters.

They will fight how long? Five years? Ten? And what form will this fighting take? The Democracies will never fight like the terrorists so the best they can ever do is what they're doing now. Fighting a defensive war and hoping the terrorists are caught first. Banning the burka is a small first step, and its a good first step, but it will take a lot more.
Some of it tends to be very PC, but a few caustic op-eds have also popped up mostly in a couple of French newspapers I read. I've caught a few heated debates on French TV as well. Like I said, the momentum started in France with Sarkozy's focus on national identity.

Sarkozy got some great press in the US media as well. and one of the lines when he made a few pro American statements was "Can we now stop hating the French again?"
 
I don't see them making any headway in toppling moderate Middle Eastern regimes either.

well, given that i didn't consider Fatah to be all that 'moderate', I would tend to agree with you there. but Lebanon?

furthermore, you're skipping the first step. evil apostate regimes can survive against the efforts of the True Followers of Allah only because they are supported by the infedelic (rich) West; it is once their support is removed that they will fall in a Holy Wave of etc. so on and so forth.

And also Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria which are known sponsors of terrorism immediately crack down when those same people they help wreak havoc on the West and/or Israel even try to do the same at home.

whereas countries like Yemen prefer to keep their Islamist elements just powerful enough to create trouble and guarantee American support for the regime.

The only way they can change anything in the West is to completely tear down our Constitutions.

not really; how many women now go out with their hair covered, not because they are Muslim, but just to avoid being harrassed?

You say this could take decades. I say it's very unlikely to happen. When push comes to shove, we lash out in very ugly ways.

i agree. unfortunately, given those birthrates, you are at a strong disadvantage. when 'push comes to shove', God has an interesting tendency to side with the bigger armies.

You have to put yourself in a Muslim mindset to understand those results. I'll try and explain the French, since it's the population I know best. Depending on how the question was worded, it is more than likely that what immediately came to mind when asked about suicide bombings was Israel. French Muslims are definitely not friends of Israel and they will always feel that the Palestinian struggle is a just one.

:shrug: i feel that the war in Afghanistan is a just one.

guess what?

that doesn't mean i support mass-murdering innocent Afghani's or Pakistani's

these kids weren't asked if they supported the Palestinians, they were asked if they supported the tactic of deliberately targeting innocents for mass-murder via a suicide bomber. and they answered yes.

This however does not in any way shape or form mean that these young people would actually join the fight themselves and start strapping bombs to their chest.

strapping bombs to one's chest is only one way in which one 'joins the fight'; suicide bombers aren't needed in massive numbers. what are needed are networks of support personnel, who provide for clandestine movement, local knowledge, food and shelter, moral encouragement, financing, and a hundred other things a transnational guerrilla force needs.

The number of French born Muslims who become radicalized is abysmally low compared to the numbers in the UK and Germany.

interesting. i don't see the Muslim populations of the UK and Germany regularly pulling off hits like this:

According to its Office du Tourisme, the big event in Evreux this past weekend was supposed to be the annual fête de la pomme, du cidre et du fromage at the Place de la Mairie. Instead, in this charmingly smouldering cathedral town in Normandy, a shopping mall, a post office, two schools, upwards of 50 vehicles and, oh yes, the police station were destroyed by - what's the word? - "youths"...

They injured, among others, a dozen firemen. "To those responsible for the violence, I want to say: Be serious!" Mr Debré told France Info radio. "If you want to live in a fairer, more fraternal society, this is not how to go about it."

Oh, dear. Who's not "being serious" here? In Normandy, it's not just the cheese that's soft and runny. Granted that France's over-regulated sclerotic economy profoundly obstructs the social mobility of immigrants, even Mr Debris - whoops, sorry - even Mr Debré cannot be so out of touch as to think "seriously" that the rioters are rioting for "a fairer, more fraternal society". But maybe he does. The political class and the media seem to serve as mutual reinforcers of their obsolete illusions...

More than three years ago, I wrote about the "tournante" or "take your turn" - the gang rape that's become an adolescent rite of passage in the Muslim quarters of French cities - and similar phenomena throughout the West: "Multiculturalism means that the worst attributes of Muslim culture - the subjugation of women - combine with the worst attributes of Western culture - licence and self-gratification. Tattooed, pierced Pakistani skinhead gangs swaggering down the streets of northern England areas are as much a product of multiculturalism as the turban-wearing Sikh Mountie in the vice-regal escort." Islamofascism itself is what it says: a fusion of Islamic identity with old-school European totalitarianism. But, whether in turbans or gangsta threads, just as Communism was in its day, so Islamism is today's ideology of choice for the world's disaffected.

Some of us believe this is an early skirmish in the Eurabian civil war. If the insurgents emerge emboldened, what next? In five years' time, there will be even more of them, and even less resolve on the part of the French state. That, in turn, is likely to accelerate the demographic decline. Europe could face a continent-wide version of the "white flight" phenomenon seen in crime-ridden American cities during the 1970s, as Danes and Dutch scram to America, Australia or anywhere else that will have them...
 
Last edited:
Arcana-

That's a good point and one that others have suggested. The war will won by Muslims anyway, why not just wait them out? Why get Europeans in a twist and have them respond just as you're saying they are? The answer is "I don't know". Perhaps it's impatience. That they want to it happen in their lifetimes. Perhaps they want to make themselves appear victims and thus get get greater public sympathy and more recruits. If terrorism doesn't continue then there is the threat that more Muslims will become Westernized and Islam, in the way the Islamists see true Islam, will be lost. The latter would be my guess if thinking from a militant Muslim perspective.


That's right. It's a risky tactic but keep in mind that Islamic westernization is a threat to the Islamists and not seen as a good thing the way we do. And they have those who certainly argue the Islamic case such as Degreez above who says its all about peace. "See, it says so right here in the Koran!" This is from the same "It's all about oil" crowd. Remember them?



Definitely most are not but keep in mind bin Laden's “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will take the strong horse”. The Islamists are the strong horse because they'll use indiscriminate terror to get their way whereas those raised in a typical western environment will not. However they can more easily revert to Sharia as it's part of their religion anyway. They won't need as great persuasion. And keep in mind that Islamic terrorism is directed against peaceful Muslims as well. They are also victims and must accede to the terrorists will. Will they fight back to defend Western values? Some brave souls do, and we should give them every bit of support we can.

Actually Islamic terrorism is directed primarily against fellow Muslims. When you look at it on a global scale, the overwhelming majority of victims of Islamic terrorist attacks are Muslim. I posted an article from the Washington Times about it recently in another thread. It was completely ignored for some reason I can't begin to fathom. I guess it shattered quite a few misconceptions and made the constant fearmongering quite redundant, or something. It was very telling in any case.

Anyway, I can see where you're coming from, but I'm still a very big believer that the quick assimilation and Westernization that happens with each new generation will ultimately be our saving grace. But that alone is not enough, it needs to go hand in hand with a strictly secular education and the requirement that local laws, values and freedoms be respected. The French almost got it right and as a result their huge Muslim population is one of the more moderate and secular in Europe. The mistake in France was to treat Muslims as second class citizens, which created a whole other set of problems.
In other countries Muslim immigration is a relatively recent phenomenon and the newcomers were given much more leeway and the opportunity to pretty much keep their own culture intact. This well intentioned attempt at tolerance and multi-culturalism is back-firing in a major way now. I used to get upset at the rigid French tendency to protect a strict form of secularism to the point of often encroaching on religious freedom, but I have to say they probably had the right idea from the start.


Right. You will stop at certain 'excesses' butthey won't. You don't have the stomach for it and they do. Most will probably just leave, as hundreds of thousands of others are doing already.


They will fight how long? Five years? Ten? And what form will this fighting take? The Democracies will never fight like the terrorists so the best they can ever do is what they're doing now. Fighting a defensive war and hoping the terrorists are caught first. Banning the burka is a small first step, and its a good first step, but it will take a lot more.

I wish I could tell the future, but I can't. We'll just have to wait and see. A number of factors tell me that it won't be as bad as you think it'll be, but I'm in no way naive enough to think that it'll be easy either. As a matter of fact, I'm starting to get the feeling that it'll be much harder on our Muslim populations than on anyone else. You think they're poised to gain a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if they lose everything.

Sarkozy got some great press in the US media as well. and one of the lines when he made a few pro American statements was "Can we now stop hating the French again?"

I have mixed feelings about the man. He's actually extremely unpopular right now. Everyone loves to hate him. Nothing to do with the Muslim issue, though. Mostly political scandals and his unpopular reform of a few social programs.
 
Actually Islamic terrorism is directed primarily against fellow Muslims.

and much of the rhetoric of the dogmatic European left that acts as such apologists for the Islamist ideology behind the terrorism is damaging to the very people they think they are somehow defending. When Europeans do not distinguish between Muslims and Islamists, and defend the Islamists under the misguided notion they are defending Muslims, they only empower the Islamists to apply even more pressure on their fellow Muslims to toe the line.



Anyway, I can see where you're coming from, but I'm still a very big believer that the quick assimilation and Westernization that happens with each new generation will ultimately be our saving grace. But that alone is not enough, it needs to go hand in hand with a strictly secular education and the requirement that local laws, values and freedoms be respected. The French almost got it right and as a result their huge Muslim population is one of the more moderate and secular in Europe. The mistake in France was to treat Muslims as second class citizens, which created a whole other set of problems.

Couldn't agree more. Multiculturalism is downright stupid, and acts as nothing more than a support system for hypocrits who want a quick excuse for talking out of both sides of their mouth. France DOES have it right for emphasizing French culture, secularism and assimilation.
 
:shrug: i feel that the war in Afghanistan is a just one.

guess what?

that doesn't mean i support mass-murdering innocent Afghani's or Pakistani's

these kids weren't asked if they supported the Palestinians, they were asked if they supported the tactic of deliberately targeting innocents for mass-murder via a suicide bomber. and they answered yes.



strapping bombs to one's chest is only one way in which one 'joins the fight'; suicide bombers aren't needed in massive numbers. what are needed are networks of support personnel, who provide for clandestine movement, local knowledge, food and shelter, moral encouragement, financing, and a hundred other things a transnational guerrilla force needs.

I understand that. There's just no indication that French Muslims are doing any of those things, regardless of how many feel that suicide bombings are justifiable. As the article you linked proves, they have much bigger fish to fry. French Muslims are still struggling to rid themselves of the second-class citizen stigma they've lived with for 3 generations now. The rioting and social unrest you read about in the news has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. You're bringing a completely alien argument into the discussion. The rioting in France is not about religion or terrorism, but about a much bigger issue. It's about a whole section of the French population that has been consistently and systematically discriminated against for a very long time. Given the latent resentment they've been carrying from father to son for so long, it's no surprise that every so often they'll do something stupid. And yet, they haven't torn the country to shreds. You ever wonder why that is? They could. There's enough of them to cause major damage. But they don't.
 
and much of the rhetoric of the dogmatic European left that acts as such apologists for the Islamist ideology behind the terrorism is damaging to the very people they think they are somehow defending. When Europeans do not distinguish between Muslims and Islamists, and defend the Islamists under the misguided notion they are defending Muslims, they only empower the Islamists to apply even more pressure on their fellow Muslims to toe the line.

You know, I think it's a case of people talking AT each other, instead of TO each other. Both sides use similar words that are misunderstood or mean something else to the other side and you end up with frustration all around.

There are those that will stand up for average Muslims, because they feel the religion is being unfairly attacked. They get so lost in their efforts to explain that most Muslims are decent and good, they forget to address the actual issue raised, which was probably some horrendous human rights violation of some sort that they would never support in a million years. And very often, they start calling names, such as bigot, racist. etc

Similarly, those who do bring up the horrendous human rights violation to our attention, do so in inflammatory ways, often not making any distinction between your average Muslim and the crazy fanatics who practice an extreme form of Islam. When confronted about it, they get defensive and offended at the name calling.

It's one of worst vicious circles ever.
 
There are those that will stand up for average Muslims, because they feel the religion is being unfairly attacked. They get so lost in their efforts to explain that most Muslims are decent and good, they forget to address the actual issue raised, which was probably some horrendous human rights violation of some sort that they would never support in a million years. And very often, they start calling names, such as bigot, racist. etc


I would have more sympathy for this view were it not for the fact that they seem so full of arrogant hubris at the start, when they think they can tear other people off a strip.

And as I found in my case for example, it's not just over Muslims. Resorting to insults just shows the more childish of them up when they don't get their way in trying to batter people down themselves.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...argeting-europe-foiled-33.html#post1059022199
 
It's not just the right wing anymore. This rising anti-islam momentum is coming from all sides. I'm all for protecting our values and cultural identity, but I don't want to fall into any excesses as we've been known to do in the past. When you see the ultra-tolerant Dutch also losing patience and actually giving legitimacy to a an extremist they used to despise not so long ago, you know that something is definitely changing. I hear that an anti-immigrant right-wing party in Sweden of all places is also gaining voters.

They (with they I assume you mean the old parties) still despise Wilders, but they can't simply ignore 20% of the electorate. At least not without paying the price, the price being more votes for Wilders freedom party. Being tolerant also means tolerant to people who criticise Islam. The dutch have been angered by the murder of Theo van Gogh and the never ending threats of muslim extremists against people who simply critisize Islam. I still see a lot of posters here playing the racist card as soon as they're confronted with this criticism. Many dutchmen no longer accept it, eventhough some of the Islam critics are in fact racists. Now I don't mind that these posters don't share the criticism, that's not the point, but it angers me that the response is often limited to calling the critic a racist.
 
Last edited:
Now I don't mind that these posters don't share the criticism, that's not the point, but it angers me that the response is often limited to calling the critic a racist.

Well in Wilders case it is accurate. He knows fully well that by targeting Islam, he targets people with a different "colour" and "race" than himself for the most part. He is nothing but a typical populist who in times of crisis seizes the opportunity to blame others for the problems that plague a country. Hitler did it, Roosevelt did it, and the rest of the world did it to the Jews. It is no different.
 
Well in Wilders case it is accurate. He knows fully well that by targeting Islam, he targets people with a different "colour" and "race" than himself for the most part.

Waycism, Waycism!

Is that the best slander there is? Looks like some people learn nothing.

There's an expression - Don't shoot the messenger!
 
Last edited:
They (with they I assume you mean the old parties) still despise Wilders, but they can't simply ignore 20% of the electorate. At least not without paying the price, the price being more votes for Wilders freedom party. Being tolerant also means tolerant to people who criticise Islam. The dutch have been angered by the murder of Theo van Gogh and the never ending threats of muslim extremists against people who simply critisize Islam. I still see a lot of posters here playing the racist card as soon as they're confronted with this criticism. Many dutchmen no longer accept it, eventhough some of the Islam critics are in fact racists. Now I don't mind that these posters don't share the criticism, that's not the point, but it angers me that the response is often limited to calling the critic a racist.

By they, I meant the Dutch people, not the politicians. :)
 
Well in Wilders case it is accurate. He knows fully well that by targeting Islam, he targets people with a different "colour" and "race" than himself for the most part. He is nothing but a typical populist who in times of crisis seizes the opportunity to blame others for the problems that plague a country. Hitler did it, Roosevelt did it, and the rest of the world did it to the Jews. It is no different.

Its accurate when Wilders suggests there needs to be a 'headrag-tax' for women who wear a veil because 'it pollutes the environment'. However, Wilders does not target people with a different "colour" and "race", he's got quite a view supporters among migrants who have integrated in dutch society. I despise your comparison with Hitlers anti-semitism, if you have to be unreasonable, there's an ME forum specialised in your needs.
 
Last edited:
By they, I meant the Dutch people, not the politicians. :)

Than I don't understand your initital comment. Long before Wilders, even before 9-11, we had a party (Pim Fortuyns LPF) who criticised Islam, who criticised the response to islamism of the dutch government. In general, the dutch are not tolerant of the intolerant.
 
Than I don't understand your initital comment. Long before Wilders, even before 9-11, we had a party (Pim Fortuyns LPF) who criticised Islam, who criticised the response to islamism of the dutch government. In general, the dutch are not tolerant of the intolerant.

Most countries in Western Europe have had similar parties for decades. My point is that until recently, they were rather marginalized. Their base was a small minority. I'm noticing a trend in almost every country today where more and more people are siding with these once non-mainstream parties. In France, for instance, the current government is borrowing heavily from the once much criticized ideas of the Front National party.
 
Well in Wilders case it is accurate. He knows fully well that by targeting Islam, he targets people with a different "colour" and "race" than himself for the most part. He is nothing but a typical populist who in times of crisis seizes the opportunity to blame others for the problems that plague a country. Hitler did it, Roosevelt did it, and the rest of the world did it to the Jews. It is no different.


See what we mean Arcana? This is the really the big problem Europe has to deal with, as much as militant Islam.

There are just too many PeteEU's in Europe, which is why your long term optimism is viewed through rose coloured glasses, not reality.
 
See what we mean Arcana? This is the really the big problem Europe has to deal with, as much as militant Islam.

There are just too many PeteEU's in Europe, which is why your long term optimism is viewed through rose coloured glasses, not reality.

Actually we have too many of your type and they are driving a wedge between sections of society.. something we have been trying to avoid since WW2.
 
It's funny... PeteEU's type are always calling other people names and trying to foist extra systems of government onto people happy enough with existing ways.... but then accuses of others of driving the wedges in when they blow various whistles!

Shame!


____________________________________

And talking about division and hate......

twat.webp

Not much attempt to pursue peace and harmony in that little speech! No wonder there's so much anger about when the opposition indulge in such high-octane, hateful emotional outbursts without any logic!





The foul-mouthed, illiterate lout can be read (and sympathised-with by Lefties and Liberals) here: http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=LQpj2bFM7s0
 
Last edited:
Actually we have too many of your type and they are driving a wedge between sections of society.. something we have been trying to avoid since WW2.

Ultimately, that all sounds pretty lame, Pete. Nothing there is going to solve the problem. You are just nibbling on the fringes and roundabout beating of bushes.

The answer is crystal clear: Adopt a conservative mindset (media would have to be included here)- throw away the liberal bs experiment - and knuckle down for some hard choices. Immediately stop all immigration (not gonna happen...), don't just slow it down. Retool education system and start teaching your kids that it's still cool to have babies and that the meaning of life does not involve clubbing. Complete moral reboot.

Not gonna happen. Europe is lost. Trying to fine tune a system that is monumentally screwed from its base is not going to work. Europe's premises for social governance are all out of whack, they have lost their moral compass, and they can no longer distinguish between friend and foe. Europe is a fertile group for conquering by their traditional enemies - who have not lost their own "moral compasses" by their own standards - and are sitting ducks.

In short, the dumb ****s (I'm truly sorry for my harsh words) set themselves up for conquering, and the muslims - who would otherwise have nothing constructive to do - are ready for the plundering. This is entirely self-inflicted.

Europe allowed it to happen when they could have chosen otherwise.


peace out, ric
 
It's funny... PeteEU's type are always calling other people names and trying to foist extra systems of government onto people happy enough with existing ways.... but then accuses of others of driving the wedges in when they blow various whistles!

Shame!


____________________________________

Sure. Their argument, if you can even call it that, is based on calling others racists and bigots and they seem to believe that their self righteousness gives them some sort of moral authority.

Take away the name calling and they wouldn't have much to say.

I know these sorts are everywhere, but Europe appears cursed with an over abundance of them.
 
Actually we have too many of your type and they are driving a wedge between sections of society.. something we have been trying to avoid since WW2.

And what type is that, Pete?

And I'm driving a wedge between who and whom?
 
Back
Top Bottom