Clive,

just because I see you being online and haven't seen you since long - have you gotten my apology from some months ago: for me having messed up that old second chess match of ours? It's still a sting in my soul that I left you stranded due to my own fault and thoughtlessness.

Please see the very last post here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141556

Oh my.. Same old news over and over and over again. Islamic madness agains the entire world.

0.26-0.33 :haha::har::har::har:

That's cool. Many people have many issues with things I say about weighty topics like this. There are many instances where I do not embrace the generally accepted perspective, and I have good reasons for doing so, though they often take a good deal of explaining by virtue of the fact that they are not the generally accepted perspective.
Please allow me to apologize for the inconvenience I have caused you by prompting your excellent and thorough response - as well as the great deal of reading you are about to have to do, should you so choose. My sympathies in advance to your mousewheel.
----------------
What I am about to say is intended to prompt you to rethink your views concerning the history of US interventionist policy, or at least challenge them.
And why did Japan attack? Was it because of some kind of indoctrinated distrust of the US? Was it because of a credible threat to the Phillipenes, which the Japanese stated in numerous diplomatic communiques that they would not attack? Was it because the Japanese desired Axis domination of the world?

As I'm sure you've guessed, the answer is "none of the above". Japan went to war with the US because of the strict diplomatic stance that the US adopted.

FDR, a self-proclaimed anglophile, wanted to get into WW2. His "New Deal" had done little for the US economy, which remained in decline until (1943,IIRC) the mid-forties. The former is evidenced by his shameless adoption of the lend-lease policy in the face of congressional and popular opposition.

Moreover, FDR was a person of the worst character. He attempted to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, with the intent of establishing a means of circumventing the seperations of powers established in the US constitution. He was a potential dictator in every sense of the word, no different than Hitler or Stalin in that he desired to eliminate freedom to further his own agenda. Fortunately, his own political party helped block his initiative, and the Supreme Court was left alone - a victory for self-determination. FDR was far from finished, though.

From 1939 to 1941 he encouraged a series of diplomatic initiatives aimed at getting Japan to declare war on the US, presumably with the intent of getting the US into a war with Germany. These intiatives had one overriding purpose; To pick a fight with Japan. No matter what concessions the Japanese made, the US consulate rejected them.
We are both educated people, NS. We both know Japan wouldn't have declared war upon the US unless there was no percieved alternative.
What would Japan stand to gain? What would it stand to lose? The military and political leaders of Japan were wrong about many things, but they were not idiots. Faced with the perceived inevatibility of conflict with the US, Japan did the only rational thing; It launched a surprise attack in order to gain initiative- a gamble which ultimately failed.
--------------------------------------------
Now, let us move on to the European front.

There was absolutely no reason for the US to assist England in her struggle, mostly because the US populace was rightly dissatisfied with the outcome of the Great War and the Versailles Treaty.

If you would like, we can discuss the causes of WW1 in great detail, but I am certain that we will both arrive at the same conclusion; WW1 was both uneccesary and foolish, a conflict brought about by the whims of men who were given virtual fiat power over the destinies of their nations.
The results of WW1 speak for themselves. Millions of people on both sides sacrificed for the purpose of shifting millions of other people from one form of fiat, imperialistic control to another. Pure insanity, if you ask me.

US involvement in WW1 turned what would have been a German victory into a political quaqmire wherein nations not responsible for the Allied victory squabbled endlessly over fiscal and territorial concessions. President's Wilson's ideal of a League of Nations was torn apart in favor of exacting concessions from Germany, a power which had been "winning the war" in every sense of the term until the US got involved.

The Versailles treaty tore nations apart, and assembled nations which never should have existed. Iraq was born by cartographers who lumped Jews, Kurds, and Shiite and Sunni Muslims into one geographical area for the sake of expedience. The result should have been predictable.
Czecheslovakia was made with the intention of creating a French ally, and instead resulted in the predictable disharmony of Czechs and Slovaks, who hate each other. Yugoslavia was ostensibly created with the same intent as Czecheslovakia, and it yielded similarly favorable results.
I could go on and on about the harms of the Versailles treaty and the US war involvement that allowed it, but I'll rest my case here.
I've already posited the argument for US non-involvement in WW1, which would have precluded WW2, but let's take this as a seperate argument.
The first assumption I would like to challenge is that Germany would have won the war against the Soviet Union had it not been for US involvement. This is a false assumption.
Hitler doomed Germany to defeat the very instant that he diverted army groups north and south towards Leningrad and Stalingrad, respectively.
His fallacy violated the extremely successful concept of Schwerpunkt (Literally "Spearpoint",the application of superior force upon a concentrated area) , and he undid the success of German tactics in a matter of months.
For clarification, please note that the capture of Moscow would have been decisive. Moscow was the center of Russian logistics because it was the major rail hub in all of Russia. If railroad logistics had been cut, it would have spelled the end for the Soviet Union. There was simply no other way to transport the tremendous amounts of supplies and manpower needed by the Red Army, or any other modern-ish army for that matter.

Hitler sought to prevent the mistakes of Napoleon by destroying the Russian Army in the field, rather than by taking Moscow. Ironically, his strategy backfired because like Napoleon he did not understand his enemy. Germany literally came within sight of winning WW2, but Hitler botched the attack on Moscow by diverting Army Groups North and South. He also delayed Operation Barbarossa by several months by supporting Mussolini's attack on the Balakans and enforcing the "Pact of Steel" by invading the politically unstable state of Yugoslavia. The result was that the Germans were unable to capture Moscow before a brutal winter set in. The Soviets used the time afforded them to move their industry east and muster something around 40 Siberian divisions to the German front, sealing Germany's fate.

From that point onwards, there was no way that Germany's superior tactics and soldiers could have won out against Soviet numbers. For every tank that Germany produced, the Soviet Union produced five. For every soldier that Germany produced, the Soviet Union produced ten. I'm generalizing, but the point is quite valid. One of the drawbacks of using a comparitively small and elite force of soldiers to win a war is that mistakes are very costly. Hitler made too many mistakes. He didn't properly utilize the Wehrmacht's strengths and it cost him the war.

There was no way that Germany could have won the war against the Soviet Union, whether or not the US was involved. At the time of the Normandy invasion, 98% of the Wehrmacht proper (which had been dilluted by an influx of Luftwaffe troops and new recruits) was on the Eastern Front. Most of the troops in France were conscripts drawn from France, Romania, Bulgaria, and even Russia. These troops were substandard, lacking even basic Wehrmacht training, but they held the greatest amphibious invasion force ever assembled for quite some time - several months, in fact. Even then, the Western Allied forces took months to achieve the territorial gains that the Soviets had achieved in weeks.
The sheer numbers of Soviet forces guaranteed victory, and the pitiful contributions of substandard US equipment like the P39 AeroCobra or the obsolescent Stuart tank made little difference.

Finally, I'd like to address the argument that US strategic bombing somehow impeded German production enough to allow the Soviets to win. That argument is based on the false assumption that strategic bombing was effective at its' intended task: destroying German war industry.
German industrial planners utilized a system of de-centralized production to counter inevitable bombings. This was a tremendous leap in military-industrial reasoning. At the outset of WW2 there was still enormous regard for the theory that bombers could win a war, and the Germans had the foresight to counter that theory.

The idea was that sufficient numbers of bombers with high-power engines could outrun and out....altitude...(I'll make up words when I see fit, thank you:DL) interceptors. This logic was based upon combat performance of "interceptors" in WW1, which were not particularly successful in destroying bombers, all things considered.

Notwithstanding the fact that there were precisely zero purpose-built interception aircraft produced or designed in WW1, the theory is ridiculous. The number of bombers and aerial ordnance it would take to literally bomb a strong-willed nation into military submission is virtually incalculable, especially when the target nation, if devoid of capacity to counter bombing raids, takes the logical course of action and starts hiding things underground or building very thick concrete superstructures over otherwise vulnerable assets. We know this now, but at the time the theory was considered valid.

German wartime production, which was never large to begin with, actually continued to climb after strategic bombings were begun en masse by the US 8th Air Force in in 42'. It only declined when production facilities were overrun or cut off by troops on the ground - very late in the war.
Strategic bombers made a very impressive-looking mess of German towns and cities, and the media reported as much, but the truth is that they did very little to impede German war production when compared to ground forces that physically occupied positions.
-------------------
As for imagining the consequences of US non-intervention, I'll admit that some of Europe was spared Communist rule due to the presence of US forces. Given Stalin's blatant disregard for the terms agreed upon at the Yalta conference, I have little doubt that he would have just rolled on through Europe, but that is only part of the argument.

What fate did those under Stalin's rule suffer? How did it differ from the fate of those under Hilter's rule? Wartime casualties aside, Stalin- to say nothing of the Soviet regime- murdered far more people than Hitler ever did. At least Hitler had the decency to limit his mad "cleansing" to a few particular sectors of the popualace (not just Jews, although many people tend to forget the other millons of victims:nope:), and the residents of the concentration camps had relatively brief and merciful lives compared to those left to rot, starve, or die of exposure and overwork over a period of many years like those sentenced to the Gulags and the Lubyanka. It's a morbid truth, but truth nonetheless.

My thoughts are that the systematic elmination of people is not much different than the systematic elimination of a people. I suppose the argument could be made that the latter is more evil than the former, but in my mind there is no difference. People are people, and murdering them is wrong. In cases like the Hitler vs Stalin debate, I find Stalin more evil.
The horrors of the holocaust are nothing to be taken lightly or set aside, but ask the families of the more numerous victims of Soviet pogroms or NKVD or KGB purges if the fate of their loved ones was any less horrible.
Is it worse to be branded with a star and led to your inevitable death in a gas chamber or to be snatched from your home in the middle of the night for no apparent reason and led to your inevitable death? I see little difference between the two, other than that the latter breeds more fear and misery because it is so indiscriminate.
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are also other harms you have not taken into account in your assessment.

Communism is, by virtue of its' very nature, International socialism. It requires worldwide conflict, or at best confrontation, to be realized.
You would think that alone would have been enough to deter allied leaders from seeking alliance with the Soviet Union -and it was, for quite a while-
but the desperate desire to preserve their interventionist policies led them to deal with the secular devil. They thought they could handle the beast, and they were quite wrong.

Soviet victory in WW2 heralded the onset of nearly half a century of misery and conflict for most of the world. To this day, some nations and their peoples struggle on and punish themselves (except for their leadership) in the pursuit of Communist ideals, mostly because the Western world allowed a Communist victory against its better judgement.

National socialism is, of course, National socialism, and in the form of the Nazi party it sought no further aim than to re-establish ancestral German lands and destroy/exploit the threat of Bolshevism. Hitler said as much in Mein Kampf. He had no intent to invade France or the Balkans, but was forced into doing so by the interventionist approaches of other nations.

I consider the Polish war guarantee to be one of history's greatest jokes, and one of its greatest evils. Two nations with no ability to defend a third- which was itself much like the nation attacking it- pledged to defend it though they had no means to do so. The whole thing was nothing more than an excuse to get into a war with Germany for no reason other than that Britain and France wanted to beat Germany down, mostly becuase they feared Germany's potential economic power.

Germany had a legitimate claim to Danzig, and the citizens of Danzig agitated for reuinification. Germany even made concessions by demanding only a small corridor of largely unused Polish territory to link it with Danzig,
but the British and French pledged to defend Poland against German military pressure, nonetheless. This would somewhat akin to Britain and France offering a war guarantee to the Soviets if the Berlin Wall was destroyed for the purposes of preventing German aggression. Not quite identical, but madness all the same.

Had Germany been allowed to lay claim to Danzig against the military dictatorship to its East, the Second World War would never have happened. The worst possible result I can conceive is that Germany, and possibly France, Britain, and Poland, not to mention a host of Eastern European nations, would have gone to war agains the Bolsheviks and crushed them. That outcome was, in fact, what Hitler detailed in Mein Kampf. As a veteran of the Great War, he stated that had no desire to see Western Europe plunged into chaos again.

I'm hesitant to base much of my belief upon sheer speculation, but I think that German rule would have been preferable to Soviet rule or the Islamic extremism resulting from the breakup of European power structure. We cannot ever know what really went on in Hitler's mind, but we can know his military means, and those means did not include a capacity for conquering the world, despite what decades of propaganda have led us to believe. In the words of Otto Krestchmer himself:(as best I can recall) "I laughed when I saw US newspapers claiming that Germany would take over the world. I thought to myself; "With what? We have nothing. Everyone knows this."

Well, I certainly agree with the first point. That's what you can expect from a powerful central government, all of which are vulnerable to being co-opted by other interests.

As for Islam targetting nations that have done no harm to it, I cede that point as well. My solution is not to fight Islam but to redirect its wrath upon someone else for the time being, preferably itself, but more likely, Europe.

I don't have a long-term solution for Islamic extremism. The Muslim desire for eradicating or converting others has been around for a long time, and I haven't seen any diplomatic initiatives that would be more successful than a modern-day Reconquista or Crusade, which themselves bred lasting conflicts. My only solution is to buy time to either come up with an alternative, induce Islam to evolve somehow(greater jihad), or, failing all else, allow them to dig their own grave.

I actually meant 2,500 yr old region that was predominantly Islamic, but I still dispute the Jewish claim to the land. Though Jews may have been around for most of what is now Israel's history, they were not the sovereign people. The region was home to others before they invaded and briefly occupied it for the first time, much as it was the second time.

I admit that I don't know a great deal about Israel's history. Most of my views come from Asimov's Guide to the Bible, and his history is based entirely upon evaluation of biblical texts.


This, however, I do know a great deal about. Israel was created in 1948 as the result of a prolonged period of conflict between Jews, Arabs, and British authorities. It was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN less than a year later.

Though sectarian violence in the region had been present for some time, it had been kept under control by the French, and later; the British.
After WW2, the British were faced with bankruptcy, and the collapse of their Empire. It was no longer to possible to control far-flung territories like Palestine. Thus, they simply ceded control of the region to the Zionists in an attempt to gain an ally.

I can't say that I really blame them for their decision, but I can certainly blame them for their attempts (along with those of the French) to use Israel to their advantage in the Suez incident more than a decade later.

I have no doubt that British foreign policy in 1949 was much different from British foreign policy in 1919.

You are correct in the belief that Britain was responsible for the partioning of what had been the Ottoman Empire. It was also, in my view, responsible for the resultant conflicts. Just as in the Balkans, Britain redistributed peoples and borders without a thought to the consequences.

This is partially why I think it possible to redirect the wrath of Islam upon Europe.

No, my friend, it is the Catholics who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims, and a wise US foreign policy would make mention of this. This is another part of why I believe we can redirect Islam's wrath.

Btw, the crusades did not spawn Jihad. That word is mentioned several times in the Koran, which predates the Crusades.

I seem to recall a school of thought that equates the Crusades with modern Jihad, but I can't remember the damn word. I have a hard time remembering Arabic words because the language and script are so different from what I am used to. If you know of the term and could remind me, I'd be most grateful.

That is a very valid perspective, and I must admit that I cannot offer definitive proof to the contrary, though I support it. Part of the reason I wish for the US to avoid foreign entanglements is that there is no thin red line between state or private interests and those of the people. At what point does a war become just? I do not think that the furthering of state or corporate interests is a valid casus belli, but there is certainly an argument to be made for the welfare of the Iraqi people, especially the murdered Kurds and Shiites. I suppose it all depends upon what the value of an innocent's life is worth compared to that of a soldier.
-----------------------------------
I agree with your original premise, but I find fault in your reasoning. Israel is quite possibly the worst place that US forces could find as a base for expanding oil interests. It doesn't really offer a direct or easy route to oil-rich nations, other than by air, and it is surounded by hostile and comparitively oil-poor nations. Better and more diplomatic/economical choices lie to the east and southeast:03:

I can cetainly attest to the presence of Christian and Jewish lobby groups in determining US support for Israel. They are amongst the most vocal and well-funded groups.
I almost completely agree, and I agree that the US is screwed. We would have been far better off by not sticking our nose into things, but we did.

I've already explained my reasons for trying to shift the brunt of the conflict on to Europe, but I'll add one additional reason: Europe is a more viable target.

There. I said it. Call it Realpolitik or whatever you want, but the point is sound. There is already a lot of resentment for Islam in Europe and the US stands only to gain from the inevitable conflict. We can't be morally justified in eradicating Islam, and we can't be morally justified in supporting it, so what else is there to do? It's like WW1 and WW2 all over again, except we've had the chance to learn twice. They have issues to resolve, so let's let them fight. Why not benefit from their ancestral conflict when we can do nothing to stop it? Sooner or later they are going to learn their lesson. Europe has already learned its' lesson, and Islam as a whole is in the process of learning the lesson.

The US can only harm things with interventionist policy. We've only just begun and look at what has happened. We've only polarized Islamic sects by providing an external threat.

Peace and free trade with all nations, I say. We invite less harm that way, and we can destroy nations that harm their people through economic viability.

I'd be most interested in your views, should you desire to present them. You can use PM if you wish. I won't promise to agree, but I will promise to keep an open mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though we often desire the same outcome, as you mentioned before, we may not agree upon the methodology, and therein lies the function of argument.:DL We must butt heads until we arrive at a mutual conclusion, even if that conclusion is that there can be no agreement.

On a more personal note, I appreciate your respect, NS, but I must point this out:
Lawyers and politicians present their arguments very well, but we all hate them. ;)

Rhetoric can be very persuasive, powerful, and harmful. Most of my arguments are presented in rhetorical form. I usually have the knowledge to back them up, but not always. Like anyone else, I draw conclusions from what I have learned or been taught.

One of my few talents is rhetoric, especially verbal rhetoric. But that is no reason to respect my arguments.

I hate stuff like this.
These guys are just a bunch of idiots,
But we dont kill them for the same reason we dont kill Christian/Jewish/White supremecy extreamists (all have backward veiws and retarded Ideas such as this.)

We have freedom of speech..... remember?

The fact is there are no more islamic extremists in the uk than there are
of other types of extremist. Unless they are making bombs or buying guns. we ignore them like we ignore all stupid people.

I have met many Muslims, a couple are best friends of mine, they are just ordinarny folks trying get by in life, without hurting themselves or anyone else.
Stuff like this makes them even more furious than us - because

1) It give their relegion a bad name.
2) it makes the more ignorant Non Muslims judge all Muslims as evil conspritors
3) They also see it as scare mongering by the media - why give these morons any air time on the news? when it achives nothing other than to incite racial hatred.

a Quoted response from one of my Muslim friends when he watched the above link.

"UH If they dont like here they should piss off back home and stop whining"

I agree with him...

Here is a question that anyone with a racial or relegiouse predjudice should ask them selves:
"How many of these people do i actually know?"
Answer is most likley to be: none.
people are scared of what they dont understand.

Or people are scared because they understand it all too well. ;) You seem toi imply that critical attitude towards islam must be equated with prejudice, that'S how I got oyur last paragraph. Actually, that statement is a prejudice of yours in itself - against people criticising islam.

and to answer your question, yes, I knew and knwo Muslim people. And some where like you described. Others were of the like I - and others - attack them for. Most living in the West, however, form a silent, never caring majority that is sticking to itself and isolates itself as best as it can, and that is not just my subjective imoression and personal experience, but that is data from various sociological reasearches on these matters, the latest in Germany has been published just ten days ago. All this is not a very constructive way to try integrating oneself into a new living place one has moved to.

Duh. Read what you just wrote. Then look up "prejudice" in the dictionary! I know English isn't your first language but still...

I'm sick of hearing this BS from you. I dated a Muslim girl for a year, used to 'hang out' at her mothers house and sometimes at the houses of various aunts she had. They all lived in frickin Muslimville where the generation above us all wore Saris and spoke Urdu or some sh!t... and our generation all wore jeans and t-shirts and spoke English. You should spend less time reading reports and more time in the real world with your eyes open.

Sure, but the same can be said for half the imigrants in western countries.
they like to keep them selves to them selves. Why? because they want to accociate with people who have the same things in common, same veiws and beliefs etc. isnt that human nature?
Hell here we like drinking in the Pub, muslim friends will come, but they cannot drink alchahol - so its not the same for them. Granted its there choice, but they always feel more comfortable meeing in coffee shops and cafes etc.

So What do you do as a nation? In the Britain we have become a bit hypocrital in our attitudes.
On the one hand we have always said to them, "you can come here an be free to practice you beliefs & culture.
Then post 9/11 - that turns into: actually, you have to intergrate in to our society and adopt british values....

Come on... You can have it one way or the other not both.

Way too much public and media hysteria over terrorism. then we start waving out flags, like bunch of brainlwashed patriotic zombies... (little different from the terrorists themselves in my eyes)

then we start giving up civil liberties to our govenments in exchange for more security,
We Lose many poor young souls from our armed services and spend billions of $$ / £ on two wars, that have done little other increased hatred toward the West... hence increasing the chances of terrorism.

Have the terrorist won? Not exactly no...., but they sure have done a pretty damn good job in screwing us over, we are not as 'free' as we were in 2000 thats for sure...
I blame the terrorists 60% for carrying out the evil deed, but then I blame our selves 40% for our foolish reactions, we should know better, all of us.

I f**king give up on mankind sometimes I tell you.

No, it cannot. We have very very less problems with immigrants from non-Muslim countries. I often said that. Even those groups that have somewhat a history to form some kind on insider-only societies (Chinatowns :) ) nevertheless usually try to establish good relations and open contact to their hosting nation. eurppean immigrants are not our problem. Nothamericans are not the porblem. not Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans. Not Southamericans. In the sopecial case of Jews, they have totally sunk into our societies and molten with them again, and before the war even were the motor of blossoming in European matropoles, like Berlin.

whenever I see reports on troubles, read sociometric data about crisis in ethnic subcommunities, chances are EXTREMELY high that it involves Turks, Albanians, Pakistani, Algerians, Moroccans, Saudis.

No other immigration groups demand so noisily so wide reaching special rights and special recogntiion and claim the role of being victims of racism so readily, like muslim immigration groups. No other immigration groupos for siloated sub-cultures and parallel societies so systemtically, like uslim immigrants. no other immigration group actively and willingly refuses to integrate itself, like muslim groups often do. we have seen that even porven in reaserach statistics by university seeveral times in theb past 3-4 years. I linked I think 2 British studies showing that in the past 4 years, and just days ago the third or 4th of such a study in the past 3-4 years has been released in Germany. that is basing not on single individuals only, but on groups. the group forms the rule. The individual may present the exception from the rule - or not. ;)

and another insight that gets statistically boosted since some time: that assuming we would fund our shaking social system in europe by importing immigrants, can already be shown by numbers black on white to be a self-deception. Becasue most immigrants fromMuslim countries are not well-trained members of specialised labour branches, with educated social backgrounds in their families. Instead, most are poor, uneducated members of social low class, while Muslim managers and entrpreneurs are the total exception from the rule. Statistics show that from the social low class we allow in en masse, only very very few manage to raise in social status and education. Mayn even actively resist that. The conclusion is that all in all we do not gain wins but that it puts additional stress on our social systems that we do not select more carefully whom we let in and whom we sent back, and that the assumption the presence of unselected imigration would secure our social safety fopr our aging socieites - is an urban myth. again: most immigration from Muslim coutnries is not the social middle class or upper class, but most is lower class, poor, unedcuated, ressisting to integration, and with very very bad chnaces to ever make a social raise.

I knew some Asiens in earlier years, at university, and afterwards. Most were students, but some were immigrants from Japan and china. The contrast to Muslim immigration in general - could not be any clearer.

You believe you know me and my information background quite well, eh? I have had my share of experiences with staying in Muslim countries, and for not just summertime holidays you know. Some of my former colleagues are social workers in Frankfurt and Berlin, I still get insider feedback from them. I have read a whole lot of literature on the issues with Islami immigrant groups, and I have had my share of private experience with Islam and Muslims in Germany as well. Some experiences were pleasant if I met the right indioviudual. Most were not. The death threats I received in written mail two years ago probbaly were the most unpleasant of them all.

You you dated a girl and met her family for one year. I don't know how often somebody todl me ont his board that he knows that guy living in the room at the end of the floor and that is usually os very kind. Sorry dude, I think my persective exceeds yours by far. ;)

I think you people always thinking and assuming just the best about Islamic ideology withouit ever having studied it in detail, and assuming any motives of immigrants to be only the most noble, really have tunnel-eyed views in order to exclude any perspective AND FACT that does not match your desired peace-no-matter-the-cost attitude. and when this leads as far that even the findings of sociological research gets refused for illustrating not the truth that you want to see proven, then it really becomes absurd.

In the end, you will get the messy outcome that you wanted, and deserve.

That's a pretty ironic statement, given what you went on to post later. But first...

My words clearly fell on deaf ears. What do the Muslims in Muslim countries have to do with the secularisation of Muslims in western countries?

"Inside information" from your friends in Frankfurt and Berlin? Books on ideology? You just don't get it do you?

I am at least glad to hear you can look past your own BS long enough to form friendships with some Muslim people. As for the death threats... wow. Out of all the Muslims I know and have known in my life, I've never once received a death threat, nor has anyone I know for that matter. Interesting that you have.

Yer... nice try, but I'm not biting that one.

Classic!

You pulled that whole paragraph right out of your arse. It demonstrates only one thing: that you have pigeonholed my comments based on your perception of me as a person, probably without so much as a second thought. Presumably you will now go back to preaching your anti-Islam BS, as unaware as ever of your striking resemblance to the extremists you find so concerning?

I wonder, if I found enough reports and case studies saying that reports and case studies and heresay and books on ideology are no substitute for actual experiences... would it make any difference?

@ Skybird Ill stick to what and who I know, I do not have the energy to dicuss it any further tbh.
It just pisses me off when people feel the need to stick labels and hold groups responsible for the actions of a few ******* inderviduals, to me that is a retarded and ignorant way of thinking.
That is all.

Another urban myth: that Wetsern culture has the opower and infoluence to make musloims becoming althogether as secular as you claim.But that is a claim that statistics already have proven wrong. In Germany for example we find the third generation immigrants to be much more orthodox in there religious views than there parents and grandparents ever have been, further boosted by massive Turkish nationaoism and a majority of the young peoplpe not older than 25 saying they do not want to be German. nationaolism and relgious orthodoxy - good mixture. Go on dreaming abiout secularisation of islam. That only shows you have no feeling and understanding of the power inherent to the Quran's ideology. It is also just a eurocratic dream.

Europe is old, overaged, has grown weak, it's times of ruling are over, it's economy gets czhallenged, it's values get pushed back in the world and replaced by restrengthening feelings of local clture's identity and customs. How could anyone assume that this sick old man the West has become has the power and cinvincing argument to tame a vital, drastcially boosting ideology of conquest that is brimming with life and is carried by the currently very young populations in the muslim countries? and are you maybe, by chnace , familiar with the model of Gunnar Heihnsohn, being called "Youth Bulge" , saying there is a link between the average age of the male population in a society, and the expansive drive of that culture? The according book would be "Söhne und Weltmacht. Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen."

Secular islam is a contradiction in itself. To assume the West is still as convincing and shiny to make islamic ideology change itself, is absurd. statistics show that the young turn orhtodox instead of secular, and that they strongly reject integration and becoming part of their hosting nation's idedntity. that'S why they want to turn the hosting nation islamic.

and I have often had it that right this was told me right into my face, both in Germany, and other countries.

Feedback from professional social workers about their experience with having to deal with immigrants and the young fsamioy members is worth much more than a book or an official statistics. I know these guys from university times, since I studied psychology back then and had some courses in sociology as well. they stayed in that propfession, I left. If that is a problem for you, I'm sorry.

Lacking mouth size does not seem to be your problem. Let me give you some details on myself. I am 42, and was becoming interested in Islam short after school. Two of my four best friends from schooldays were a Christian Armenian and a Muslim Turk, both families very well integrated, and educated. My first real friendship with a comrade I experienced at the age of 5, and he was a Turkish boy and Islam yes or no did not concern our minds back then. After school I started to massively read and educate myself on islam, and inhaled a whole lot of literature about, around 30-35 books, some of which academic standard works, and this reading included the Quran and parts of the currently existing Hadith texts and secondary literature on Sharia as well as books on sociology, politology, history. Do I have all that details always avaialable on my mind? No. what I have available is the general picture from that input. Back then I had not started travelling, and when starting to read all that stuff I was a young man very similiar in opinion to you now and to many other wishful thinkers that sometimes defend Islam and talk of how misunderstood it just is. That led to conflict: I was influenced by the leftist pro-Islamic propaganda and was thinking friendly of Islam, and saw that in contradiction to most of what I read about Islam in the academic books. Even greater my confusion became when I started to visit and stay in several Islamic countries: Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Iran both having been major stations, and a short stay in Pakistani-Afghan border region. That all in all were around 15 months, and some travels were private with an Algerian buddy and another friend ( the young fools travel in disreghard of risks and fight it easy...), but I also was there for having been engaged by a Belgian-British correspondent team, for security. that was in the mid-90s, roughly. when I was back, europe felt alien, and my confusion was complete. I could not bring together my former image of Islam with what I had seen in Islamic countries, and what I had seen in ideology supremacism especially in Turkey. Iran was a bag of mixed experiences, but all in all this was the best station in my programs, I met both very orthodox, radical people, and very educated, tolerant, burgeois-like people. As an atheist I soon learned to hide that in Islamic countries, but in iran it was the smallest problem for people. This all is the reason why I am very split on Iran over the nuclear issues. I am determined not to allow them nuclear wepaons even at the cost of destroying the whole country, but I also feel that would be very tragic, becasue I hold not only bad but also good memories of that place. Somehow I like Iran. well, parts of it.

You see, my confusion resulted from my wishful thinking colliding with reality, and academic information. It took me two or three years to get that sorted out, and it cintunued with debates on this board some years ago. when I let go my wishful thiniiung, the contradictions solved themslves and all the previously "contradictive" informations fell into place. so you see, i know the thing from sides, I now how it feels to be in defense of Islam, but I also know how misled that thinking is and I know why I have come to that uncompromised confronting attitude of mine today.

All this, i admit althiugh it may sound arrogant, gives me the feeling my attitude today is a bit better reasoned than just referring to one or two close friends of mine.

Hard to say whether it was for somebody having found a way to learn my identity from internet, or because it was due to my role in a local civil movement that prevented a mosque building by betrayal at court. That I also have engaged and finally scared away Muslim infomation stands in the pedestrian zone by raising public attention with counter arguments to their candy-sweet propaganda, may have contributed to some Muslims learning to hate me. revealing is th erole of the german police. they looked at the letters and told me that I better shut up about the issue if I do not want to be interrogated by the BKA on my assumed Nazi background. Which is my fourth of five totally disappointing experiences with the German justice system. That'S why I do not put trust into it anymore.

I hate Nazis and confront them as uncompromised as I do with Islam.

You are such a nice cutie, have you ever been told?

Unfortunately I started to reply without having read all your reply in full first, else I would have kicked you where you belong when choosing a rude tone like this: the waste bin.

My concern is not some extremists. My concern is the islamic ideology by content, which is extreme in itself, and people like you trying to minimise that and try to rewrite it's very basics although they are existing reality throughout the Muslim world.

OLC - You talk about dating a muslim girl, and how "your generation" was secularized by wearing jeans, etc, while the parents in the home are conforming to the islamic strictures of dress - and this somehow shows that muslims are not "extremists".

First of all, what you just did was exhibit the EXTREME differences in people of one religion. I don't think anyone has said that every muslim is an extremist, and I know in the past Skybird has acknowledged that fact. However, look at the sheer number of "honor killings" that have occured not only in Europe, but also in the US. These are acts of that same "older generation" upon the younger. Yet you claim that because the kids wear jeans, no one can be an extremist. I wonder if the girls whose familes have killed them for being to secular, or dating non-islamic guys thought the same way? We will never know, but if they did, we are assured they were wrong.

There are extremists in every religion. However, what you are refusing to address is that those who follow Islam are following a religion based upon the use of violence to control a society and people. A religion who clearly states its goal is world domination under its strictures, and advocates violence against those who refuse to follow its tenents.

Not every muslim is a nut job. However, when muslim societies do all they can to isolate themselves, when their is such a large theological divide between the older and younger generation - which leads to internal strife, you are going to see the older generation further insulate itself, and take refuge even further into its "fundamentalist" beliefs, creating additional problems.

The problem that you struggle with is not recognizing the danger of a muslim person because of their belief, what your failing to deal with is the danger of the belief system itself. You can not ever tell how deeply a person's faith is. Because that is the case, you must look at what they claim as their belief, and judge IT by its own statements. Only by understanding what they believe can you then begin to understand them on a personal level.

This is why there is so much political correctness - too many people don't want to know about Islam, and only want to say its "nut jobs" that do violence in the name of the religion. However, a closer study shows that Islam not only condones, but blesses such acts, so those that follow the religion must be looked at in that light, regardless of if they are "nut jobs" or not.

The more they insulate themselves, the more they do "speak out" only when a act of violence has occured, and most importantly, the more they REFUSE to weed out and eject the "extremists" in their own theology, the more they all become suspect.

Again, I am not about terroism and extremists. This we could cope with, easily. the obvious violence is not what makes us shaking. The Islamic ideology as it is praticed reality in much of the Muslim world on the basis of the Quran is radical, fundamentalist, intoerant and deeply hostile towards anything that is not itself - it is a conqueror'S ideology, using religious claims to justify it'S driven expansion. It is not the peaceful tolerant humanistic manifest that you want it to be.

THIS is the problem, and it manifestates it's consequences on all levels and in all aspects of Muslim immigration to western societies, immigration gets used as a weapon agaunst us, and you take it as a gift. My, repeatedly Muslim spokesmen, even governmental officials and leaders at the UN have said it loud and clearly that they intent to take over the West by sending immigrants and more immigrants to the West to make it structure collpasing and then being replaced with the ruling of Islam. They even tell it right to your face and smile while doing it - and you still think you know better what it is about then they do?

It's not about just some terrorists. It's about an aggressively expanding culture claiming the right to dominate in it's very basic and essential theology which it does not keep separate from politics. It's supremacism by ideology and religious content. And you mistake it with a willingness to coexistence and tolerance so that you can live on with illusions of how well you and it can communicate and that it will sooner or later gets westernised due to your "superior" and "convincing" western culture corrupting it? the Western culture is old, and weak - and that'S what makes it an inviting, ripe prey, after several attempts of military conquest in the past have failed.

You are an intelligent guy - but a deluded one if you really think some immagrants can enforce there belives on the nationals of the nation they reside in, and then what....topple the govenment?

I laugh at people who think the Islamists have the power or even the DESIRE to take over western countries.
That kind of paranoid BS only demonstrates how little someone knows about the culture.

In this world there are good people and there are @ss holes, and they can come from any creed, nation or relegion.
Simple as that.

No worries here, like you I do not mind reading, providing I have the time to do so :)

Also forgive me if I dice up your post a bit and don't respond to everything. I either agree, or have no real comment on it.
No real argument from me, Japan attacked as it was provoked into it by the US. The US was trying to starve Japan of industrial resources, particularly oil. This is why I went with the assumption of what if Japan had not attacked, if the US had really stayed neutral.

Ya pretty much my opinion as well. It was a clash of empires which in the end smashed all of them

I am not assuming they would have won, but the odds of them winning went up significantly.

Before we get to operation Barbarossa, there are a couple of things that may have played out differently from the start of the war. For one thing if the US had remained truly neutral and not so heavily supplied Britain, Britain would have had far less war materials available during the battle of Britain. The English barely won the battle of Britain as it was, but with increased material shortages, it could have easily lost. This would have followed with operation Sealion, which would probably have been successful (the UK was in no position at that point in time to fend of an invasion). Now this would have shattered English resistance in Africa and elsewhere, which would have freed up the Africa Korps, Rommel, a large chunk of the Luftwaffle, and other frontline combat units to participate in Barbarossa.

Part of the reason to my understanding why he split his forces was to secure the oil resources to the south, which were very needed at the time. I think though if he had won against England that he would have had the forces available to achieve victory.

No argument

With the UK out of the picture Italy probably could have handled the Balakans on its own.

Don't forget though that the UK and then the US played an important role particularly early on in supplying Russia with war material from 41-42 onwards.

Needless to say I don't quite agree, it depends on circumstance.

That is not exactly true to my knowledge. No the bombing campaigns of the US and UK did not make it possible for the USSR to win, but they made it a heck of a lot easier. Sure Germany tried to decentralize production and move underground as much as they could, but most of their production capacity was above ground and vulnerable. Particularly their sythetic fuel refineries. Towards the mid/end of the war Germany was facing massive fuel shortages, and a lot of this was due to the US bombing the crap out of Germany's oil reserves and oil production facilities from 42 on. This created an unrecoverable spiral as they could not get enough fuel to put enough fighters in the air to stop the bombing, while fighting on 2 fronts at the same time. That plus their war industries being constantly hit limited their ability to produce tanks and arms in sufficent numbers. That and of course all the wasted resources on the V weapons (which also wouldn't have happened if the UK was out of the picture).

It did work though, Germany was a heap of rubble at the end of the war, and a lot of the damage was caused by bombing, including its industries.

For a European country, its production was quite high. Also the bombing did screw up German production. That is evidenced by the various shortages they were constantly facing, particularly ball bearings, and oil (as I mentioned above) which was a direct result of the strategic bombing effort. Lastly if Germany wasnt getting bombed its production would have been far higher than it was, as it would have still had its preexisting factories, and wouldn't had to have wasted so much manpower and resources constructing so many underground production facilities. Also by all accounts I have read, German industry was totally shattered by the end of the war. It took massive amounts of money and effort to rebuild them, along with the obliterated cities and towns.

yep that was certainly another posibility, especialy as D-Day probably would not have happened with out US involvement and production.

Ya he certainly did a lot of purges, and did plenty of horrid things himself.

I think you need to do more reading on the Holocaust. First of all the Jews were the largest number killed by several million, followed by the gypsies and Russian POWs. This was organized slaughter and slave labor, particularly with the Jews and Gypsies. Second, millions of Jews (and other peoples) died in exactly the way you described in the slave labor concentration camps. Only in the handful of dedicated death camps was the expirence somewhat brief (if you forget all that happened to them long before you reached the death camps), and even then not for all as someone had to process all the bodies. Those that could work were not usualy killed off right away, but rather worked mostly to death and then killed off (or just worked to death). Last I would never call Hitler's actions decent in any sense of the word.

The motivations between him and Stalin were different. Stalin was in his (insane) mind getting rid of threats to his power, Hitler was exterminating/enslaving all the peoples he considered inferior. If Hitler had won and taken over the USSR, the resulting death toll would have made the number of people Stalin killed off look like a sunday picnic. He planed to murder off all the jews, gypsies, and other "sub human" races, and enslave and work to death the not quite so sub humans (russia, and the non western european countries).

I would argue that there is a difference, though both men were "evil" in action. Again I suggest you do a lot more reading on the holocaust as I feel your understanding, and knowledge of it is lacking. This is a subject I have read extensively about, from witness reports to archeological examinations of the sites (including one rather gruesome report where an archeological team recently took soil core samples from one of the more notorious death camps). For one thing the Jews in many countries were terrorized and worse for many years long before the final solution started. Then there are the Ghettos the Germans set up and all that happened there. Then there are the slave labor camps such as Dora and Auschwitz (Only Auschwitz-Birkenau was a death camp and even then a large chunk of it was slave labor, It also had a massive slave labor camp in addition) where millions were worked to death in the most abhorrent conditions you can dream of. Then there were the so called medical experiments and other stuff where people were tortured and died in some of the most horrific experiments imaginable. Finally there were the death camps.

The way people died in the death camps was not at all merciful, it was only designed to be efficient and easy for the guards to do. First of all the most common form of death was not poisoning (this comes from Nazi reports btw) from cyanide (zyklon b) or carbon monoxide (the most common method used), but caused by overheating/dehydration, and slow suffocation. That is because they use to pack the people into the 'showers' so tightly together that they could barely breath, and their own body heat, with lack of air would slowly kill them off. Even after the motor was started, or zyklon-b added, it could take over 20 minutes before the noise (screaming) inside the chamber would stop. There was also plenty of evidence when the chambers were opened that death was neither swift, nor painless. Peoples faces were frozen in agony, many had broken limbs, people were trampled and crushed underneath, human excrement, and blood was everywhere. This is the way it was when things were going 'smoothly'. There were many times when things would go 'wrong', such as the engine not starting, or a bad batch of zyklon-b, and death would be even slower and more agonizing still.

Stalin didn't do half of those things, mainly just slave labor and bullets to the back of the head (which is also horrible too). I also only listed a few of the things that happened in the Holocaust, which I only very lightly touched on. There was so very much more that went on.

I don't have a lot to say about this stuff. Sure it would have been really bad, yes the Stalinist regime was horrible, no question. It would however been a lot worse if the US had not been involved, and Germany had lost.

I don't believe the words of a psychopath (or sociopath if you prefer). There is evidence that Hitler had planned for an eventual war with France/UK before he invaded Poland, just as he had always planned to invade Russia. He also invaded plenty of other countries which had nothing to do with the situation and had not intervened. Anyhow rule number one when dealing with psychopaths, don't believe anything they tell you, they are almost always pathological liars.

This is true to some degree, they certainly didn't care about what Germany was doing to a number of it's citizens, Jews or otherwise. I don't think however that France or the UK really wanted a war with Germany, they were still dealing with the costs of WW1, and their populaces did not want another war. But they felt they had to stop German aggression and expansion. They had also made many many concessions to avoid war with Germany.

If I recall both countries had legitimate claims on Danzig, it depends on how far back in history you go. Poland also was well within its rights to deny Germany. France and the UK had decided to take a stand against Germany and hoped that the threat would stop Hitler. It didn't and war ensued.

Like I said I do not believe that, nor do I believe his stated claims in Mein Kampf. The man was with out question a psychopath, as were most of his cabinet. Even if your supposition is correct, Hitler still would have done his best to murder all the Jews and gypsies and other sub humans he could get his hands on, and everything else. War was inevitable with him as far as I am concerned.

Personally given all that happened I think Nazi rule of Europe, the middle east and Russia, would have been much worse. As for taking over the world, no. The axis powers together did plan to take over most of the world (and had partitioned off the globe). If Germany had won the war in Europe, it probably would have eventually reached the Americas. Germany would have definitely had atomic weapons by then, and the US probably not if it had remained isolationist. Start nuking US cities and the US would probably surrender pretty quick. Plus Germany with Russia and the rest of Europe would have been able to easily out produce the US and Canada. It might have left the US and Canada alone, who can say, unless Canada insisted on continuing the war. I don't think the US would stand idly by if Axis forces decided to invade Canada.

Ironically this is the strategy I use when playing Germany in HOI2. I make nice with the US and keep them out of the war, trade with them for lots of oil and resources, take out Poland, take out France (and Netherlands/Belgium), take out the UK, Take over Russia (which is a lot harder as I have to take over most of the USSR, not just Moscow). I then usually take over Italy and the middle east, then invade Canada and Mexico, then squish the US in between. After that I can take over Africa, South America, and Asia at my leisure. With out allying with Italy or Japan.

I don't either, frankly I only see the problem getting worse with time. I am also concerned that it is our grave that is being dug.

That's not entirely correct. First of all Israel existed far longer the the US has, by many hundreds of years (some estimates are around 1000-1500+ years that Israel existed as a people/state). The region was not predominantly Islamic till long after Israel ceased to exist as a nation (it was still predominantly Jewish for several hundred years). Second, just about every country existing today has been built on taking over land from another group, North America in particular. The Jews were also the sovereign people there for a long period of time (over 1000 years). Lastly the people who claim ownership are also invaders themselves, the people now referred to as Palestinians were not native to the region, but came later after the fall of Israel. They also actively tried to drive the Jews out for a very long period of time. Out of the peoples in the territory, they have the oldest and strongest claim to the the place, as the original inhabitants no longer exist, but migrated or merged with the Jewish people. Plus if all else fails, might equals right, right? Otherwise the US (and Canada) should give all the land back to the Native Americans, which it seized by violence.

The process started many centuries before that (since the start of the diaspora Jews have always dreamed of returning to and reforming their homeland). It really got going when Zionist Jews after what happened to them in WW2 decided that they needed a land of their own, so as to protect themselves and makes sure the Holocaust would never ever happen again. They learned that they could never again depend on their adopted country to protect them. They funded and supplied their war to take back (in their view) their homeland, which they succeeded in doing.

To save some time I am just going to reference Wikipedia. The sections I am citing are more or less correct to my knowledge, but as usual are lacking in certain details, and generaly glazing over things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
from "Early Roots" to "Independence and first years"

They didn't have any choice in the matter, the now Israelis utterly refused anything else, and had successfully fought off the surrounding Arab countries. Also at that point Israel was hardly an ally of any of the western powers. Also put bluntly I believe many of these countries were more than happy to unload their Jews onto Israel (the US, UK, France, etc were just as anti-Semitic as Germany or Russia).

Well that's what people and countries do to each other, they try to use and take advantage of each other as much as they can. Israel uses the west for money, weapons, and military backing, the west uses Israel for its own purposes.

Oh sure, Europe has caused plenty of problems down there too, over their own interests in the region.

I really don't think they distinguish between the branches, any more then we do as far as their religious branches. A Christian is still a Christian in their eyes, an unbeliever who must convert or die. Also you forget that Germany and the UK are Protestant, and were imperial powers down there for a long (along with later US meddling). So they have just as much reason to hate Protestants as Catholics, as they do to hate the US as much as Europe.

The Koran and associated writings was still being written during the first Crusade. Initially Islam was an evolving religion and it takes many centuries for the religious writings to take shape after the supposed creator of the religion lived. The same thing happened with Christianity. Also I was referring to the concept of Holy War (not the word itself), which triggered Islams military/religious expansion into North Africa, Spain, and elsewhere.

Unfortunately I cannot think of it, or do not know it

It's not a base to launch invasions from, but rather a secure place from which to project air power (something vitally important to the type of warfare the US currently employs). The advantage with Israel is that its interests are totally different from the Arab countries in the region, and are far closer to that of the US. It is a reliable and trustworthy ally, where as Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are not at all. As for hostile surrounding nations, that isn't a grave concern as Israel's military can (and has repeatedly in the past) deal with them.

They were already polarized imho, they are indoctrinated to be that way. As for intervention, sometimes it is necessary and just to do so. Problem is it is almost never done for that reason. Its done purely for greed and self interest, with a smoke screen of justice, and freedom thrown over top to mask the real reason.

Too bad that peace is not a basic instinct of man, conflict and greed is. Conflict will never go away, and no matter how innocent, or how just your society, it will come get you eventually.

If I had the time to I would be happy to, I didn't get into it as I didn't have the time to get into a long dissertation on the subject. Perhaps I will have some time in the future to do so, but that thought seems unlikely

Ya that is often the way it goes. Of course though the irony is even if we do agree it probably won't change anything. Even if we came up with the perfect solution to whatever.

Hehe well I meant more that your arguments are usually well crafted and you have put thought into them, which is what I respect (basically you don't just drone off party/group lines/rhetoric, and are willing to at least listen to other arguments). We all use a lot of rhetoric here, as it is so much easier and less time consuming then actually backing up arguments with citations. I myself try to only argue from positions which I can back up with solid evidence/data if called on, which is why I often pick out certain parts of a thread and ignore other parts. :DL

Oh if they get majority, or close to it they can. It's one of main ways Islam has been taking over countries in Asia and Africa. In Europe and the Americas they will take over by numbers, by having far more children then Europeans. European and North American birth rates currently are barely at replacement levels, while Muslim families in western countries tend to be well beyond replacement levels.

I honestly don't like being forced into taking such a position, but I see little choice in the matter any more. Its not about phobia, or racism, or whatever. I could care less what religion you follow, or what color you are (I've personally dated women from just about every major 'race' and religion so its obviously not an issue for me), I do care though when you try to subvert my values, rights, and freedoms with your own, or those of others. Unfortunately Islam is one of those religions which generally tries to do just that. I also have issues with certain Christian groups for the exact same reason.

That is true, there are also many of the exact opposite, and everyone else who falls somewhere in between. The problem I have is too many that are in between, are not taking issue or doing anything against the bad ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_coups_of_1987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_coup_of_2000

Yes, there is absolutely now way that immigrants could take their place at the top of the political system. :hmmm:

Oh for god sakes, what the matter with ya?...
Fiji is tiny little island, I am talking about MODERN DAY WESTERN COUNTRIES.. USA, U.K EUROPE etc.... where muslims are still an ethnic minority

The fact still stands. Immigrants can through the course of time take over power from the ethnic "majority" of a country. The fact that you say that such an event is impossible in "modern" countries borders on the absurd. The fact that people are ever more complacent and that our "democracies" are from what they were in the past even increases the odds and the danger of some lunnies taking control. NSDAP was also a minority, remember? The guys who were going to take care of communities and that everyone was complacent with until it was too late? If we lived in a country with a classic public and public sphere are presented by Habermas, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Considering how things are now, with only a small number of people realising the full extent of the influence immigrants have on an already developed society makes matters only worse and I concur with European governments that ensuring that they accept with our values is a must, as long as it doesn't turn into discrimination.

About Islam in general. I admit, I have far too little knowledge to discuss about its influences in Europe and Islamic countries. What I do know and it instils fear deep down my spine is the fact that certain individuals think that it is us, who should accept their point of view, they beliefs, their system of governance just because they say so and consider it superior.

There was a case in France not to long ago on the issue of the burka. The court upheld the French tradition of laïcité and decided that the French system was right not to give her citizenship. What's her response? They allow it in Saudi Arabia. Now this scares me.