PDA

View Full Version : TRUE feelings of Old Europe now coming forward ?



Melonie
11-11-2004, 03:51 AM
{snip}Holland is now in the grips of violent reaction. Mosques and religious schools are firebombed. Emergency legislation granting new intrusive powers to security services has been enabled. The Dutch are groping for a "solution," but they are still ducking the real problem, which, to their consternation, we are dealing with more effectively and far more self-confidently. "The multicultural crisis," Magdi Allam wisely reminds us, "should teach us that only a West with a strong religious, cultural and moral identity can challenge and open itself to the 'others' in a constructive and peaceful way. And that the goal must be a system of shared values within a common identity."




Also, besides a significant portion of the Dutch population, you've also got "conservative" anti-immigration based political parties on the rise in France (got 10% of the vote), Belgium (Flemish 1/3rd are about ready to secede) and Germany.

PhaedrusZ
11-11-2004, 11:18 AM
{snip}Holland is now in the grips of violent reaction. Mosques and religious schools are firebombed. Emergency legislation granting new intrusive powers to security services has been enabled...

...Also, besides a significant portion of the Dutch population, you've also got "conservative" anti-immigration based political parties on the rise in France (got 10% of the vote), Belgium (Flemish 1/3rd are about ready to secede) and Germany.

Thank you for the link, Melonie...very interesting article!

For some other analysis along these lines, although not necessarily re: this specific incident, please see


From the right

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/22/163715.shtml


From the left-perhaps moderately left-I'm guessing due to the concluding sentence of the abstract and the ".edu" in the link as to being from a left/liberal perspective

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:VFGaQhbYeWkJ:www.unu.edu/dialogue/papers/naito-s2.pdf+Islamic+immigration+western+european+countr ies&hl=en


And an analysis which strikes me as being more on the neutral side

http://www.let.uu.nl/~martin.vanbruinessen/personal/publications/Production_of_islamic_knowledge_.htm



PhaedrusZ

RedZ28
11-11-2004, 08:44 PM
That director of that anti-Islam film was basically assassinated by terrorists. Give them a little rope...and they'll find a way to hang themselves.

Katrine
11-12-2004, 05:12 AM
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0571192343/qid=1100261311/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-8785004-0108619

My Son the Fanatic by Haneif Kureishi. Its a fictional story, but analyzes this problem in England, which has been going on for years. I think there is a movie based on the book as well. This is not a new problem. Closing borders is a temporary bandaid.

I lived in Holland and the Moroccans are considered the lowest socio-economic class over there. They are given the worst and lowest jobs, and treated very poorly, even by Indonesians and Turks, also a populous immigrant group. They cannot get work aside from low menial labor, and many of them turn to crime. I was robbed by a group of young Moroccan boys....

Its a very difficult and complex problem for such a progressive country. I don't know what else to say......

GnBeret
11-13-2004, 01:47 AM
Take all of the cultural, social, and economic issues attendant to the increased levels of hispanic immigration into the U.S. over the past few decades, then multiply that by "X" and you'll get an idea of the enormous problems looming on the horizon in Europe. Absorbing a relatively homogenous group of immigrants who have the same basic religious beliefs as the majority of the citizens of the country they're entering is one thing; absorbing immigrants from a broad range of countries that have fairly diverse cultures, speak different languages, and have religious beliefs that are radically different from the majority of the citizens of the country they're entering is a whole other thing entirely - especially when almost all of the countries they're coming from are, relatively speaking, hostile towards the country they're entering, and many of the countries they look to for guidance in their views and recognize as the home of the "leaders" of their religion are either extremely hostile towards the country they're entering or in some cases, actually engaged in open conflict with same.

To the extent we continue to find ourselves in conflict with countries in the Middle East, it's going to cause us problems as well because European countries will become less and less willing to take sides with so many Islamic immigrants already living inside their borders - IMHO, it's already had just such an effect, as it was pretty obvious that at least a part of the reason that some of the countries in Europe refused to back us in Iraq was the concern they had about the reaction of the large number of Islamic immigrants they already have residing in their country.

dancedc
11-27-2004, 12:18 PM
Westernized countries that have put the welcome mat out for refugees and immigrants from Islamic countries are facing the reality that their generousity has put their citizens at risk. They have to sacrifice their freedoms and rights as to not offend certain groups or face the fact that their lives could be in danger. Now they don't feel as if it is their right to defend themselves from a group of people that immigrated to their country because there are so many of them. Westernized, Christian based countries are passing laws to prevent extremists religious views that stomp on the culture and beliefs of the citizens in order to appear fair to everyone.

If Muslims feel that it is their right and duty to kill anyone who offends Islam, then they shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to a society who allows their citizens freedom of speech rights. These immigrants should be more respectful, they should be grateful to a country that has allowed them to join their society, live with freedom, practice their religion. They shouldn't be plotting to kill, waging jihad, committing crimes, and preaching hatred of the people of their adopted country.
I wouldn't blame Holland if they were to close their borders to Muslims and expelling anyone who is considered dangerous. It is the duty of a government to protect it's citizens. Countries should be allowed to deny entry to anyone they want. Countries shouldn't have to sit back and watch their land being taken over, their citizens be victims of violence and their culture die. Holland doesn't owe the Muslims anything. Immigrants need to understand the ways of the land that they wish to be a part of and not expect everyone else to change for them. Now these Muslims are turning Europe into the same hellhole the Middle East is. I don't want to hear about how Islam is a peaceful religion anymore, they only seem to say that AFTER a mulsim commits an act of violence. Let them hate the westerners somewhere other than the west. Serbia found this out the hard way. I am sick of hearing about how the Muslims are being victimized. They can't seem to get along with anyone. With the way alot of them behave, they need to pray 5 times a day. Honor killings, beheading, rapes, suicide bombings, jihad, oppression of women and lack of respect for other religions says it all.

RedZ28
11-27-2004, 10:27 PM
It's too bad a few miscreants who hijack a religion gives their whole people a bad name. Canada has or had a similar immigration policy to that of Europe and is facing similar difficulties dealing with them. It's a shame that their kindess and naivete is finding a way to bite them in the ass.

dancedc
12-05-2004, 10:42 AM
Why should citizens have to deal with the anti-western attitudes of people who asked to come and join their society? Why it is that noone is seeing the real problem with the immigrant groups that don't respect the culture or the people there? Should they allow the spread of terrorism and Islamic extremists? Who are the victims? Why is the title of this post Europeans showing their true feeing when they are responding to a horrible act of violence. Why isn't it being said that the true feeling of the Muslim immigrants is what is really causing the problems? It isn't like this is an isolated event. Rushdie has a death warrant for defaming Islam, Russia, Spain, the Philipeans, England, America, Bosnia, Kashmir, and France are all dealing with the problems brought on by this one group of people. Maybe it isn't the whole world, maybe it is them.

Deogol
12-05-2004, 12:39 PM
I have been hearing this more often:

"A dead muzzie is a peaceful muzzie. Let there be peace."

The extremists are putting people on sides.

I can understand the moderate muslim just wanting to go about their day working the job, going home to the family, playing with the kids and all the usual things people do.

Unfortunately they have to get out there with a message different from the extremists as to not be seen as part of that crowd.

There are growing examples of this. More mosques have signs like "No extremists" and "Abandon Terrorism." More Imam's are preaching against it instead of merely remaining mute.

One rarely hears about this on the television though. Now and then it shows up in the newspapers - but who reads those these days eh?

Truth is the anti-jew and terrorist crowd makes more noise and so they are the ones heard.

GnBeret
01-08-2005, 03:52 PM
By all indications, this entire situation is going to get very ugly, very soon...


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=10&u=/ap/20050108/ap_on_re_eu/terror_fighters_to_europe_1

lestat1
01-08-2005, 04:45 PM
I don't think the problem is one of "a few bad apples" giving the region/people/religion a bad name. The extremists we face are well-supported (the general Iraqi / Palestinian populace stays quiet and wouldn't think of turning in suspects) and are well-funded. They have the support of, at the very least, "enough" of the "regular" people. As I understand things, if Bin Laden and some moderate western leader ran for "leader of the mid-east" in a mid-east election, I'm betting Osama would sweep that election. That tells me where the hearts & minds, and the general beliefs of the people, lay.

Melonie
01-08-2005, 10:55 PM
from the linked article ... "The problem all over Europe is that they can only do something when there's specific evidence of an attack," he said. "If people just sit around and talk about jihad, there's relatively little you can do."

IMHO this is the essential question. If the US or Europeans attempt to apply civilian "innocent until proven guilty" standards towards islamic terrorists, there is only one certain outcome. Like civilian mass murderers, the terrorists will only be charged AFTER their intended victims are already dead ! I have to have faith that, regardless of people's liberal values, when they realize that their own lives are in danger as a result of potential terrorist attacks that they will support pre-emptive action on the basis of self-defense !

Wwanderer
01-09-2005, 08:15 AM
If the US or Europeans attempt to apply civilian "innocent until proven guilty" standards towards islamic terrorists, there is only one certain outcome. Like civilian mass murderers, the terrorists will only be charged AFTER their intended victims are already dead ! I have to have faith that, regardless of people's liberal values, when they realize that their own lives are in danger as a result of potential terrorist attacks that they will support pre-emptive action on the basis of self-defense !

A real questions: If it is not to be "innocent until proven guilty" or at least something like "innocent until they fire the first shot", then what criteria would you consider appropriate/wise/justified as the basis for "pre-emptive action"? And, putting the same issue in a slightly different way, what is the minimum basis you would consider adequate to justify pre-emptive action?

-Ww

BigGreenMnM
01-09-2005, 08:37 AM
IMHO this is the essential question. If the US or Europeans attempt to apply civilian "innocent until proven guilty" standards towards islamic terrorists, there is only one certain outcome. Like civilian mass murderers, the terrorists will only be charged AFTER their intended victims are already dead ! I have to have faith that, regardless of people's liberal values, when they realize that their own lives are in danger as a result of potential terrorist attacks that they will support pre-emptive action on the basis of self-defense !
Then all would go to jail who follow the Quran and its teachings.

this is the same war thats been faught for centuries,only now its being faught PC style by our side and its going to cost us dearly over the near future.

threlayer
01-09-2005, 11:19 AM
Old Europe largely was anti-semitic and extremely nationalistic, the latter to where they often went to war rather than settling differences in a 'civil' manner. To the Muslims the problem of the forcible creation of Israel has never been settled. However, this was created by the old antisemitism of Europe via Hitler.

To an extent another even older problem, the Crusades, seems to have given the Middle East a forewarning of long term meddling in their affairs and a consequent mistrust. Of course the Crusades was arguably the most stupid massive war ever conceived, but that was no excuse. No wonder it came out of the Dark Ages at the same time the Middle East's culture was quite superior to Europe.

Melonie
01-09-2005, 11:30 AM
A real questions: If it is not to be "innocent until proven guilty" or at least something like "innocent until they fire the first shot", then what criteria would you consider appropriate/wise/justified as the basis for "pre-emptive action"?

probably the same criteria that the military uses to 'neutralize' probable enemy threats before the 'enemy' are able to put their plans into action thus killing their intended targets - reliable intelligence. When it comes right down to it, I have a much easier time accepting the premise that 3000 "innocent" islamic terrorist affiliated muslims might be killed by 'neutralization' efforts, as opposed to 3000 clearly innocent US civilians being killed if the islamic terrorists are allowed the opportunity to put their plans into action again !

Tigerlilly
01-09-2005, 12:13 PM
When it comes right down to it, I have a much easier time accepting the premise that 3000 "innocent" islamic terrorist affiliated muslims might be killed by 'neutralization' efforts, as opposed to 3000 clearly innocent US civilians being killed if the islamic terrorists are allowed the opportunity to put their plans into action again !

so we're supposed to kill them all because they "might be ?

sorry but I think that is just absurd not to mention as is cold as a witches tit

say.... didn't a famous guy in german history want to 'neutralization' a whole bunch of "other" people ???

that similarity makes me very uncomfortable, to put it lightly

Melonie
01-09-2005, 01:26 PM
say.... didn't a famous guy in german history want to 'neutralization' a whole bunch of "other" people ???

Well, for that matter the muslim Indonesian gov't versus Tamil 'rebels' have killed something like 60,000 people via 'civil war', the muslim Sudanese gov't vs Darfur 'rebels' have killed countless tens of thousands ... but this doesn't count, right ?


sorry but I think that is just absurd not to mention as is cold as a witches tit

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Mine is admittedly iand indelibly nfluenced by losing some friends and acquaintances on 9/11. Perhaps if the islamic terrorists begin concentrating on the West coast instead of the East coast in the future ...

GnBeret
01-09-2005, 02:18 PM
A real questions: If it is not to be "innocent until proven guilty" or at least something like "innocent until they fire the first shot", then what criteria would you consider appropriate/wise/justified as the basis for "pre-emptive action"? And, putting the same issue in a slightly different way, what is the minimum basis you would consider adequate to justify pre-emptive action?

-Ww


(1) Reliable intelligence information which, excepting those rare circumstances involving immediate danger, i.e., imminent attack, we have either verified through other means/methods/sources or, at the very least, have done our level best to attempt to verify through same; (2) Concerning any matter of such significance and import to our basic safety, security and welfare requirements that it may legitimately be deemed to constitute a "National Security Interest of the United States of the Highest Priority"; (3) That, excepting those circumstances involving imminent danger, we have attempted (publicly, if possible) to resolve by means of diplomacy, economic sanctions, etc., such that we may legitimately be considered as having exhausted the list of possible reasonable alternatives without satisfactorily allaying our concerns. :P

Tigerlilly
01-09-2005, 02:40 PM
Well, for that matter the muslim Indonesian gov't versus Tamil 'rebels' have killed something like 60,000 people via 'civil war', the muslim Sudanese gov't vs Darfur 'rebels' have killed countless tens of thousands ... but this doesn't count, right ?

I ,for one ,have never said things like that don't count. I don't think I have ever heard anyone who shares my views indicate that either. Quite the opposite. We feel such actions are wrong, no matter who it is doing it.

Logicaly thinking-- if it is wrong for those used as examples above to kill and or create or take part in war, then it is also wrong for us, the U.S. Most any other conclusion defies the laws that govern logical thinking.

Is there just no other way for the U.S to deal with things than to use extermination, opps I meant 'neutralization' against an entire culture or religon ?

Again this similarity of the "New America" and another infamous group in history makes me very uncomfortable.

Melonie
01-09-2005, 03:40 PM
Is there just no other way for the U.S to deal with things than to use extermination, opps I meant 'neutralization' against an entire culture or religon ?

Well, UK prime minister Neville Chamberlain certainly experimented with other alternatives in the late 30's, with the support of like thinking politicians like Daladier in France and even some here in the US. After their experiment resulted in the loss of some 50 million lives over the following 5 years, many including myself would argue that renewing the failed experiment with islamic terrorists is a risk too large to take.

Bridgette
01-09-2005, 03:48 PM
I haven't met a muslim EVER, with whom you could speak openly on this subject or anything even remotely related - even if you are sympathetic to the problems. They come to the west for the freedom and financial benefits, and expect everyone else to bend to them. BS! I don't see them just wanting to go about their lives and blend into the society. I see them wanting everyone to be sensitive to THEIR beliefs and feelings, regardless of what the situation is.

You can't even make an unbaised factual comment without getting evil looks from them. How much sense does it make for these people to move into a society they already hate? I agree with dancedc, when ONE particular group always seems to be the one having problems with everyone else in the world, perhaps THAT group is the root of the problem. Peaceful my ass.

Jay Zeno
01-09-2005, 05:39 PM
Hm. I've had Muslim neighbors and inlaws who could talk quite rationally about all this stuff, fundamentalist Christian family and friends who weren't judgmental, and Jewish friends who weren't militant Zionists.

Different experiences.

Wwanderer
01-09-2005, 06:40 PM
I've had Muslim neighbors and inlaws who could talk quite rationally about all this stuff, fundamentalist Christian family and friends who weren't judgmental, and Jewish friends who weren't militant Zionists.

Me too (not the inlaws part, but you know what I mean).

It is a lot simpler and less stressful to deal with the world and think about complicated problems if you tune your perceptions to ignore the shades of gray and see everything in black and white, but speaking of failed historical "experiments" that have killed tens of millions...

-Ww

Jenny
01-09-2005, 06:50 PM
Thank you Jay; it is possible (just possible, mind you, because nobody would want rationality to get in the way of rampant racism) that the reason Middle Easterners and Africans have "the problems" is because other parts of the world (and nobody will name names here) have simply imposed arbitrary borders, for reasons completely unrelated to the cultures and peoples that live there. Another possibility is that certain parts of the world (again, no need to point fingers, we all know who we are) viewed them (and still do, seemingly) as regions completely available for colonization, without any regard for the people that actually live in said region. I'm a little surprised that nobody here has noticed the irony (or thought it was worth commenting on) that "we" are complaining about Muslims, Iraquis, etc., being culturely demanding the US and Europe while their country is militarily occupied. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein was a really nice guy who just misunderstood. I don't even have a particularly hard stance against the war. But, come on people. Like the "western world" has any grounds to bitch about cultural exportation.

Casual Observer
01-09-2005, 08:14 PM
Like the "western world" has any grounds to bitch about cultural exportation.

Please. Why don't you just oversimplify the history of the colonial period so we can all jump in to lay blame for every socio-economic disparity of the third world at the feet of the Western world?

If you want to gloss over tribal and ethnic divisions that long preceeded Western colonization of some parts of the world (which has also long since passed into history) because it ostensbily absolves said nations and non-state actors of responsibility for their own actions and motivations in the present day.

Tell me that what's happening in Zimbabwe is the fault of Western colonization. Tell me that India and Pakistan are at each other's throats today because of British interests. Tell me that the internal divisions and seventy years of PRI rule in Mexico were because the US expanded into the the Southwest in response to Mexican aggression. Tell me that the genocide in Rwanda is directly correlated to Western intervention, when the world blames the West for not getting involved in the ethnic tribalism that fomented the crisis.

Pick up Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Dimond sometime. Blaming Eurocentric-policies and Western bias only carries the "poor third world victim" argument so far--to the point where it falls flat on its face. And it certainly doesn't whitewash the threat to Western Civilization posed by Islamist movements.

Wwanderer
01-09-2005, 08:48 PM
I think there is something to both points of view here. Imo, it is true both 1) that the Third World uses the First World (or the West, if you prefer) as an excuse for many problems that are really its own doing and 2) that colonization followed by frequent "political meddling" in the post-colonial era by First World powers in the internal affairs of Third World nations has caused the latter (and the former too, for that matter) many serious and needless problems.

But in any case, at a much lower level (personal rather than geopolitical), it is definitely very ironic for Westerners, especially Americans, to complain about anyone else being "arrogant and culturally demanding" when traveling abroad. As someone who has spent a substantial fraction of my adult life traveling all over the world, 5 continents plus a bunch of islands, I can assure you from personal experience and observation that if there is any nationality that is worse than Americans in this respect, it can only be the French...which is probably why they bug us so much.

Finally, I very strongly second CO's book recommendation; the Diamond book is just superb and should be read by anyone interested in history and world affairs.

-Ww

Bridgette
01-10-2005, 03:49 AM
I was never an advocate of this "war" we have in Iraq, but there's nothing I can do about it. I can tell you I get rather sick of having to tread on eggshells around, for example, the middle easterners who own the 24hr convenience store near my house. I find it rather absurd actually, that I can't go to the friggin store and feel comfortable speaking with my boyfriend about say, the value of international currencies and how recent political events have affected them, without getting nasty looks from the guys behind the counter.

It's very easy to say westerners are the root of all the problems in the world, especially when most basic history lessons directly or indirectly point to that. However if one takes into account the WHOLE story, one finds that westerners have played a relatively small part in the overall game.

I too have done my share of international travelling, and I'll be the first to admit that American tourists are among the most brash and obnoxious with expecting to get their way abroad. However I'm talking about immigrants who knowingly move to a country with vastly different ideals and values than theirs and expect to not only be tolerated but even catered to. In my experience, most westerners who move into a different society, do so with the intention of blending at least reasonably with that society, rather than expecting the opposite. Political moves notwithstanding.

Surely no one here thinks a westerner moving to the middle east would be welcome to behave completely the way they would at home? OTOH, it seems most middle easterners moving to the west feel less obliged to blend into western society.

Now I am certainly not even close to racist and when it comes to dealing with people everyday I couldn't care less where they came from or what their race is. But at the same time, when dealing with people everyday it becomes hard to ignore the difficulties presented.

Wwanderer
01-10-2005, 08:45 AM
I too have done my share of international travelling, and I'll be the first to admit that American tourists are among the most brash and obnoxious with expecting to get their way abroad. However I'm talking about immigrants who knowingly move to a country with vastly different ideals and values than theirs and expect to not only be tolerated but even catered to. In my experience, most westerners who move into a different society, do so with the intention of blending at least reasonably with that society, rather than expecting the opposite. Political moves notwithstanding.

The distinction between tourists and expats/immigrants is, I agree, a valid and significant one. I would also distinguish a third group - business travelers - who do not necessarily behave, in general, like either of the other two types.

As for American expats/immigrants living abroad vs other nationalities living here, I'm not sure I can see any particularly clear pattern in my own experience; I have seen ones that "go native" and ones that don't even try to fit into the local culture in both cases. One thing that makes it a bit tricky is that the US is so ethnically and racially diverse (such a melting pot...a good thing, imo) that foreigners who "go native" here sort of disappear; you just think of them as another "flavor" of American when you encounter one. But in many foreign countries, an American who "goes native" and adopts the local culture and lifestyle is still recognized by everyone as an American (or at least a foreigner).

-Ww

Tigerlilly
01-10-2005, 10:21 AM
Well, UK prime minister Neville Chamberlain certainly experimented with other alternatives in the late 30's, with the support of like thinking politicians like Daladier in France and even some here in the US. After their experiment resulted in the loss of some 50 million lives over the following 5 years, many including myself would argue that renewing the failed experiment with islamic terrorists is a risk too large to take.

First off Chamberlain fought and feared the spread communisim, the example has nothing to do with islam.

Besides that, uhm... that was in the 1930's , over 70 years ago. Imagine if no experiment of any kind was ever repeated because it didn't work the first time out.......:O

The 1930's was a LONG time ago and alot has changed in the world. There have been many advances in life since the 1930's -- But lets not have logic or reason get in the way of the desire to exterminate, er, I mean 'neutralize' millions of people or anything ::)

Casual Observer
01-10-2005, 04:36 PM
First off Chamberlain fought and feared the spread communisim, the example has nothing to do with islam.

Actually, Churchill (prior to his PM victory, when he was MoD) feared the communists more than the fascists, but your point remains the same. And so does Melonie's.


Besides that, uhm... that was in the 1930's , over 70 years ago. Imagine if no experiment of any kind was ever repeated because it didn't work the first time out.......

The 1930's was a LONG time ago and alot has changed in the world. There have been many advances in life since the 1930's

So I can quote you the next time someone makes an idiotic Godwinian comparison to the GWB administration and the Third Reich? Sweet!

Tigerlilly
01-10-2005, 08:23 PM
Actually, Churchill (prior to his PM victory, when he was MoD) feared the communists more than the fascists, but your point remains the same. And so does Melonie's.



So I can quote you the next time someone makes an idiotic Godwinian comparison to the GWB administration and the Third Reich? Sweet!


LMAO. Only if you use it in context, but alas you already have taken it out of context anyway so....

Also the man she incorrectly said "experimented" with a different approach with Islamic countries was Chamberlain not Churchill, but don't let that stand in the way of your sarcasm ;)

Chamberlain did try appeasement ( which I am guessing is the tactic Melonie was re: to) instead of preemptive strike and it didn't work in THAT particular situation but it was with Germany, Italy, etc., etc. Not Islamic countries.

I am not saying yay or nay on appeasment in todays problems, but my original question was- why is preemptive and violent occupation the supposed only way . The answer I got was when appeasment was tried 70 some years ago it didnt work so why try it ever, ever again. ::)

That just seems shortsighted to me.

Melonie
01-11-2005, 12:41 PM
when making Godwin's Law references, it might pay to retrace a bit of history as to which groups actually support Nazis and neo-Nazis ...


"Al Qaeda`s Neo-Nazi Connections
Jewish Press ^ | 2/25/2004 | William Grim

On the surface there would seem to be little to unite the Aryan racialists of the neo-Nazi movement with the terrorists of radical Islam. To the neo-Nazis, Muslims are almost all members of ``inferior`` races; and to the Islamic terrorists, the neo-Nazis are almost without exception either atheists or members of fringe quasi-Christian sects.

But the reality is that there has been close cooperation between Muslim extremists and Fascists ever since the founding of the Nazi movement in the 1920`s. For all of their differences, Muslim extremists and Nazis have always been united by a common group of beliefs and goals: hatred of Judaism (and conventional Christianity), hatred of democracy, and a desire for the destruction of Israel and the United States.

A little background is in order. During World War II the rabidly anti-Semitic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, pledged his unequivocal support to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist movement. The Grand Mufti was put on the Nazi payroll in 1937 after he met with Adolf Eichmann in Palestine. In fact, when the Grand Mufti had to flee the Middle East in 1941 after the failure of the pro-Nazi coup in Iraq, he was welcomed to Berlin by Hitler and provided with high-power transmitters in order to broadcast pro-Nazi propaganda to the Middle East.

The Grand Mufti also organized an all- Muslim unit of the SS for Hitler and was instrumental in forming the pro-Nazi Muslim Hanschar brigades in Yugoslavia. After the war and his conviction for war crimes by the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Grand Mufti fled to Egypt where, as part of the ODESSA network of former SS operatives, he maintained close ties to former high-ranking Nazis who were now engaged in gun-running operations to Arab countries fighting the fledgling State of Israel.

One such ex-Nazi gunrunner was Major General Otto Ernst Remer (1912-1997), known as the ``Godfather of the neo-Nazi movement.`` Remer had a major part in thwarting the Generals` Plot against Hitler in July 1944. Hitler rewarded Remer by putting him in charge of his protection detail. In the chaos of the immediate post-war period, Remer escaped de-Nazification and returned to Germany.

In 1949 Remer and his associates founded the Sozialistische Reichspartei in Lower Saxony, but the party was banned in 1952 as a neo-Nazi political organization. Remer then settled in Egypt where he began his close friendship with the Grand Mufti and also became security adviser to Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Remer, along with his associate Alois Bunning (who was Eichmann`s assistant in the SS), operated his gunrunning company, the Orient Trading Company, out of Damascus for many years. In the 1980`s, when the statute of limitations expired for the crimes he was alleged to have committed, Remer retired and returned to Germany where he became a close adviser to Michael Kuehnen, the most important neo-Nazi leader of the postwar period in Germany.

It should be pointed out that National Socialism had a profound impact on the political philosophies of many radical Islamic political organization, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in Egypt in 1928), Nasser`s Young Egypt movement, the Social Nationalist Party of Syria founded by Anton Sa`ada, and the Ba`ath Party of Iraq. One of the main leaders of the 1941 pro-Nazi coup in Iraq was Khairallah Tulfah, the uncle and guardian of Saddam Hussein. When Saddam failed in his attempt to assassinate the Iraqi leader Abdel Karim Qassim in 1959, he fled to Egypt where he was given protection by Grand Mufti- protégé Nasser and ODESSA-connected former Nazis. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Third Position

The rise of Al Qaeda and the explosion of neo-Nazi activity in Germany and elsewhere coincided with the breakup of the USSR in the early 1990`s and the political vacuum created by the absence of the former Soviet behemoth. Neo-Nazis in both Europe and the United States began making overtures to Islamic terrorists and even to Louis Farrakhan`s Nation of Islam movement. The resulting admixture of Nazi and Islamicist ideologies is something that is termed the ``Third Position.``

Simply put, adherents of the ``Third Position`` oppose both communism and capitalism, the latter category subsuming Israel, the United States and all other democratic countries which are believed to be under the control of ``International Jewry.`` To this end, the socialist portion of Nazi beliefs is emphasized (as opposed to Hitler`s reliance on corporatism), but the core belief in anti- Semitism is left unaltered. Like the original Nazis, the Third Positioners are eager to form alliances with Muslim (and black) extremists who share their anti-Semitic beliefs.

In Germany, the neo-Nazi leader Gottfried Kuessel has maintained close ties to Farrakhan`s Black Muslims, and Karl-Heinz Hoffmann, thought to have been involved in the murder of Jewish publisher Shlomo Levin as well as the Oktoberfest bombing of September 26, 1980, in which 13 persons were killed and over 200 injured, has long maintained ties with Arafat`s PLO and even moved his paramilitary training camp to Lebanon in 1980 with PLO assistance.

In France, the neo-Nazi leader Robert Faurisson maintains close ties with Ahmed Rami, the former broadcaster of the now- defunct Radio Islam, a viciously anti-Semitic station that operated out of Stockholm for a number of years. And for some time, Sweden`s neo-Nazis have provided skinheads for use as Rami`s bodyguards.

Much of the coordination of neo- Nazi/Muslim terrorist activities is done in the United States. Since overt Nazi activity is outlawed in Germany and many other European countries, neo-Nazis and Islamic extremists have taken advantage of America`s First Amendment protection of almost all political activity. In fact, the headquarters today of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterrpartei is in Lincoln, Nebraska. The Internet and electronic banking make communication and the transfer of funds instantaneous. Even when the transfer of funds needs to be done in person, American law permits every individual to enter or leave the country with $10,000 in cash or negotiable securities without reporting it.

The First Gulf War in 1991 was a catalyzing event in the development of neo- Nazi and Islamic terrorist relations. Early in 1991, the German neo-Nazi leader Michael Kuehnen contacted the Iraqi Embassy in Bonn and offered to train and equip a squadron of neo-Nazi mercenaries to assist Saddam in the coming war against the alliance led by the United States. Indeed, when Kuehnen was arrested for the last time by German police in April of 1991 (Kuehnen died shortly afterwards of AIDS), included among the documents found in his apartment was a copy of a draft treaty between the ``Anti-Zionist League`` and the ``Government of Iraq.``

Another German neo-Nazi leader, Heinz Reisz, appearing live on Hessian state television on January 25, 1991, gained a great deal of notoriety by proclaiming, ``Long live the fight for Saddam Hussein, long live his people, long live their leader, God save the Arab people.``

Although upwards of as many as 500 neo- Nazi mercenaries, formed into a so-called Freedom Corps, were sent to Iraq in 1991, their military effect was negligible at best. Eyewitness accounts say that most of the mercenaries did little other than parade around Baghdad in SS uniforms. The members of the ``Freedom Corps`` fled Iraq after the first night of Alliance bombing. Regardless of the ignominious military performance of the neo- Nazis in Iraq in 1991, this was an important event because it led to greater ties and cooperation among American right-wing extremists, European neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists. "

threlayer
01-12-2005, 02:15 PM
First point: most of the press in Israel is not always objective about any of these issues to say the least. Further, many of the press stories are propaganda or extremist views often supported by outright lies and biased interpretations. I can understand that, considering the political climate there. On occasion I have found a reasoned argument in their press on the more liberal side of the spectrum. I have not studied this particular article, and it would take me days to wade thru it. However....

Remember when the middle eastern countries wanted to arm themselves in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, they were able to turn to USSR and to an extent France and even Germany. Now those are the politicians, not extremist enclaves. I doubt those countries would provide much help if they felt there were extensive Nazi support.

Second point is that Jewish financial and propaganda interests have found a profitable ally in Fundamentalist Christian groups in this country. Witness informercials like "On the Wings of Eagles" etc. However, discussing this point further is out of context for the title of the discussion.