Pacifist hostage thanks his rescuers, reluctantly

It's even worse than that, Rebecca.

The ingratitude is bad enough, but it seems that this man has also put others in danger by his refusal to cooperate with the intelligence services.

Here's the Telegraph

Mr Kember is also said to have refused to cooperate fully with intelligence officials wanting to debrief him. It is difficult to understand, and harder to forgive, that decision. The information that he would be able to impart in such a debrief could be critically important to the Army and Intelligence Services' ability both to prevent further abductions, and to release those who are unfortunate enough to still be held hostage.

Mr Kember is entitled to jeopardise his own safety for the sake of his beliefs. He should not use them as an excuse for imperilling others.

Leading article: The selfish idealist

The self-righteous glow he gets from brandishing his beliefs should not be of more value to him than the safety and welfare of other human beings. If these reports are correct, he's gone over the line now. This is wickedness pure and simple.

It may be that the failure of Kember to cooperate is complicating efforts to rescue, among others, the American female hostage. He strikes his "Christian peace activist" attitudes, but others held may suffer. And those who rescued him have to take risks, and possibly themseleves suffer. He should be treated with contempt. So should all of them, these phony "Christian peace activists" who are "peace activists" the way the Duke and Dutchess of Windsor were "peace activists" when they went to visit that misunderstood Mr. Hitler at Berchtesgaden, realizing that only "warmongers" wanted to stop him with force.

The phrase "Christian peace activit" should now raise antennae all over the Infidel world. It's as phone a phrase as is the title "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding."

He disgusts. He is simply Jimmy Carter, writ small.

Having got that off my chest, some light relief ...

"Boozy social events at Cambridge are making Muslim students feel excluded," this newspaper reported yesterday, quoting a university report. "The number of social events without alcohol could be increased," the report suggested.

For once, we may doubt whether a university report is a good guide to student opinion on a matter to do with an ethnic minority. Most students are liberal or Leftish. They have no objection to Muslims with a grievance wishing to stop the sympathetic teaching of Western civilisation. But a threat to Western alcohol is another matter.

Usually, when Muslims, feminists or whoever want to censor the sympathetic teaching of anything Western, conservatives or traditionalists reply that a university should be a place of unbiased learning. Students should go to university to acquaint themselves with the canon of Western thinkers, beginning with Aristotle.

Such arguments, of course, have no effect on those militants for Leftish causes. But now, in Cambridge, the authorities have an answer to a Muslim grievance, and for once the answer would be popular on the Left, since Leftish students have one taste in common with all students.

A university, the authorities can say, is above all a place of unbiased drinking. Students go to university to follow the example of the great canon of Western drinkers: Dr Johnson, Evelyn Waugh, Hemingway, George Best, Scott Fitzgerald and indeed his wife. As feminist students can point out, that wife disproves the idea that women have made no contribution to Western alcoholism.

Non-Muslim students will fight for the right to be excluded from Muslim teetotalism. They will resent the pressure to stay sober on social occasions. It could drive many of them to drink, which, of course, for students is as it should be.

Frank Johnson: Cambridge is a Mecca for the great drinkers

More creeping sharia, because, of course, there will be non-alcoholic drinks available at functions at Cambridge - for drivers, for those whose medical conditions don't allow them to drink, for pregnant women, for those who simply don't fancy one.

I feel something coming on ...

“When you have lost your inns drown your empty selves, for you will have lost the last of England” - Hilaire Belloc.

Every vineyard grubbed up, every cider orchard cut down. All the cider apples, bred just for this purpose, Cocagee, Bloody Butcher, Fox Whelp, Pawsan, Red Soldier, Slack-ma-girdle, Kingston Black, all of no use now.

Breweries closed. Every pub, tavern and inn, every bierkeller, bodega, and wine-shop, put to some other use. It wouldn't be a small thing either. Yes, English people do probably drink more than is good for them, but as Chesterton and Orwell told the prigs of their day the pub was also where the working man went for companionship and conversation. Chesterton even wrote a (somewhat dated) novel to drive the point home.

Now we have new prigs in the offing. And now we know what they want. No drinking. And this doesn't just mean no cool red-brown bitter beer, no clouded cider. It means much more: the conversations to die, the soft lights to go out, the flirting to stop, the jokes to cease, the laughter to fall silent.

These self-styled "peace activists" really stink with their wretched hypocrisy. They're both fakes/phoneys and dumbies. After all, they actually claim that diplomats are less stained with the blotch of war than are military men. That's ridiculous. Major wars usually can't get started without the machinery of diplomacy working for "peace". Consider the "peace-making" Munich Conference of 1938 which made Hitler's aggression in the Second World War possible. These "peace-makers" are either liars or fools. As fools they could be either stupid or merely ignorant. But I think that they are conscious liars. But I don't have enough infor at this point to prove that. So I'll merely say now that they are either liars or fools.

PACIFIST:

-a person so peaceful that they insist that other people fight for them.

Convenient.

Mr. Kember belongs in a jail-cell for reckless endangerment (and whatever the military equivalent is for the civil Australian obstruction of justice). Barring that, he ought to pay back the money plus interest spent rescuing his sorry .. okay, cleaner .. self.

He's about as peaceful as the peaceful members of the "Religion of Peace" are peaceful. Moral cowards all ..

"We said from the outset we didn't want a military raid and we wouldn't work with the military,"

Well, why did they leave with the troops then?

I feel similarly about things like mutual gang violence, and hoon drivers: put them somewhere they can fight it out/drive crazily, but under the full understanding that they will get NO MEDICAL HELP at the taxpayer's expense.

Some people just want unnecessary danger and put themselves in such situations, but why should others clean up the mess?

Can someone tell me how these so-called peace activists are actually contributing to peace? They knowingly endanger the lives of our military men and women, police, and diplomats; they cost us millions in headaches, and we are obligated to pull them out of trouble even though they are actively working against our governments. Imagine you try to rescue someone from drowning, they refuse your help and resist, and they end up pulling you under with them.

We need to change our policies viz CPT. Unfortunately, I'm afraid this will not happen until lives are lost trying to rescue them.

Pacifist hostage thanks his rescuers, reluctantly

There's a word for people like Kember. It rhymes with "brass pole."

When I was younger, so much younger than today, a self-titled "peace activist" was by definition a morally superior human being, someone to be emulated and admired. John Lennon's sloganeering "war is over if you want it," planting an acorn for peace and holding press conferences from inside a bag were testimonies to his basic goodness. Well well well, oh weeell, I am older and more cynical now, and I realize that John had absolutely no understanding of politics and nothing to offer with respect to conflict solution. Those appeaseniks who went to Baghdad to act as human shields before the war were in for a nasty surprise when they realized the brutal nature of the regime. I believe none of them actually put themselves in the firing line? They and the repugnant mr. Kember are the love children of John. I still love his Beatles song writing catalogue, I should add, but his 'peace' activities are dated and embarrassing seen in hindsight.

In the Danish debate we have an expression that translates as "self goodness," meaning someone whose admirable activities serve to profile himself as morally superior. I'm not really sure if a corresponding terms exists in English.

Disclaimer: I am aware that the views I hold and the words I write do not place myself in the front line in any sense. I am at a safe distance from the horrors of Iraq.

OT - on the rally for free expression on 25th in London.
Despite my skepticism and pessimism I think not all has been lost. Not only due to the hard
work of the organisers but also thanks to the fantastic bunch of supporters who turned up.
I can bet many more would have come had it not been for the unfortunate U-turn of Voltaire,
advising people not to bring the cartoons. This decision has angered and discouraged a great
number of supporters judging by their furious reaction in the blog's comments. The speakers
were excellent as well (except for Rend Shakir - her speech was full of empty, worn-out
slogans and platitudes), and Maryam Namazie became a star of the rally with her passionate and uninhibited diatrabe against islamic intolerance and dogma. The people reacted with applause. During all the speeches they showed an amazing sensitivity and propriety, rewarding with feverish clapping words of wisdom, truthfulness and courage, and booing any bullshit and insincerity with an equal
passion. Despite the fact that almost as soon as I arrived and displayed my Polish and
Danish flags I was asked to put them away some people wrapped themselves in Danish flags and
there were others (including myself) wearing T-shirts with "support free speech - buy
Danish) pictures.
And ...now hold your breath...the cartoons were shown by a brave Iranian man, who completely
intercepted everybody's attention for the first 10 minutes of the rally with a great speech
against in defense of the carttons "I am not afraid" - he stated firmly holding proudly the
banner with the cartoons. Half an hour later he got arrested by the police as someone filed
a complaint. I wish this person had owned up to their stance (what a coward!. Then great
Maryam took up the banner and asked everybody in the crowd to pass it around - "they can't
arrest everybody!" - if nothing else significant happened at the rally (and a lot of DID) then it would have been worth just witnessing and sharing this amazing experience of solidarity with this man). Needless to say people rushed to respond to her appeal - the banner stayed with us taken care of throught the rest of the rally and nobody else was arrested.
The cartoon did not leave us even for a second though. It reminded me of a flag picked up by
someone else as soon as the who carried it "fell in the battle" - this was symbolic and very
meaningful to me.
Please visit the blog for updates / commenst and further developments:

http://www.marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com/

BBC has noted us (hurah!), though was of course very economical with sharing important details (such as the cartoons' defiant display):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4844634.stm

here great pics:

http://www.thatshot.org/march_for_free_expression_london.html

http://nordish.net/blog/london_25march/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-922.html

An excellent resume from one of the bloggers:

TheFriendlyInfidel said...
"What a wonderful day. It was great to amongst like minded thinkers and to speak with those

in the crowd. We really were from all backgrounds I had a great chat about the state of the

world with a very well informed Indian chap. I noted was how few young people there were, we

were all mature and stood in the rain to hear people speak their mind without the

constraints of Political Correctness. This was not a G8 protest, we knew why we where there.

My favorite moments were at the beginning, there was a BBC reporter desperately looking for

far right people, desperately looking of Muslim haters. He was bitterly disappointed. There

were some long beards about, I smiled at them and in return they turned their faces in

disgusted.

Just before the speakers started, an Iranian ex Muslim stepped forwards with a sign

containing the 4 strongest Danish cartoons. At first he was very shy, but we all stood

around him protectively and encouraged him to speak "here, here, well said that man", the

journalists rushed to get quotes from him. He explained what each of the cartoons mean to

him, he pointed at one and said "this is about the suppression of women", he was angry about

women being stoned to death by followers of Islam, and that Islam specified the size of

stones to use. He stated that he had been tortured by the Iranian government, he said he

came to England to be free from persecution. Us people around him said “you are welcome

here” and the Islamist interviewers visibly shook with anger at this.

One speaker said “Anyone that proposes that they back the concept of ‘free speech’, but free

speech with ‘respect’, is talking about respect on their grounds. This is not free speech at

all. These are false friends”.

I admire Rend Shakir for trying to build bridges and stating that Muslims are not demons, I

agreed with her and cheered her initial comments. As she went on she did not speak out

against the rise Political Islam and the injustices that are acted out in its name. She

didn’t acknowledge the benefits that free speech has brought this country. She proceeded to

run over her time and tried to explain that free speech shouldn’t really include the right

to insult. In my opinion she deliberately extorted Peter by offering to speak, then he

announced it, soon after she withdrew her support unless he bowed to the demands of the MAC,

which he did, just to have her there.

Rend Shakir is a false friend.

Overall I think that it was right that Peter asked people not to bring the cartoons, they

were there, but they only held by ‘brown’ people, not white people. This beautifully

sidesteps accusations of ‘white supremacy’. Had I bought one and held it aloft it would have

tainted the message.

The only shame is that the without the pictures the Rally become a discussion group, it was

not a really a protest. Had it been a protest the turn out would have been better, but I

don’t believe the discussion would have progressive.

Many of my friends refused to come because they were scared or believed that the rally was

being held for the wrong cause, they read the statement and asked “who is this Peter, why do

you lend your support to him?”. Post the success of this rally, they would certainly join us

for the next one.

I thank Peter for getting the ball rolling and the insightful speakers that stepped forwards

to speak.

He is right, the wave has broken and the tide has started to turn.

1:14 PM "

And a reaction from MAC's blog:

"
METROPOLITAN POLICE IGNORE MUSLIM CONCERNS
Despite being asked by the organisers not to bring placards with cartoons, and despite literally thousands of requests by Muslims and others that the police should prevent people carrying these offensive images, some protestors carried placards with the cartoons on and when Muslims who were present complained to the police, no action was taken. We condemn those secular extremists who attended who seem intent in damaging good community relations rather than building them.

posted by Ismaeel at 1:25 PM "
from:

http://muslim-action-committee.blogspot.com/2006/03/metropolitan-police-ignore-muslim.html

More on MAC's counter-demos here:

http://www.globalcivility.co.uk/

Daisytoo,

I think you're on to someting with the idea about charging them with reckless endangerment. Remember, one of their group was murdered. If their supporters had not obstructed the military then the rescue might have occurred in time to free him alive as well. I don't know about British law, but in the US they could be charged with negligent homocide or even as accomplices to that murder.

Stster Ruth has made th enews as well (by the way - a great article about the rally on the Gay site called The Pink):

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-922.html

Yojimbo

Check out Peter Clark's superb The English Alehouse on booze and food and calories and social cohesion in pre-modern England. I hope he's not taking Prozac these days.

We Sleep Safe In Our Beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those that would do us harm.

-- Author: George Orwell

This Christian pacifist "peace mission" does serve to illustrate some signal differences between Christianity and Islam.

Every religion has extremists. The Christian variety, like those on this topic, who hew to a very strict interpretation of loving messages (which are far more numerous than 'intolerant' passages) in the Bible, attempt to save the world by loving everyone and everything in it, no matter what. There is no flexibility.

By contrast, Islamic extremists, who hew to a very strict interpretation of hateful messages (which are far more numerous than 'tolerant' passages, especially toward Non-Muslims) in the Koran, attempt to purify the world by destroying -- or subjugating-- everyone and everything which is outside of Islam, no matter what. There is no flexibility.

Those who claim that all religions have their fanatics are right. But the real issue is in what behavior fanatics from different religions engage in. It says a lot about the religions they worship and espouse.

This Christian pacifist "peace mission" does serve to illustrate some signal differences between Christianity and Islam.

Every religion has extremists. The Christian variety, like those on this topic, who hew to a very strict interpretation of loving messages (which are far more numerous than 'intolerant' passages) in the Bible, attempt to save the world by loving everyone and everything in it, no matter what. There is no flexibility.

By contrast, Islamic extremists, who hew to a very strict interpretation of hateful messages (which are far more numerous than 'tolerant' passages, especially toward Non-Muslims) in the Koran, attempt to purify the world by destroying -- or subjugating-- everyone and everything which is outside of Islam, no matter what. There is no flexibility.

Those who claim that all religions have their fanatics are right. But the real issue is in what behavior fanatics from different religions engage in. It says a lot about the religions they worship and espouse.

http://www.quickrob.com/political/Cartoons/Are-You-Blind-Too.gif

Too bad they were rescued. They should have gone the way of Tom Fox

"In the Danish debate we have an expression that translates as "self goodness," meaning someone whose admirable activities serve to profile himself as morally superior. I'm not really sure if a corresponding terms exists in English."

anti-uffi - Thanks for the opportunity! "Complete Jackass" does it for me. However, there are other ways: The Self-Elected Morally Elite, Sanctimonious Jerk, Liberal (unfortunately the term has devolved to this level), Hypocrite, Insufferable Snuffling Fool, Conceited Ass, Pompous Idiot, Odious Oaf, Vegan .. okay ... I'll withdraw Vegan, that's not fair ... and as Hugh pointed out .. "Peace Activist" ..

... I'm sure there are lots more - since this is a particularly deplorable trait for an American to possess (deplorable, but alas not unheard of :) My father had a great expression for this sort of Jackass: "He looks like he's wearing a vest made out of the seat of his father's underwear." anti-uffi .. Is there an equivalent to my father's expression in Danish that you could give us in English?

Pacifists are parasitic upon the protection afforded them by states 1) willing and able to fight; and 2) enlightened enough to countenance and even support bubbles of unreality like Pacifist subcultures within their cultures.

Pacifists are essentially quasi-Gnostics who cannot bear the existential tension of perfection-imperfection and all the responsibilities and compromises that entails. In the best of times, they should be tolerated as amusing oddities; at the worst of times, they can become treasonous liabilities.

"Before his capture, Mr Kember had said that if he were kidnapped he did not want to be rescued by the military..."
-- from the article above

Make it known that in the future all such expressed desires will be fully respected. Save rescuing for those who are not there to make their own, transparently vicious foreign policy -- and thereby harming the rest of us. It doesn't matter what they call themselves; they can call themselves "Christian peace activists" or the Baader-Meinhof Gang. One is indifferent to their self-description. They deserve not admiration, not sympathy, not anything at all. They should be regarded with the same distaste as one would or should have regarded a self-proclaimed "pacifist" -- on the Allied side (on the German side it was quite anther thing) -- during World War II.

Not only would l charge them for endangering lives, l would charge them with a hefty bill for the cost of rescueing them! they not only cost us tax payers money, but military people were sidelined away from more pressing problems. give their little club a huge bill.. the buck stops there!

Has anyone noticed that all of the recent spate of hostages are sympathizers with the Iraqi's, the Muslims? Whether it be Hijab Jill (she who preens in front of nice Persian Carpet), or an independent Italian or German journalist, or the CPT.

Why waste a moment of press time, thought or money on these people, they made their choice.

Disgusting, that after rescue or paying the ransom, they defend their captors and even wish to return.

Margaret Hassan and Tom Fox got their just rewards.
They deliberately put themselves in harms way.

Let's not forget that farce Susan Ostoff Iraq return angers her rescue team

Do you think she was faking it? I do. Ten years in Iraq, a convert to Islam, an out of wedlock child with an Iraqi. Her mission was to pull in $25 million from the German Government.

And then there is Hijab Jill Carroll "whose love for Iraq and the Iraqi people are evident in her articles. She has been welcomed into the homes of many Iraqis and shown every courtesy."

That the U.S. won't buckle like Germany and pay ransom is laudable, but neither should resources be wasted on rescue, unless it leads to the termination of existence of the "insurgents".

I think this puts a face on their air headed motives, they need love, attention and recognition. Rescued Canadian CPT member James Loney "wants to slip into an abyss of love" appropriate name Loney, add an o and more appropriate.

Hostages not bound "BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Three Christian peace activists were not always bound during their four months of captivity and were allowed to exercise regularly, a spokeswoman for their group said Friday.

Some Common sense Don't go back, Clark warns Sooden "Freed hostage Harmeet Sooden returns to New Zealand today to a warning from Prime Minister Helen Clark not to go back to Iraq.

Miss Clark said it was not helpful for Canadian-born Mr Sooden and other members of the Christian Peacemakers Teams (CPT) to go to Iraq."

1. Our SAS soldiers should not be sent on dangerous, time-wastng errands.

2. There is one way of stopping the hostage takings -- and that is to simply ignore them.

Those 'christian peace activists' should be done for treason when they return.

Didn't I read correctly that these activists asked NOT to be rescued by force if they were unfortunate enough to be taken hostage?

If that is true why on earth did we rescue them?

It's no good blaming their beliefs for putting our soldiers lives on the line. Someone high up must have given the order knowing full well these people did NOT want to be rescued. They were willing to give their lives for their belief. Whether you agree with their belief is neither here nor there.

Don't blame them, blame the men in charge. Seek an inquiry as to why our soldiers were risked to rescue, against their wishes, these free thinking Christians. So perhaps next time one of the activists is taken hostage we can concentrate on other people who do want saving.

We should just give him back to the Mujahadeen.

Ungrateful and seditious weasel that he is.

In response to Polish Infideless

To the people of Britain.

Face facts you are already dhimmified, you dare not even show the cartoons in a demonstration.

Your future king looks like he has already converted. Your politicians pander to the Muslim block vote.

You are spineless in the face of tyranny!

Only one political party in your dying country has had the courage to name the enemy.

Yet for fear of offending the PC thought police you dare not even say their name.

You are sinking under the weight of your own liberal cowardice, at least go down with a fight.

km, I agree with some points you have made, but object to the one very specific accusation - the toons were shown!

Only one political party in your dying country has had the courage to name the enemy.

Yet for fear of offending the PC thought police you dare not even say their name.

Oh, you mean the BNP.

Yes, it is true that if you were to Google around to see, for example, what Alfred Sherman had to say about radical Islam, you might find this:

http://www.seanbryson.com/articles/rn_sherman_jihad.html

(BTW, I wonder if his re-using that essay that breaches copyright.)

However, stay and look around and you'll find that this gentleman is even more antagonistic towards "the Jews". But the state of Israel is on the frontline of the international Jihad. Anyone who cannot grasp that, and what the implications of that are, is not taking the Jihad seriously enough. Oh, they may see the Jihad as a convenient excuse for expressing a pre-existing animus against immigrants - all immigrants. But it seems that is all it is. What is this guy smoking for Pete's sake? It is far more serious than that.

km, do you mean BNP? In all honesty, were it not for their racist stance, I would feel tempted to be more inquisitive about their program. I do not want to support any type of fascism and this is not just because I myself am not Anglo-Saxon.
I belong to an "inferior Slavic" ethnic group.
What do you say to this?

FrontPage Magazine has an informative piece about these dangerous pacifists: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21797

Km plugging the BNP again? Good heavens, is that the time? Zzzzz.

However, stay and look around and you'll find that this gentleman is even more antagonistic towards "the Jews". But the state of Israel is on the frontline of the international Jihad. Anyone who cannot grasp that, and what the implications of that are, is not taking the Jihad seriously enough.

Yojimbo and Polish Infideless I refer you to these articles.

http://www.think-israel.org/locke.bnp.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5904

I am not a BNP supporter but I see the utility of using their organization to engage the dawa. This isn’t about the BNP it is about getting the message out quickly that Britain is under attack from Islam and loosing. If you want action you need to start smoking out the jihadists. I notice that there was a counter demo at the same time as the free speech demo. Reports of 5-20 (depending on the sources) Muslims dressed as suicide bombers, not one arrest.

I suggest a new tactic at demonstrations to draw them out, public shredding and burning of passages that can be shown to be hate speech from the Koran. This should start to get the Muslims to show their real colors. The point is unless you start to engage the enemy they will overrun you and subdue you. And from over here it looks like they already have.

To Interested,

Still cowering in fear I see, pathetic.

I am not a BNP supporter but ...

Yeah, right.

Believe what you want Interested, it's your neck that’s going to be on the chopping block first.

You have no solutions to the threat you face, yet you are more worried about me proposing answers like the BNP. You need to get a grip on reality before reality turns round and bites you.

You are at war and loosing.

As another poster so eloquently put today.

Better deceased then praying to the East...
Posted by: tennesseepride at March 27, 2006 09:53 AM

Your comments are sometimes witty and sometimes thoughtful but your reluctance to accept that you are in a state of war and that in war you use all the weapons at your disposal predisposes you to defeat. Therefore you are no better than appeasement minded Neville Chamberlain and are part of the problem not the solution.

A bad analogy. Neville Chamberlain appeased the fascists, which is what you are proposing we do.

A protest vote can sometimes be effective, but this vote can go to UKIP, the Greens or even the Monster Raving Loony Party.

I would not like to see half my street, a fair number of my colleagues, and last but not least my boyfriend forcibly "repatriated" - a ludicrous word since they were born here. Call me a softie, if you like. Along with them would go quite a few apostates. Apostates from Islam are the best people to teach us about Islam. But if their skin is the wrong colour, as it nearly always is, out they would go.

I am not proposing you appease fascists I am suggesting that you use them as a legitimate weapon of war. That is my premise and one you don’t seem able to understand.

In times of war peoples and governments take extreme measures. For example President A. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war and the US interned thousands of Japanese in the Second World War.

Your argument that you don’t want to see your street emptied and your boyfriend deported is a facile one. Especially when pro-Israeli websites are publishing articles advocating the BNP, the BNP has Jewish councilors and senior members of the Sikh community are defending the BNP in court.

The choices are simple you either want to live free or you don’t. Freedom comes at a price you are obviously unprepared to pay that price. Which by it’s very definition makes you a coward.

The reason for your cowardice is that you are unable to approach the problem from a rational view point. You feel your way through situations rather than analyzing the facts. This kind of thinking is displayed in your statement

A protest vote can sometimes be effective, but this vote can go to UKIP, the Greens or even the Monster Raving Loony Party.

What kind of logic is that, none of the parties you have named have come out and said directly who the enemy is. The result will be more multicultural appeasement and an amplification of the mess you are already in.

If you are so against fascism why can't you see that the doctrine of forced multiculturalism and political correctness is fascism it's self.

I know this must be causing you a lot of cognitive dissonance but you need to wakeup. Failure to do so will only result in one thing and that is your complete dhimmitude.

The logic is inescapable. Texican has the answer for you in every post he puts here.

FREEDOM,

THE ONLY CHOICE AT ANY COST!

Km - why don't you mind your own business, instead of dictating to my country how it should govern itself. You talk of freedom - how much free speech did the Nazis allow?

The idea of supporting the BNP is as repugnant to decent Britons as the idea of supporting the Klu Klux Klan is to Americans.

km,

I'm not as familiar with the BNP party as some of you who are most immediately affected by it are .. from what I've read in these posts it seems that there is no argument that BNP operates out of fascistic motivations.

You say, "I am not proposing you appease fascists I am suggesting that you use them as a legitimate weapon of war. That is my premise and one you don’t seem able to understand." and you also say, "The reason for your cowardice is that you are unable to approach the problem from a rational view point."

Using fascism to fight fascism doesn't strike me as a rational idea or as a morally principled idea either. There are those among us who do not subscribe to the belief that the ends justify the means ("at any cost").

Do you really think it's rational or principled or brave to doubt the veracity of democratic principles to the extent that you would throw them over -- "just for a little while" -- while you back totalitarian ideas? My faith in democracy, liberty and free choice is unshakable .. sounds like yours is on shaky ground. Just do your part km .. don't attempt to control all factors .. it only leads to disastor.

Interested wrote :

‘A protest vote can sometimes be effective, but this vote can go to UKIP, the Greens or even the Monster Raving Loony Party.’

I have to disagree here. A protest vote is a wasted vote. A lot of people seemed to do just that at the last election and the only result from that ‘protest’ was another term with Labour, sorry New Labour.

You are right in that most decent, law abiding UK citizens don’t really want to see the BNP get a proper foothold in parliament. But then again most decent, law abiding UK citizens are at a loss of how to stem this tide of self hatred and loss of national identity and forced multiculturalism that has been forced on us by successive governments of both main parties.

I thought we lived in a democracy. Meaning majority rule.
We vote a party in to do the bidding of the majority of the countries electorate. There hasn’t been a party that represented the views of the common majority for years now, decades even. People are seeing that the BNP are ‘listening’ to the common man and thus they are winning a vast amount of support now and not just in the white community either.

The problem doesn’t lie with the BNP, rather it lies with our mainstream Parties inability to listen to underlying tensions out in their constituencies. Maybe when the mainstream parties see how well the BNP start doing they may just wake up in time to stop any major victories by the BNP. I doubt it though. Lies and broken promises have been the staple manifestos of the mainstream parties for too long now.

Do you really think it's rational or principled or brave to doubt the veracity of democratic principles to the extent that you would throw them over -- "just for a little while" -- while you back totalitarian ideas? My faith in democracy, liberty and free choice is unshakable .. sounds like yours is on shaky ground. Just do your part km .. don't attempt to control all factors .. it only leads to disastor.
Posted by: Daisytoo at March 27, 2006 02:36 PM

I appreciate your point daisytoo, but we need to get one thing clear, democracy isn’t freedom at it’s very core it is a form of mob rule. By submitting to the democratic process a good majority of the people are denied their rights. Iran has democratic elections and so does Egypt, it doesn’t make them free countries

We use this system because as of yet we have yet to find an alternative, my concept of freedom is pretty much enshrined by the constitution of the US. But in defending the philosophical constructs outlined in the constitution should it be threatened I believe the end justifies the means much like A. Lincoln and T.Roosevelt .

You say that my idea of freedom is on shaky ground, I would argue it is you that has the shaky premise of freedom. Liberty and free choice are pre-requisites for freedom I agree with this, but democracy through mob rule, here I would disagree and so would many others, by definition your blind following to democracy makes you a collectivist and as such if you believe in democracy as the gold standard for human freedom then you are the antithesis of real individual freedom.

Also your argument that to fight fascism with fascism is morally wrong holds no water. On what grounds do you base your moral reasoning, if by your earlier statements it appears that you are a collectivist then I would argue that it is your moral compass that has gone astray and your ability to make objective judgments is also compromised.

The nationalist movement is beginning to make headway against the dawa, I believe Holland to be a fine example of this. Here you have one of the most leftwing morally relativistic countries in the world that once exposed to the true face of uncontrolled immigration from the umma, responded by shifting their political views to the right. And this policy appears to be having an effect.

Therefore my argument that to fight fascism with fascism does have validity, you have to prove that my hypothesis is wrong. Something that I think you will have trouble to do.

Your obvious response to this statement will be well what about the WWII fascism didn’t work then and we worked very hard to make sure it didn’t.

I will argue that this is a new kind of war one fought as much by individuals as well as nation states. I agree with Hugh that a modern form of the Berne’s decree which forcefully removed Germans from Czechoslovakia should be weapon in our arsenal. I therefore advocate using the rightwing nationalist movements as a means to accelerate political thinking to the point where a modern version of the Berne’s decree becomes possible.

I believe that the right wing movements do not have to gain power, because toady politicians once they see a good proportion of the population voting that way will propose it themselves. Interested and yours objections to this method of warfare merely prolong the agony as we watch Europe succumb to the dawa.

So in effect my argument is one of using democracy to fight back, but democracy that includes all view points on how to combat the threat, not just sold out political hacks who have no understanding of Islamic Doctrine and lick Muslim backsides to hold their jobs.

You know, the problem with people like kember is, they think the whole world is a big giant Teddy bear. Everything cozy and warm. Sorry, it unfortunately dosn't work that way. I wish it did.

Xeno,

Eloquently put, I assume you are living in the UK. You have my sympathies, things must be tough at the moment.

Watching your country torn apart by savages and then have batty liberals stop you from trying to defend yourself.

'oooohhh we cant hurt the noble savage'

A cogent strategy would be to take them out as well. And it may have to come to this, Balkanisation of the UK and Europe is just a few months away.

I know its hard in the UK but get yourself armed and have good escape routes planned. You would be welcome in the states.

Good luck

Xeno

Good Article, regarding the consequences of inaction in the face of aggressive Islam.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1176995,00.html

Km: since nobody even begins to support your pro-fascist views (no matter how thin you slice it, it is still baloney), you would, if you were an intelligent person, shut up and start wondering if your opponents have a point. I think a Rabbi once said that, if three people tell you you are drunk, you should go home and lie down. What you are trying to do is evidently to insist that what everyone tells you is an odious, brutal, street-fighting congregation of racist criminals should be welcome among the defenders of democracy. In other words, your mind is to make Fascism respectable. Sorry, km, Fascism is not respectable, never has been, never shall be. It is purely as Fascism, purely as the sort of thing it is, that it is an enemy of humanity and decency; that it is the theory of violence (Mussolini called boxing "an innately Fascist form of expression") and brutal suppression of dissent, of fear and love of pain. You do not want to understand that, and that makes you a brother or sister under the skin of Mr.Kember, who is equally obstinate not to understand that Islam is similarly in love with brutality and pain. Besides, all Fascists feel a spiritual kinship with Islam: from Mussolini kitting his lads out in Turkish fez's, to Hitler proclaiming Islam "a faith for a fighter" and raising SS among the Muslim of Bosnia, to Le Pen making advances to the most violent of Europe's Muslims, Fascists are and have always been false friends to anyone who would fight Islam. And the fact that you are not willing to see this makes you both obstinate and dangerous.

Paolo, you correctly point to a fascist affinity for Islam. it is interesting that at least one jihadist returned the compliment. Haj Amin el-Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem [appointed by the British in 1921], addressed the Bosnian Muslim SS division. He told them that there was a great similarity between Islam and National Socialism [=Nazism].

This link tells of an encounter between Hitler and a Muslim theologian. Hitler was very interested in the jihad concept.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/01/islamic-influence-on-hitler-can-it-be.html

Km: since nobody even begins to support your pro-fascist views (no matter how thin you slice it, it is still baloney), you would, if you were an intelligent person, shut up and start wondering if your opponents have a point.

Paolo I am merely pointing out different mechanisms for controling and engaging Jihadists. Some are more unpleasent than others, nothing should be taken off the table in terms of options when dealing in what is a zero sum game for world civilization.

I make the point in an earlier post that nationalist movements have been successful in bringing immigration reform in Holland, and that this approach appears to be having some success. You have to disprove this hypothesis, flinging insults does nothing to argue your case.

Xeno makes the point that the mainstream parties have become so disconnected with the general populace that people are turning to the nationalist parties. My point is let it happen, let people have the right to choose so that governments can respond and function effectively. Who are you to say what people can and can’t do.

I fully comprehend the implications of a fascist state. But from where I am sitting the multiculturalism and politically correct thinking which dominates the political scene in Europe is a form of fascism. Only through a free exchange of ideas will people get to solutions. Also because a handful of people do not have the stomach to really face this problem does not mean that I can not discuss it, your group think module is overriding your understanding of what free speech means.

I am not saying anything that the administrators of this site are not saying; I have stated clearly that a modern Berne’s decree needs to be considered as a means to secure the borders of the EU against the tide of third world immigration. The reason for this is simple when you look at the demographics the statistics say no matter how thin you slice it that a Muslim majority will be present within Europe within the next 30-100 years.

http://magicstatistics.blogspot.com/2005/11/spectator-trifecta-on-european-islam.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6901&issue=2005-11-12

Your understanding of population dynamics and fundamental biology is obviously limited so you fail to grasp the implications of what this means. I however can see the implications and like many here want to see some form of action.

What is your solution Paolo? Instead of attacking me why don’t you come up with alternatives, the people who challenge my argument have yet to show me they are anything other than knee jerk reactionaries. I am not impressed, logical analysis of the situation is called for and their responses are anything but. They wield out clubs like ‘fascist’, ‘racist’ & ‘bigoted’ as a way to stifle the debate.

If pro-Israel/Jewish sites, Sikh organisations and professional reporters from different countries can see merit in the BNP then I will be prepared to listen to their evidence.

And if I consider it to be useful in combating the dawa I will continue to advocate it.

Perhaps in the future "Christian Peace Activists" will be kind enough to save the SAS some bother by signing a "DNR" order. In their case, rather than Do Not Resuscitate, it would signify Do Not Rescue. that way John could remain quietly back in Herford waiting for a more important mission.

KM: I have said this several times before, so I will make this statement once and then put an end to my part in this thread. You talk about solutions as though there were a problem. There is no problem; there is a condition - one that has existed for 1400 years. We shall not "solve" it in our lifetimes. The only "solution" would be to murder every last Muslim, and, while I hope I will live to see Islam as discredited and declining as Communism has been, I think the idea of a "solution" only stops being ridiculous when it starts being scary - when it starts sounding like a "final solution". Remember that? The one your ideological buddies tried? It failed, too.

So what to do? Keep the Muslims well under control. Enforce the laws. Force them to worship only in controlled mosques, infiltrate each mosque, and make it illegal to establish mosques except under state control. Restore National Service, but making each European citizen serve not in the Armed Forces (we need them to be professional) but in the Police, and, in Swiss fashion, serve a small period each year insead of one term and then forget about it. And use the police force to keep order. That is, involve all citizens. Conversely, place Muslims before the alternative of serving and obeying or being punished and singled out. Make "religious" (i.e. Islamic) motivation an aggravating circumstance in any criminal trial. Restore the ancient penalty of exile for citizens who happen to be Muslim, throwing them out if they have committed an offence. Establish a high-tech web of satellite and airborne control all over the Mediterranean and the European near seas so that every ship may be tracked through every journey, and every one bringing illegal immigrants be forced to back to it. Use coolly and brutally the financial tool to wring the neck of every country that gives us trouble, beginning with Egypt. Arm Christian and other minorities who show any desire to defend themselves. Use schools, radio, Tv, the internet and any other medium of communication for democratic education and Christian indoctrination, both at home and abroad. Move calmly and without fear, as circumstances are already driving us, towards the re-colonization of the Muslim world: soon all Western governments will be involved in varying degrees with direct intervention in the local governance of Muslim countries. Their very disorder and violence will make it inevitable.

These are all things that can and probably will be done in our lifetimes. And they are much more practical than any "solution" or resort to treacherous brutes.

Paolo,

Some good points I agree with you that practical steps like these can be taken and will be of value. National service is a great idea and expulsion as a form of punishment I am all for it.

Looking at the bigger picture though I only see all the methods you outline being effective should you manage to stop the current population explosion where it is and work hard to change the ideological view point of those that are already here. However here in lies the problem, the numbers are such that as I stated earlier the demographics of Europe will change so that there will be a Muslim majority with in this century. And because of this we need to factor in all possibilities and responses, the most obvious one being a Balkanization of the EU and Muslim population centers gaining a demanding autonomy.

We are already seeing such a phenomenon occur in France, Germany and the UK, all have seen rioting in the last few years as result of Muslim unrest. IMO I believe this is going to just get worse. There is only so much monitoring you can do before you are invading their rights to privacy. If you read my posts my premise is that there doesn’t have to be a majority of nationalists to institute change. Off the top off my head I think they have about 20 per cent off the seats in Holland.

This number seems enough to apply effective pressure and I think with the practical solutions like you outlined we would go a long way to combating the problem. Another issue to take into account in the equation is the seeming symbiosis between Islam and the leftwing, communist and socialist parties across Europe. This is a dangerous and potentially volatile mix that adds urgency to an already tense situation.
My point being we are in a dangerous time and no options should be excluded even ‘final solutions’ as you put, although we should be clear on this point I in no way endorse concepts like extermination camps, mass expulsions maybe. We had that contingency for dealing with communism, it should be so with the Islamic problem.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21820

good article germain to my post above.

km,

I'm bowing out of this discussion. I said what I need to say and then Paolo so eloquently stated the case against aligning oneself with fascism that I will gratefully allow his statements to reflect my own. Thanks Paolo!

You are bowing out because you have no answer, it doesnt matter how you feel about something, it is the facts on the ground that matter. And the most important fact is the demographic one, it is a WMD!

People that wish to destroy your culture and submit you to dhimmitude are legion in the EU. You need to accept the premise that you are at war and need to defend yourself. And in defending yourself just like any other war that has been fought innocents will be hurt.

It is either that or live as a slave, I know which option I will take.