Diana West scores the brutal breakup of the 9/11 demonstration in Brussels. Many have worried that Europe will have to turn to fascism again to resist Islamization; but now it looks as if Europe is turning to fascism again to enforce Islamization.
"Brussels and 9/11," by Diana West in the Washington Times:
The story of the week wasn't Gen. David Petraeus' testimony on Iraq, although it dominated the headlines. The story of the week wasn't the sixth return of September 11 since the jihad atrocity of 2001, although it inspired many public statements and ceremonies. The week's biggest story garnered little press and few comments. But, in a significant way, this overlooked story — an outrageous display of police force in Brussels on September 11, 2007 — symbolizes the missing link in our flawed comprehension of both Iraq and September 11.There, in the so-called capital of Europe, 200 people marked the day with a protest against the Islamization of Europe — a civilizational shift which, as Europe increasingly accommodates Shariah (Islamic law), is shockingly advanced. Indeed, Bernard Lewis has already predicted Europe will become Islamic by century's end. Absent a reversal of Islamization (which remains possible) I'm guessing sooner than that.
The assembly, sponsored by Stop the Islamization of Europe, was wholly peaceful — at least until Belgian police showed up. With a chopper above, water cannon nearby, they didn't break heads, exactly — nothing so kind as that. In a photo that should be titled The New Face of Fascism (brusselsjournal.com http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2441), we see black-clad Belgian policemen brutalizing a man in a light-colored suit and tie. His hands are cuffed behind his back, his right elbow is clasped in what is known as an arm-bar hold, and he is also being subjected to a genital hold — a vicious grip that, a retired cop friend of mine tells me, would get any American policeman thrown off the force.
Read it all.
Great article. Let's hope someone in Washington reads it.
"Polls indicate that sizable numbers of Muslims (solid majorities in key countries), regardless of their opinion of al Qaeda, share this same goal of a Shariah-based, Islamic caliphate. This is a highly significant overlap between the goals of Islamic terrorism and what we think of as mainstream Islam.
"Meanwhile, though, in our childish, PC wisdom (accepted across the political spectrum), we have let Islam off the hook when it comes to terrorism, sticking to the story that our whole problem is with a Tiny Band of Extremists That Hijacked Islam, not the jihadist teachings of Islam itself. To make the story stick, we also seem to ignore the impetus behind Islamic terrorism — the imposition of Shariah, what with its ultimate institutional denigrations of non-Muslims and women, and its denial of freedom of conscience and expression." -- from the article
Thank you for the link to this excellent article.
Reading several blogs on this incident it seems as if some believe that the politicians who were roughed up and arrested had “hijacked" SIOE’s demo. I think the point here is that these politicians and members of the European Parliament, whatever their ulterior motives, were, like the other people at SIOE’s demo, supporting the idea of stopping the Islamization of Europe and, ideally, that should be all that matters at this stage.
I think that opponents of Islam taking over Europe will have to take a leaf from the old Communist playbook and try to cobble together a “popular front,” a coalition of all sorts of people and groups coalesced around this particular issue and, if that means working with show boaters, politicians and people who may agree on the main aim but disagree on methods and tactics then, that just comes with the territory.
On the other hand, someone suggested that the only organization in Britain that was fighting against Islamization was the British National Party so, I checked out their website, read statements by their leaders and read about them in various online sources and they came across as a very calculating, unsavory white power crew indeed. It was definitely a top down organization whose leaders, from what I read, were very disciplined and focused on their goal of attaining power; reminded me of what I had read about the workings of the old Communist Party. My impression was that they were trying to ride the anti-Muslim train into power and that, once there, they had some very nasty plans, indeed, for anyone who was not a white, native Englishman.
So, the question of the day is, do those opposed to Islam taking over Europe work with a group such as the BNP or others like them despite the danger that the more ruthless, disciplined BNP will take them over, or is the risk too great and do they simply not work with them at all? How to craft an effective movement?
One problem at a time. Shariah threatens our basic legal institutions and must be reversed and thrown out. We can deal with the others if our institutions remain in tact later..
All in all, the police and the government in Brussels acted criminally, since they refuse to carry out their basic role of protecting the rule of law and protecting the polity. That they would attack law abiding citizens gathered in a peaceful demonstration to protest a foreign threat indicates that Brussel's secret plan is Islamization. What were these politico's paid? And by whom? Follow the money!
Thanks for posting this and thanks to Diana West for the article.
we should question all of our presidential candidates on what side of this issue would they take if it came up in the states. I Imagine you would have to wear hip-waiders because of all the B.S. that would be floating around.
April 13, 2006
Fitzgerald: The tarbaby of Iraq and the islamization of Europe
The tarbaby of Iraq has prevented the American administration from turning its attention to, or even beginning to grasp, the menace of Europe's islamization. It has to do several things after it gets out of Iraq and lets the divisions there take their natural course. One may anticipate that those divisions will have an effect on the two countries that benefited most from the removal of Saddam Hussein -- Saudi Arabia and Iran -- and both of which hope that the Americans will remain there: the Saudis because they want the Americans to hold the Shi'a in check, and the Iranians because they want the Americans bogged down, close to potential Iranian retaliation.
By leaving Iraq, the Americans will free up time and mental space for considering the islamization of Europe and what it means for European foreign policy, for the advanced weaponry including nuclear weapons in France and England, and for the continued survival of Western civilization. Not exactly small questions, but questions have been ignored.
Ignored for a number of reasons. People are lazy. At the same time they are also hectically busy, busy, busy, running around, having meetings, reading prepared one or five-page summaries of complicated matters, never stopping to allow themselves the leisure to read and to think about Islam -- which should be an absolute duty for those who wish to be in the Pentagon, the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the CIA, the FBI, the Congress. It should be a duty, in short, wherever decisions are to be made by those whose duty it is to protect, and also to instruct, the populace.
It has been almost five years since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It has been several decades since OPEC oil revenues, amounting to $10 trillion since 1973, began to be used, in part, to buy huge amounts of armaments and to fund mosques all over the Western world, and other campaigns of Da'wa. It has been slightly longer since, in Germany, and in France, and in England, and then all over Western Europe, large numbers of Muslims were allowed to enter, and to settle deep within the Bilad al-kufr, the Land of Infidelity or of the Infidels -- the territory that was always regarded as dar al-Harb or the House of War. During that period, the number of Muslims in Europe has grown inexorably. In 1970 there were 30,000 Muslims in Holland; today there are 1 million -- and the consequences for the Dutch have only in the last year or two begun to be understood. Everywhere this large-scale Muslim presence has led to a situation for Infidels that is much more unpleasant and unsettled, and much more expensive, and much less physically secure, than it would otherwise be.
For many, this is deliberately being ignored or denied, especially if they are part of the governing circles that allowed such a situation to develop and have no idea what to do about it. Many others have begun to understand the problem, despite their governments, and despite the severe inhibitions and self-censorship by the media (not only by the likes of the BBC and Le Monde). Still others, a very few, have fully grasped the problem and are full of horror and justified anxiety.
Yet the United States, for nearly a century the final guarantor of Western Europe's peace and prosperity, has been sundered from Western Europe, partly out of its own clumsiness and inarticulateness of presentation, and partly because it has failed to grasp what is happening in Europe and how that affects America as a civilization -- and threatens it militarily. This has also happened partly because in Europe, a clever campaign by Arabs, in collaboration with those eager for ideological or financial reasons to do their bidding, have played on the pre-existing mental pathologies of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, since America is seen as the great defender and ally of Israel (which has suffered from its own incapacity to articulate properly its legal, historic, and moral rights, or to identify as such the Jihad being conducted against it).
It should be a priority for this and all future administrations to focus on halting and reversing the islamization of Europe. There are many ways to do that. Some of them involve the kind of propaganda and subsidies familiar from the successful attempt to diminish Communist influence and Soviet infiltration of Western Europe during the Cold War.
But this whole Iraq business -- not the invasion, not the period up to the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, which should have signaled the appropriate moment to begin departing -- but the period since late 2003 has distracted both the Bush Administration and its critics. The withdrawal might have been completed by mid-2004, and then the natural processes governing the new relations of Sunni to Shi'a, and of Kurds to Arabs, might have been allowed to work their magic. Instead, everyone has been busy nattering on about such fascinating topics as to why Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger, and whether offenses at Abu Ghraib should be attributed to higher officials, and whether Rumsfeld sent enough troops, and whether it was right or wrong for Bremer to dissolve the Iraqi army, and whether it was right or wrong to put so much faith in Ahmad Chalabi, and whether Osama Bin Laden was or was not on the verge of capture at Tora Bora, and other essentially trivial matters. All these are trivial matters in light of the world-wide scope of Jihad, the permanent force of Jihad as an article of faith in the belief-system known as Islam, and the menace presented by demographic conquest, and Da'wa, and growing dhimmitude (that is, that collection of attitudes of appeasement and self-debasement when confronted by Muslim demands for changes within the West itself, exhibited by some in the Infidel lands) in Western Europe and, so far to a much lesser extent, in North America.
The State Department and the Pentagon, and the American government as a whole should now be directing its attention and most of its efforts to reversing the Muslim influence in Western Europe. Bush, given his low reputation in Europe, should not be the man to lead this effort. Others within his administration, once they have thoroughly grounded themselves in Islam as a belief-system (a summer of solid reading will do it), and in the history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims should do it. Those others should be more plausible, more articulate, more clever and more cunning than Bush. Meanwhile, the administration should stop wasting money trying to "win hearts and minds" through the payment of Jizyah to Muslims in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the "Palestinian"-controlled territories of the former Mandate, seized in 1948 by Arab forces. Instead, this money should be directed toward renewing the alliance on both sides of the Atlantic, and on helping those forces within Europe willing to oppose the forces of appeasement toward Islam -- the forces of dhimmitude -- just as the Americans, after World War II, managed through the deployment of economic, diplomatic, intellectual (the Congress for Cultural Freedom, Encounter Magazine), and military support to help reverse the seemingly inexorable spread of Communism.
Tarbaby Iraq gets in the way. It uses up energy, uses up attention, clouds minds. Once the Americans have left, and once the Sunnis and Shi'a all over the world can have at it to one degree or another, and an independent Kurdistan can be supported so as to both weaken Syria and Iran and to create a model for other non-Arab Muslims (e.g., Berbers in Algeria, and even Berbers in France) of what can be done once the yoke of Arab supremacist ideology is identified and thrown off, there will be time and money for Western Europe.
And it will be amusing, will it not, to see the more intelligent and cultivated members of the State Department -- those on the European desks -- realize that their enemies are the apologists for Islam on the Arab desks? Then there will be, like the "Spy vs. Spy" cartoons in Mad Magazine, the spectacle of internecine warfare -- of State vs. State. It will be won, and must be won, in the end, by those who represent the interests of Western civilization -- and not those of Islam.
[Posted by Hugh at April 13, 2006]
In the piece reposted below, look at the the remarks on Iraq and the Islamization of Europe in the conclusion:
May 2, 2006
Fitzgerald: Fatuity, waste, and danger
The Bandar Beacon (Washington Post) has recently published a revealing article: “In Iraqi Town, Trainees Are Also Suspects: U.S. Troops Wary After Incidents Suggest Betrayal.” This article tells us a great deal about the fatuity, the waste, and the danger unfairly imposed on American soldiers and Marines by an Administration that is both too obstinate (in sticking to a policy that squanders resources and prevents the intelligent exploitation of divisions within Islam that are so obviously present within Iraqand encouragable outside Iraq) and too ignorant (how many people in the Pentagon, or in the State Department, are worrying about the islamization of Western Europe, and its military, political, and civilizational consequences? And how many of them are permitted to connect that theatre of the Jihad with the one in Iraq, and to comprehend how trivial Iraq really is, except possibly as a way to weaken the global jihad by encouraging Sunni-Shi'a and Arab-non-Arab Muslim divisions?)
Below are some excerpts from the full story, and commentary just below each.
1. “‘There's two kinds of Iraqis here, the ones who help us and the ones who shoot us, and there's an awful lot of 'em doing both,’ said Hoover, 26, of Newark, Ohio. ‘Is it frustrating? Yes, it's frustrating. But we can't just stop working with them.’"
Comment: Why not? Because he, that soldier, has not been permitted even to think such things. American soldiers have had dinned into them that they cannot possibly leave Iraq because then it might lead to “civil war” and “instability,” and that, of course, would be a “bad thing.” Why? Oh, because it would. Just the way the Iran-Iraq War was a bad thing, presumably, for Infidels. Poor, misinformed soldiers –- deliberately misinformed, deliberately kept ignorant of Islam and of the ways in which, if the enemy were properly defined, one would come to understand that leaving Iraq and exploiting its internal fissures, both sectarian and ethnic, make the best and only sense.
2. "‘In some places they hide the fact that they don't like you. They don't hide it here,’ said Hutson, who stops by his base's medical station periodically for a shot of Toradol to soothe a shoulder injured when his vehicle flipped during one of the attacks.”
Comment: So this officer, after fighting with and beside Arab Muslims in Iraq and having contact with all kinds of civilians, has realistically concluded that there are two kinds: the kind of Iraqis who show you that they hate you, and the kind who hide the fact that they hate you.
3. "‘It sounds strange, but more police have been killed lately, which means some of them are finally doing their job,’ one American officer here said."
Comment: Almost all recruits to the “Iraqi” army and “Iraqi” police are doing it not to “save” Iraq but to make money; there is no large “Iraqi” patriotic impulse, much as American government propaganda tries to create it, or to convince us that it exists.
3. “Horton said he gives Iraqi officers just minutes' notice when bringing them on a mission, and never tells them exactly where they will be going to prevent them from tipping off insurgents."
Comment: The American officer (Horton) doesn’t tell them because, based on previous betrayals of American forces, including information about the routes convoys will take to those setting I.E.D.’s, he doesn’t trust them. And he shouldn’t –- not now, not ever.
4. "‘I've seen them laughing when we come back in with a vehicle destroyed by a bomb,’ he said. ‘I've seen them stand 10 feet away and do nothing but watch when we are in the middle of a firefight.’
Comment: So these “Iraqi allies” laugh at the sight of a destroyed American vehicle, and no doubt find equally hilarious the dead American soldiers -– American soldiers who are being kept in Iraq to somehow make something of nothing for people who hate or at best dislike them. The Americans are being asked to create, by their own willfully blind government, a nation-state out of a collection of warring ethnic and sectarian groups, a nation-state that will somehow be a model for all the other Arab states. Yet those states, which are either Sunni-dominated or Sunni-ruled (except for the Ibadis so prominent in Oman, and the Alawite military caste that rules in Syria) or both, cannot possibly look with favor, much less model themselves on, an “Iraq” in which Sunni dominance has been transferred to the Shi’a.
5. “Over sweet tea in a grubby police station at the center of Hawijah last week, the station commander, Maj. Ghazey Ahmed Khalif, assured Horton and his team that things were quiet in town that day. But when Horton asked some Iraqi officers to accompany him on a drive through town, Khalif discreetly whispered something into a translator's ear."
"‘All of a sudden he remembers he got a tip about an IED,’ said Horton, using the military acronym for improvised explosive device, or roadside bomb. ‘If we hadn't asked his guys to come, put them at risk, no way he tells us about that.’"
Comment: Our Iraqi allies. Our loyal Iraqi allies. Our loyal and staunch Iraqi allies. The ones American soldiers are being asked to lay down their lives for.
6. "Soldiers working with the Iraqi army here report similar problems. Iraqi soldiers have been reprimanded for selling their government-issued ammunition in local gun markets and for hocking their boots, only to turn up for duty in leather loafers.
"Before a highway patrol to search for roadside bombs last week, an Iraqi unit accompanying U.S. soldiers refused to ride in American Humvees, which provide far better protection from bomb attacks than the unarmored pickup trucks normally used by Iraqi forces.
"Shaking his head and staring at the ground, Sgt. Ghazi Esa Muhammad, 25, explained that a local cleric had decreed that Iraqis killed in an ‘occupier vehicle’ would not go to heaven.
“‘Tell your guys, if they refuse to ride in the Humvees, they will go to jail for 10 days. It's not a choice,’ said Lt. Aaron Tapalman, 23, the patrol leader. ‘They want to be able to claim they are not associated with us,’ said Tapalman, after the Iraqi sergeant relented and told his men to mount up.
"About an hour later, the patrol came across a white bag on the roadside that Tapalman suspected might contain a bomb. When he asked some Iraqi soldiers to move it off the road, their commander balked, saying it wasn't his job.
"‘It is your job to protect the people,’ Tapalman said, increasingly exasperated. ‘I can go and move it myself, and you know what? I will, but don't you think your people should see you doing that kind of stuff. Someday we're not going to be here anymore.’ The Iraqi soldier declined again, apologetically, and drove away.”
Comment: Let the Americans risk their lives. The Americans said they were here to help us. Well, then they’re the ones who should risk their lives removing explosive devices. Why should we? Hell, it’s not our country, this Iraq. We’re Sunni Arabs and Shi’a Arabs and Kurds. We’re not risking our lives for “Iraq.” The Americans can do that.
Conclusion:
Remaining in Iraq squanders every kind of resource: men, money, material, military morale and civilian willingness to engage in measures necessary to check the Jihad to spread Islam. Furthermore, it distracts from other matters, not only Iran (where the presence of American troops as hostages to Iranian retaliation gets in the way), but most importantly, the subject of Europe's islamization, with the military, political, even civilizational catastrophe that that would bring.
Stories such as those above show how dangerous and foolish it is to force American officers and men to work with, to train, and to fight alongside (or attempt to) those who do not wish you well, who wish you ill, who have given every visible sign of wishing you ill. There is no "Iraqi" patriotism. There is potential and actual betrayal of and treachery against the Americans by those to whom they have done nothing, and whom they have tried to help in removing a despot, in spending tens of billions in aid (and hundreds of billions to conduct the whole operation). To remain in Iraq will simply mean a further waste of American lives, vast amounts of American money (that could have been spent on energy projects -- $400 billion might have gone a long way to ending the oil wherewithal that has made the Jihad go from theoretically potential to practically possible), materiel, everything.
And those who have failed to criticize the Iraq policy for being such a squandering, in precisely the manner, and for the reasons given here at Jihad Watch for more than two years, are also to be blamed. For they, unable to conceive of the Jihad as the enemy, and willing to abide by those foolish phrases such as "a war on terror," have been unable to come up with any criticism of the Administration that makes sense.
They deserve each other. The leaders of the United States and of the rest of the Western world, with a few remarkable exceptions, have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting.
[Posted by Hugh at May 2, 2006]
I guess Ralph Peters got it about half right...
Sometimes you realize how real this is. The Diana West article and the James Pinkerton article linked to by ImNoDhimmi and DP111 from one of yesterday's articles on Germany.
Pinkerton: The Once & Future Christendom
The Sunday talk shows make it seem as if we are listening in to their frat debates in college or high school. There is no real risk is the message they convey. But in fact, we may face the end of our civilization this century. That is the opposite of the message of the Sunday talk shows.
Information on corporate speaking fees for Meet the Press journalists
Russert gets 50,000 for the East coast and 60,000 for the West with a private jet for 2 strongly preferred. That would take the edge off it.
There is a stealth repeat of amnesty this week in an amendment to a bill. Funny, Russert didn't mention it.
Free fax at NumbersUSA
GaryK, what "nasty plans" did the BNP say they had? Can you be more specific?
"How to craft an effective movement?
Posted by: GaryK [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 16, 2007 9:14 AM"
Many historians of third party movements in the US would say you vote for the third party that supports your position every chance you get until it gets enough votes that one or both of the major parties adopt that position as if that had always been their position.
This happened in the Republican presidential primary this summer. Romney, Giuliani, etc. have always been against amnesty, didn't you know that? That stuff Giuliani said, that was to fool the illegals into coming into New York where they could be trapped. He caught them all, as far as we know.
It is a real question if the West has time to act at the level of reason for addressing the Islamic threat. With Eurabia traitors (or dhimmis or fools or morons or appeasers or whatever)at the EU top, and sprinkled throughout many of the Euro governments, the Islamic noose on Europe is tightening fast.
There can be no doubt that the European Union is about to transcend to become the Eurabian Union if those in power have their way.
If peaceful demonstrations of protest against Islamization, which are in the best tradition of Western reason and democracy, are suppressed in the streets by thugs in uniform, a kristalnacht for all of Europe (not just Jews)cannot be far down the road.
I believe that the only way to stop Eurabia from becoming a reality now is for the people of a major western nation, such as Germany, France, or Britain, to take to the streets en masse and demand their country secede from the EU, so that all political power thereafter lies with the people of that nation, and they then can deal with stopping Islamization of their country without outside interference of the EU.
If one country succeeds in secession, another will follow, and then another, and finally the whole deck of cards will fall.
As Hugh points out the Washington Beltway is blissfully unaware of the European crisis. This time around, Europe cannot look to the USA for help, because the Washington morass of politicians does not understand the European problem or even knows that one exists.
To GaryK, who is worried about a right-wing British Party being worse than Sharia law, study further my friend. Right now, right now, Islam is the threat to your freedom and even your life, not the nazis.
GaryK and Jimmy Bones, I guess the question is why the main parties are so f***ing slothful in protecting the citizenry from invasion.
I joined a Republican organization last summer, and have spent the last year firing off e-mail after e-mail to fellow members, headquarters in Washington, the White House, etc., etc., until I guess I'm wearing out my welcome.
Do you remember Ehud Olmert's remarks a few years ago? "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of winning..." I think winning beats the alternative. Can someone convince our leaders that it's OK to win?
Do you remember Ehud Olmert's remarks a few years ago? "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of winning..." I think winning beats the alternative. Can someone convince our leaders that it's OK to win?
Posted by: Surak [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 16, 2007 8:16 PM
Not the current crop, but elections are just around the corner; Just maybe, through the efforts of sites like this and people like you, we will have a nasty outbreak of political sanity!!!!
VOTE...Preserve your rights.....OUTLAW ISLAM
"I believe that the only way to stop Eurabia from becoming a reality now is for the people of a major western nation, such as Germany, France, or Britain, to take to the streets en masse and demand their country secede from the EU"
..from post above
I believe it will start in Belgium, where the Flemish north will shuck off the freeloading south.
"Many have worried that Europe will have to turn to fascism again to resist Islamization; but now it looks as if Europe is turning to fascism again to enforce Islamization."
No. We can resist Islam without resorting to fascism. The people can ovveride Islam, with fortitude and knowledge. As freedom-loving people, we love life in all of its variety, and the islamists see that as their Trojan Horse to get inside and take us over. They get in, and they don't love anything but islam. Like a deadly virus that gets into your system while you drink a glass of water. Don't be stupid. Take the medicine. Our freedoms may have to take a backseat while we protect them.
The Flemish should split off and maybe join the Dutch.. on second thought.. there's even MORE islam over there..
And independent Flamande might be a good thing.. a welcome refuge for islam-weary Europeans :-)
ooddballz
Not the current crop,
As a leader Bin Laden beats any-body we have
In fact I think it a disgrace that the west could not produce such a brillant leader, we are stuck with pathetic wimps as Bush and Brown.
Also ol Osama has some else that most of our leaders lack’ you know, that certain something, mystical sexual attraction.
"but now it looks as if Europe is turning to fascism again to enforce Islamization."
Someone long ago wrote approximately this: "the dark spectre of fascism is predicted to rise in the the U.S. but always lands in Europe".
An interesting link at Gates of Vienna,
"Brussels is a Time Bomb"
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/brussels-is-time-bomb.html#readfurther
...about Arthur Van Amerongen, an Arabic-speaking Dutch journalist who spent a year incognito in the Muslim community in Brussels.
I look at it like this;"" the money we saved from finding out the scandal-the money paid to the UN to sodom to Russia Germany? our Allies! billions! All that money has PAID for the war. Not the lifes! We are freeing those people. If our "Allies" had of joined in ,, we may of leftt...?"" by now.! Kofi has still not been fired?! key pasa?
"he is also being subjected to a genital hold — a vicious grip that, a retired cop friend of mine tells me, would get any American policeman thrown off the force."
from the article above
------------------------
In future protests in Europe, all male demonstrators should be issued American football plastic jock pieces. This will protect them from this form of gestapo abuse as well as preventing police from even getting a grip down there. If I were a demonstrator, I would insert a razor blade sticking out about 4cm from the plactic jock piece. Make sure it's a one sided blade so nothing sharp faces inward. Thus if anyone grabbed my johnson he would end up with sliced fingers.