This sounds like the threat to attack Denmark next (on JW thread) has already begun. *thinks* Never mind. The moment they began to immigrate there, it had begun.

I have yet to do serious studies into colonialism in Africa / Middle Eastern countries, but outside of Tunisia, almost every country that is having islamic fits in that region today was colonized by the French. Looking up England next... somehow I don't think I will find as much.

Posted by: Gary at September 12, 2004 8:37 AM

Sadly the Danes are amongst the most tolerant, docile people in Europe. On a recent trip to Copenhagen I was amazed to find parts of the city's main shopping street filled with gangs of muslim teenagers who would shout abuse at any women passing by, hassle Danish kids for money and generally make themselves as obnoxious as possible. I asked my Danish friend how long these mini 'no-go areas" had been going on and was shocked to be told "Oh, for about ten years now". Apparently the Danish police tolerate these areas and Danes have got used to being harrased and insulted in their own capital. It seems tragic that the one country in Europe that bravely managed to stand up to the Nazis and save most of it's Jewish population during the second world war now seems powerless to resist a new invasion of fascists from the muslim world.

LOVE LIFE - HATE ISLAM

Posted by: Son Of Albion at September 12, 2004 9:06 AM

Everyone:

"Khaled" is "Reza".

Posted by: CGW at September 12, 2004 9:15 AM

Gary, if my history is correct Egypt and Iraq were both once British protectorates. And of course the festering Islamic sore of Pakistan (home of most of Britain's muslim immigrants) was part of the British Empire. As for Somalians they are causing trouble eveywhere in Europe. In Britain they're become the first ethnic group to piss off both the West Indian AND Indian communities becuse of their violence and general lawlessness. Of course the liberal pro-immigration industry makes excuses for them by saying that they come from a violent country ! The bizarre thing is that if the Nazis had been muslim or brown-skinned then the British Left would have defended the right of the Waffen SS to come to Britain as refugees. "Oh we should let them in ,they come from a violent country>" The Left aren't quite sure how to deal with the protests of the established Black and Hindu populations about the Somali crime wave - they can't use their usual accusations of rascism against them but the Somali muslims are here to stay. The only people leaving Britain are hundreds of thousands of white working class and middle class Britons who can no longer put up with seeing their towns becoming min-extensions of the Middle East, North africa or Asia.

Posted by: Son Of Albion at September 12, 2004 9:23 AM

SoA *nods* as I say, I am just learning. What has me curious will be to see which countries, after the French and British left, were infiltrated by communists, and which at least had a start towards Democracy. So far, in the little I have managed, Most of the French colonies suffered a lot of communist influence. I know Egypt did as well I find it interesting that Malaysia has a democracy going (for the time being), while Vietnam became the center of a communist war against the West. Both were French colonies, but apparently one fared better (Malaysia), and I am curious to see what was different at that point in time.

I have only just gotten a start on these studies. Most of my History reading goes back to ancient times, and outside of Civil War and some WWII, does not come a heck of a lot further than Napoleon. The gaps are not as big as they sound however.

Posted by: Gary at September 12, 2004 9:58 AM

It has been reported posters on this website that Somali immigrants are causing problems in the American Mid-West as well. What to do with them is a problem....

Posted by: epg at September 12, 2004 11:14 AM

son of albion makes a point that the danes are some of the most docile people. well, if they want to stop the crime wave, they'd better toughen up. letting the cab drivers arm themselves would be a good start

Posted by: ted at September 12, 2004 11:47 AM

Gary, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure Malaysia was another part of the Britsh Empire. It was known as Malaya until the 60s and at some point in the 1950s we fought a brief war against a communist uprising there. Vietnam or French Indo-China as it was known in the 40s had the bad luck to be ruled by France and then conquered by the Japanese in WW2. As in Yugoslavia, Greece and other countries occupied by the Nazis and the Japanese, some of the main resistance fighters in Vietnam were communist. The French were so afraid of the communists taking control after the Japanese surrended in 1945 that they rearmed the Japanese troops in Indo-China to run the country until the French could get their own troops over there. Understandably this pushed a lot of the more moderate Vietnamese over to the communist cause and an uprising against the French resulted in them leaving Vietnam with their tails tucked behind them. I believe this was in 1954 ? and as a consequence Indo-China was divided into North & South Vietnam with the consequences we all know.

Posted by: Son Of Albion at September 12, 2004 1:53 PM

From what I know of the colonial brits, they were one smartass bunch. They figured out pretty early (at least in colonial India) that the moslems weren't 'trustworthy' and hence promoted an educated class for clerking and accounting jobs amongst the majority Hindus of India.

As a digression, this later led to the more enlightened parts of the freedom movement (and later on much of business, academia and the professional classes) to be hindu dominated.

One clear way in which this bias, or rather suspicion, against moslems in brit minds comes to the fore is that the british Indian army, though organised along ethnic-regional-linguistic lines never had any exclusively moslem regiment, ever!

Well, the colonial Brits certainly knew what they were alla bout and what they were doing. Question is, can today's british govt claim the same?

Posted by: voletti at September 12, 2004 2:03 PM

Seems that CAIR Canada erred in their attempt to brag about a new posting for a Imam within the Federal Government of Canada.
The article that's still in CAIR's archives points out that there are so many Muslim in Canadian jails that a Imam was hired to help them to practise their faith of peace and tolerance.
CAIR and others are the same groups that say the opposite when they defend themselves.I have heard Islamic leaders publicly stated the there's a higher per-capita rate of white-Canadian born prisoner in jail then Arabs or Muslims.
A professor tried to claim that Immigrants have higher incomes and lower crime-rates and less
poverty they Canadian born citizens,well guess what,immigrant groups are now insisting that they have the highest unemployment rates,crime rate and lowest incomes because of systemic Racism
in the workplace. A Imam had the nerve to claim in public that non-Muslims were a greater strain on the social programs the Muslims,isn't this how Hitler justified the camps for terminating the
financially burdensome citizens with illnesses.

You can't have it both ways,to lie about the
white citizens to incite hatred and deflect
the true crisis in their neighbourhood is just as bad as a lie about how immigrants and blacks aren't the major criminals in the jails.
We have already set up a Black-youth court system that works at avoiding giving a jail sentence for crimes,recently a judge dropped the charges against two Black females because they were single moms without jobs,except for the cocain trafficing they were caught for while returning from Jamaica.

It is truely racist to hold minorities to a lower standard ,this implies they're predisposed to crime and violence and therefor can't help but fail to meet social norms for responsibility.

Posted by: ala-sux at September 12, 2004 7:31 PM

Somalians, eh? The worst car-jacking and car-ramming spree our city experienced was done by Somalians. "Refugees" again. Coming here for a better life, apparently. Or so the story goes. I guess a "better life" has different meanings for different people. For some Somalians it seems a better life means joining violent street gangs that prey upon & terrorize the residents they've foisted themselves upon. All over the world. They don't exactly encourage people to be amenable to accepting refugees, even the real ones that we rescue out of miserable camps. You sort of expect some sort of appreciation from them. Not grabbing people out of their cars, throwing them to the ground, beating them and then stealing their car to use to deliberately ram other cars. Doesn't exactly give you a warm and cozy feeling.

At least the ones we caught face the strong chance of deportation since we aren't all that sympathetic to non-citizens who commit crimes. Whether they do get deported or not is another question. No doubt some airy-fairy do-gooder CLU type will jump to the defence of these crims, offering their services for free.

Posted by: feralee at September 12, 2004 8:51 PM

Slightly off-topic re Denmark, but as the subject of Southeast Asia's already been brought upon this thread:

With Australia's Federal Elections coming up on October 9th, the PM, John Howard, and Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, conducted their televised Debate last night. On the “War on Terror”, Mr Howard pledged to carry on the policy of close alignment with the USA, staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst confronting terrorism in Southeast Asia and the south-west Pacific. Latham preferred Australia’s efforts to be confined to Southeast Asia alone.

He’s right that this zone needs a far greater amount of Australia’s attention, but is utterly myopic in totally neglecting to appreciate that the sorely mistitled “War on Terror” (WWIV!) is a major, PLANETARY, ideological conflict. He upheld the Alliance with the US (in principle), but took the Canadian or NZ slant of “individual-case selectivity” on it.

The anti-American Left of his Labor Party would’ve strenuouslyly insisted on him articulating this point here, but the countervailing, adept touch of the staunchly pro-Washington shadow Defence Minister, Mr Kim (“Bomber”) Beazley, was additionally included, and, by virtue of its good sense - amid the dross being expressed otherwise - it DID shine through.

Obviously at “Big Kim”’s behest, Mr Latham’s abruptly rather “modified” the ALP’s populist, isolationist notion of “Continental Defence”, propounding, for the first time, that Labor has now come to favour a contribution to the (thus-far sporadic) joint Malaysian-Indonesian-Singaporean naval patrols of the terrorist- and pirate-infested waters of the Celebes, Sulu and South China Seas, south of the Philippines, the southern islands of which are running rife with Jihadis.

Australia’s had an active, bilateral military and security treaty with Singapore for ages and has concluded one lately with Thailand; there’s a new one with the Philippines as well, together with an old, formal agreement with Malaysia (fallen into some disuse during the rule of the recently-retired, keenly anti-Australian, Malaysian PM, Dr Mahatir Muhamad). Beyond, in East Asia, there are sound arrangements with Japan and South Korea.

The value of the 90-year alliance with NZ, though, has diminished over the past two decades or so of that country’s ongoing unilateral disarmament (which many in the ALP - and ALL of the Greens - strongly admire and yearn to emulate, as soon as possible).

Latham, repeating the Labor Left’s idea of bugging out of Iraq by Xmas, at least nowhere voiced any backing for the UN to take over there immediately (unlike the call of the ALP Left-wing, the Greens and Australian Democrats) - further evidence of Mr Beazley’s positive influence.

In terms of direction, it was gratifying to see Labor waking up to the extent that it has in such a brief period (basically in the several days since the attack on the Oz Embassy last week: sadly, even the horrific Bali bombing, in October ’02, didn’t have as constructive and galvanizing an effect on them as this strike’s had - in spite of Beazley himself having been ALP Leader at that stage; he’d been unable to withstand the weight of the Left in the Caucus - which comprisises of Party Officials, together with its sitting Members of Paliament).

Nevertheless, the ALP’s sudden, hesitant emergence into the light remains a bare HALF-MEASURE and its platform on Terrorism continues to lag badly behind the times and their dire exigencies. It hasn’t attained an adequate grasp, by this juncture, on the sheer enormity of the circumstances which Oz, plus the West and its associates in general, are facing in this War. In the region, with its reluctant, dawning awareness, Labor’s not as much lost as before, but on the vital, strategic, INTERNATIONAL plane, alas, it’s definitely, perilously, absent and clueless!

Posted by: HGII at September 12, 2004 10:16 PM

Many of us living in Western Democracies are ‘in the closet’ Agnostics & Atheists. This is why Westerns are troubled when they hear about Islamic Martyrdom, (male Martyrs meeting 72 or more virgins after a successful operation). Martyrdom & the rewarded after life, do not logically compute. The first reaction is...Muslims actually believe this? Are Muslims brainwashed, or fear & accept the demands of Allah’s Prophet. Westerners believe in Laws, Ethics, Morals, & Technology, and are moving away from the fears & unquestioned obedience usually required in big Religion. Secularism in the West, now leaves the door open to Islam filling the gap. Westerns take their Freedoms for granted, & are ignorant of the level of Lock-Down found in Totalitarian Islamic regimes. Christianity will be one of the important tools the West will use to challenge the many intolerant teachings of Islam...entering Western lands from endless streams of Muslim economic migrants and other Islamic immigrants.

Posted by: SFOD at September 13, 2004 12:11 AM

I disagree with your point about Muslim immigration to the West not being a racial issue. I think it is very much a racial issue, but most people are too brainwashed with PC nonsense to admit how they really feel.

Personally, I have absolutely no desire to change the racial composition of Australia - and this will eventually happen if we continue with the present bias for non-white immigrants.

I wish the citizens of the Third World well, but I see no reason to allow them to import their ethnic hatreds and religious superstitions to our countries.

I want my children and future grandchildren to live in a predominately white, Christian, English-speaking country. If wishing to preserve my own race and culture makes me a 'racist' - so be it.

I can just imagine the reaction if hundreds of thousands of Australians 'emigrated' to the ME or Asia - I'm sure we would be welcomed with open arms.

The most laughable example I've seen recently was the Miss Universe contests, where Miss Holland looked like an Arab.

Posted by: DianaC at September 13, 2004 5:17 AM

Diana, I don't think there's a bias for non-white immigrants, it's just that there aren't too many whites wanting to migrate to countries like Australia, Canada, the US. Not nearly as many as non-whites. Where would the whites come from? Europe? But many Europeans are perfectly happy living in Europe. They live prosperous, safe lives (not like post-WW2), with lots of opportunities to work within the EU and travel cheaply. The culture is wonderful. So not too many are wanting to leave for the new colonies anymore. Having said that, if Europe continues on its downward slope to becoming Eurabia, maybe that'll change soon!

But I have little problem with non-white migrants. I don't care what the colour of their skin is. What's important is what's inside, and if it's Islam, I don't want it. Too me, a multicultural society is great, as long as the different cultures have respect for each other and can live alongside each other. Islam can never work this way.

Posted by: feralee at September 13, 2004 8:12 PM

Have the women of Denmark 'thanked' the architects of the thoughtless policy of flooding the country with migrants who will not fit in?

I hope that in the future a series of trials can be held and these social engineers can be charged with treason or some other crime.

Just imagine the planning that went on in these meetings away from prying eyes:

'It we introduce these people from different cultures we might introduce more crime'.

'Look, that's OK as long as we can 'manage' the news reporting of such incidents. Let's run a good news story now and then which will tend to palliate any ill-feeling towards the migrant. Stories about how a struggling Muslim family, given the chance in Denmark society, is now running a small business or how young Abdul is hoping to one day play soccer for Denmark. Hell by the time we manipulate the image of migrants young girls will be lining up in the hope of getting raped by Muslims'.

What a disgrace these people are to their fellow Danish citizen.

Your children will be Muslin.

Posted by: Salad In at September 13, 2004 9:03 PM

I'm not bothered by non-whites. I married one. Also, if a lot of North Africans and Middle Easterners stand out as "non-white" in Scandinavia, they're white enough to pass in my country, with its admittedly racist past. And, for the record, there are enough of such people who behave themselves, Americanize their views, and fit in for me to wish them well and welcome them as neighbors.

The problem is free reign given to Muslim troublemakers who'd have quite deservedly gotten their much-desired "martyrdom" had they stayed home in Algeria, Egypt, an-Nafd, Hijaz, Jordan, Kurdistan, Turkey, Iran, or Pakistan. Another big part is a leftist, PC stupidity that sees any intelligent handling of a minority troublemaker as "racist".

As a conservative, I admit to deriving a certain amount of Schadenfreude from seeing the radical Islamist rapists and radical feminists in alliance: it shows how idiotic the whole relativist thing is.

Posted by: Kepha1 at September 14, 2004 4:35 AM