And that was the product of the fastest sperm?
The others must have been in wheelchairs.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at September 29, 2006 5:07 PM

Sustitute "stupid" for "brave".

Posted by: Steve at September 29, 2006 5:08 PM

Substitute "stupid" for "brave".

Posted by: Steve at September 29, 2006 5:09 PM

Bjørn Stærk

Just recite the Shehada - you'll be better off

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 29, 2006 5:12 PM

The scary part of this comment is this: I would have written the same thing, BUT with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I am too naive, but that ( I wish) is sarcasm, not belief.

Posted by: Codekeyguy at September 29, 2006 5:15 PM

Alas, we Sons Of Norway... we are destined to go the way of the Arabian pagans, and for the same reasons, and we will be sent that way by the same people.

We the descendants of Vikings who struck fear in the hearts of everyone from the Shetlands to far up every northern river in Europe. Normandy. Norway. The Normans. The Norse. The people of the North; big, brave, blue/green eyes and light skin with freckles. We were feared by Rome. We were feared by the Tatars. Soon we will be relegated to our designation-abroad-of-choice, Minnesota (dontcha know?) while first Malmo, then Bergen, then Oslo goes the way of Dearborn.

Well, maybe Ireland will hang on for a few more decades... and I have their name. Eventually we'll all be working for Microsoft, McDonalds or Walmart; and pretending to worship Allah.

Posted by: kj at September 29, 2006 5:20 PM

Stupid is blogging like Bjørn Stærk produces.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 29, 2006 5:25 PM

What has happened?
Would the descendants of the men who fought at Stamford Bridge be proud of them now? Men who, though defeated, refused to submit?

Posted by: Ginro at September 29, 2006 5:34 PM

I declare this ass has smoked too much buddha!!

This is a common sense approach to the issue. "Brave" is confronting/standing up to/heckling/embarassing/ limp wristed liberal ass lickers like this retard who THINKS THAT having little regard for the gift that is your life and living in constant fear because you must ensure tolerance is shown (without ever setting the limits of tolerance in a free and open society)and because you don't want to "offend" a bunch of lazy ignorant muslims with defeatist complexis, is a plausible and acceptable way to live.

As far as I am concerned you will do your self YOUR CHILDREN and your society a favour if you practice good safety tips. FOR INSTANCE

report suspicious looking arab men...roaring ALLAH U AKBAR as the plane you ARE ON takes off!

report suspicious looking arab men who ogle your wife and exclaim "INSHALLAH I shall delight in your firm breasts in heaven, you infidel slut" as the plane takes off,

Report suspicious looking arab men who brag about buying large quantities of amonia nitrate from the local hardware store and they can't wait to get to heaven AS THE PLANE TAKES OFF,

Report (better yet) beat the shit out of suspicious looking arab men who run amok in your neigbourhoods burning cars and old men/women because two criminals decided to run from police and hide between electrical transformers

Report suspicious looking arab men who are adamant that you leave your home and your women immediately since this is a muslim country because some non descript muslim guy by the name "Ali" discovered it first

Report suspicious looking arab men who stand up in front of the cameras of the world media and declare first, that they don't want to work but prefer to live of the backs of hard working people, second prefer to spend the entire day in pajamas, third they hate everything that your fathers and forefathers died to create (and for the freedoms you enjoy) because you have offended a dead murderous peodiphile self declared prohpet

I hope someone would appreciate that this list is not exhaustive...muslims do enough stupid things in the name of their fucking cunt prophet to engage our attention that the list can go on and on ad infinitum.

SHUNKLEASH (PBUH)

Posted by: Shunkleash at September 29, 2006 5:39 PM

Hey when this is all over do you think Shriners will give up wearing the fez?

Enquiring minds want to know!

God willing, of course.

Posted by: credit man at September 29, 2006 5:53 PM

In 59 years of life, I have finally heard the absolute stupidest thing I have ever heard, and I have heard a lot. This is not name calling, it is merely making an observation. That observation is, stupid things are said by stupid people.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 29, 2006 5:55 PM

Get Bjorn a vasectomy before he reproduces. For the price of a plane ticket, I'll go help hold him down.

One thousand years ago the Norwiegeans were the most feared people in Europe. What the hell happened?

Posted by: Pelayo at September 29, 2006 6:00 PM

What a FOOL!!!

Posted by: crusader619 at September 29, 2006 6:04 PM

Norwegian

That's the last time I ask someone younger than me to spell a word.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 29, 2006 6:05 PM

How did these Norsemen conquer and rule from Greenland to the Black Sea, from the Artic to Sicily? He must have picked up a cluster of recessive genes somewhere.

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

and

"I [Jesus] say unto you, that you resist not evil: but whosoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also."

do not abrogate

"Seek justice, reprove the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow".

If I stand for something and I alone die thereby, that can be called 'martyrdom'. If I passively allow myself and others to die when perhaps something could have been done to stop it-I call it murder.

Poor thing. He's been brainwashed by the Zionist conspiracy.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at September 29, 2006 6:18 PM

And to think the Norwegians made all of Europe absolutely cower in fear! That these people discovered the New World 400 years before Columbus!

The Norwegians need to shake off the prison chains of Christianity and return to the worship of the Old Gods and look to men like Harald Fairhair, Harald Bluetooth, Ragnar Lodbrok, Eric Bloodaxe, Egil Skallagrimnson, Eric the Red and begin to thrist for the evergreen Fields of Asgard and the Halls of Valhalla.

Until that time, the Norwegians will be good dhimmis.

In Frith and Troth
Skald

Posted by: skald at September 29, 2006 6:29 PM

Vikings were enlisted into the famed Varingian Guards of the Byzantine Empire. It is so sad that the Norwegians now dishonor that glorious histoery...

Posted by: skald at September 29, 2006 6:33 PM

What's this guy's middle name, Quisling?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 29, 2006 6:34 PM

Since I've dusted off the Bible and started quoting scripture, here's some verses that might apply:

"The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, but the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness."

"Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive."

"He who restrains his lips is wise." "And a fool's voice is known by his many words."

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at September 29, 2006 6:39 PM

Brave is sticking one's hand into a meatgrinder, and pushing until everything above the wrist is gone. Brave is not lifting a finger to help your mother or sister being raped in front of you, even though you know it will cause permanent psychological damage to them, because it is important not to deny strangers their carnal pleasures. Brave is blindly worshipping the belief systems of others no matter how violent or pedophaelic, while blindly denigrating your own belief systems no matter how noble or wise. Brave is pushing a red-hot poker into your eye socket. Brave is not turning around to see who is stabbing you in the back.

By this definition, I guess I'm a yellow-bellied coward.

Posted by: special_guest at September 29, 2006 7:07 PM

The Normans, christianized Norsemen conquered and ruled lands from Northern Ireland to the Kingdom of Jerusalem... Christianity does not make one a passive coward. Cowardace make one a coward.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at September 29, 2006 7:08 PM

My sentiments exactly, special_guest.

According to Bjorn the Brave Norwegian Idiot, Brave is sticking your head in the sand.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at September 29, 2006 7:16 PM

Behold people. What you read was neither stupidity nor cowardice. It is simply the ideology of the left. He has made a pact with his conscience. And his conscience dictates that it is better to die than violate his leftist belief system.

Many people believe the left to be ignorant of the threat. A small minority are ignorant. They are not leftists. They are naive liberals. Others believe the Left to be in cohorts with the threat. Some are. The rest, however, like this man, are simply ready to lay down and die rather than violate his prime directive, which is to always look upon the non-westerner, regardless of how hostile, as a necessary force to counter balance the west, regardless of how benevolent.

That is a perverted calculus, but it is his choice. Unfortunately, he wants to kill not only himself to be true to this ideology, which transcends political correctness, but to sacrifice others as well on that alter.

It is the ideology of the Left. This idea of sacrifing your own society, killing your own people, throwing away human lives to pay hommage to an esoteric construct, has killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century. Only malaria has killed more people. This man's values represent a microcosm of that type of Faustian deal.

No, the left is not ignorant of the threat. It does not need to be awakened, as so many here ask as to when such an awakening will happen. It will not happen. It knows what it is doing.

And that is why in order to fight islam, we must not focus on the terrorists, or even their law-abiding counterparts, the islamic organizations. No. To fight islam we must first destroy the Left, at least destroy their hold on the academic world, political classes, and media elites, for the Left, the vanguard of the islamic threat, the enablers of its enablers, will sacrifice us all for the purity of the concept this Norwegian blogger holds so dear.

Posted by: August22 at September 29, 2006 7:17 PM

so he prefers suicide?

then kill yourself and spare us your useless blog

Posted by: FedUp at September 29, 2006 7:23 PM

One should note that if Christ was faced with a horde of Muslims bent on Crucifying him again, Christ would let himself be crucified again.

That isn't a good template to resist an invasion of people who want to kill you...

Posted by: skald at September 29, 2006 7:23 PM

I wish that that jerk would have been accompanying Nick Berg.
I'll bet he's a muslim.

Posted by: el greco at September 29, 2006 7:37 PM

Bjørn = bear, Stærk = strong. Sorry his parents had no idea what they were begetting.

Posted by: anti-uffe at September 29, 2006 7:38 PM

".... it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip. -- suicidal norseman, 2006

i don't think so. i'm gonna have to go with "surviving this trip", bjørn.

Posted by: Jim The Kafir at September 29, 2006 7:38 PM

To August22

Superb insights regarding the antics of this nitwit and the left. Really brilliant and well articulated!
People say that we should not make this site or this war into a "liberal versus conservative" issue. Well, who the hell gave us political correctness and multiculturalism that favours and strengthens the Islamists hand? Who the hell refuses to halt immigration from Islamic Republics. Immigration is the 21st Century trojan horse. Y'know what, no offence, but really, who gives a rats ass if two gays wanna get married. Compared to the issue with Islam, who cares!!!We have bigger fish to fry. We need to pick our fight and ISLAM must be that fight. Why you ask? Because Islam has picked a fight with us! Lest you forget, we are still in a crusade here. Look at their history, they have never stopped trying to conquer us. They only take breaks from us repelling their offensives. Keep in mind, this war is so massive that most people can't even see it. Seriously, put a world map on the wall and put a thumb tack on every city or country where Islamists threaten non Muslims and its governance or (given 10 years) where they will threaten. All you will be able to see is water!

This idiot would rather die than violate his leftist ideology. The Norseman has what I call "Star Trek Syndrome"
This twit is analogous to Captain Picard freeing an alien that just tried to kill him. Picard would say, "It is not my place to judge his culture or motives and I would would be no better than that alien by retaliating."
Maybe it is the altitude making him delirious. The air is pretty thin when you sit that elevated on your high horse.

These are the type of guys that sit around and cluck their tongues, reading poetry, wearing berets and assume they are our intellectual superiors who arew too enlightened to restrict another man's freedom. I know these idiots all too well. After all, I live in Ontario, Canada.

Posted by: McCain2008 at September 29, 2006 7:41 PM

Jesus went to the Temple in Jerusalem one day and saw men profiteering off the pilgrims and worshippers there. Christ, by himself, "drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple". In defense of others, he fought. In defense of himself, he did not.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at September 29, 2006 7:45 PM

Recall that Christ came to effect the salvation of man. We don't have a similar mission. that was his task, not ours.

When the Church became the regnant theology and cultural force in the old Roman Empire, it's theology immediately began to adjust to that fact. The rulers of the Empire had responsibility for the welfare of the inhabitants of the Empire. And responsibility means force, and the use thereof. It means the use of force domestically, as well as along the frontiers of that civilization and Empire.

I believe it was Sixtus III who supposedly said of that bandits and criminal gangs outside of Rome, "While I live, the criminals must die!" And those weren't just empty words. That wasn't just empty talk. He strung up over 20,000 criminals during his Pontificate, {I'm not sure if it was Sixtus the Third though, and I don't feel like going upstairs to research the thing}.

The Church in its past hasn't lacked for will to destroy the enemies of law, order and civilization. It prefers not to do so of course, it prefers peaceful coexistence, but sometimes that's just not possible.

The Pope often called for crusades, for efforts to help the beleaguered East, but that many rulers of Europe didn't share the Pope's enthusiasm.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2006 7:51 PM

Oh, I wasn't going to comment. Why do I waste my time with things like this? I guess I just have a fighting spirit when it comes to people who will just lay down and DIE. It sickens me. Here's my response:

While I agree that living life in a panic is not the answer, I am not sure your solution is the answer either. It is certainly not realistic.

'The only major weapon the terrorists have is fear'? What about the carnage on Sept. 11? The other bombings in Bali, London and in Spain? Islamic terrorists have clearly told us what they want and they continue, every day, to back up those words with actions.

As for this:

'... it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip.'

It's easy to say and believe things on the computer, while in safety. But would you *really* do this if confronted with the situation? You would actually wish to let people murder you?

If this truly is your choice and it would affect only you, then I'd say, so be it. Unfortunately if a terrorist situation came up, it's highly likely that there would be other people involved - people who would not care for this 'solution' you have proposed, which is basically suicide.

You spoke of reason, facts and being rational. I agree with these things. And the facts say that Islamic jihadists will never stop (as you also said.) The difference between the two of us is that I have no desire to commit suicide, nor do I desire to see people continue to die at the hands of these madmen. Therefore, I will do whatever is in my power to stop that from happening, whether it's supporting laws, educating myself about Islam, writing to newspapers and magazines when they put out false statements about Islam or terrorism, etc.

And I ever end up being stuck on a plane with one of these 'holy warriors' who is ready to blow himself and everyone else to kingdom come, you can bet I wouldn't just sit there.

I hope if you ever find yourself in that situation, that you will have someone like me there too.

Posted by: Mo at September 29, 2006 7:58 PM

Most disgusting is the fact that he pisses on the graves of the victims of United 93. Speaking of which, in the movie they showed a (probably fictional) German passenger who wants to start talks with the hijackers. Probably a relative of Bear Strong.

Posted by: anti-uffe at September 29, 2006 8:05 PM

McCain2008, August22, I'm sorry you two, but if this is ideology, it is twisted beyond the fringe. No one in their right mind could have these ideas except maybe a masochist.

... it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip.

That kind of ideology is bound to destroy that society. An analogy would be to say that it is more important to let the serial killer have his way than to stoop to his level and defend yourself by killing someone even if it is in self defense. Preserve and open and tolerant society? This guy needs some serious psychological counseling.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 29, 2006 8:05 PM

Speaking of which, in the movie they showed a (probably fictional) German passenger who wants to start talks with the hijackers. Probably a relative of Bear Strong. by anti-uffe

Every movie about invaders from outer space always has someone (usually a minister) who approaches the aliens with his Bible near his heart and says something about being peaceful. Then he gets promptly fried by the death ray. Watch the 1953 "War of the Worlds" for an example.

Life imitating fiction.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 29, 2006 8:15 PM

Please! Beat me! Whip me! Make me say the shahada! I'm getting excited! More! I'm a bad bad bad white man, I need to be punished! More!

Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 29, 2006 8:24 PM

Using fluffy phrases like "an open and tolerant society" is only a vehicle for showing off Bear Strong's goodness for all the world to see. It's empty rhetoric that doesn't hold up to scrutiny; no society should be open and tolerant towards evil. Put differently, those falling for such new age drivel only reveal their own lack of depth.

"Then he gets promptly fried by the death ray. Watch the 1953 "War of the Worlds" for an example."

You're right, I hadn't thought of that. There were also those new agers on the roof in ID4. The German passenger may also be a comment on Eurabian defeatism, although the movie benefited from its docu-look and little explicit comment.

Posted by: anti-uffe at September 29, 2006 8:26 PM

No one in their right mind could have these ideas except maybe a masochist.

History disagrees. Ideology has killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century. The people that implement such ideology are not crazy or masochists. They are believers of what they think is a greater good.

The Left's political goal, communism, now abandoned in favor of islam, was the hatchet with which it butchered its own people for over 100 years.

Jacob Jacoby of the Boston Globe writes:


For pure murderous evil, there has never been a force to compare with Communism. The Nazis didn't come close. The Holocaust was uniquely malignant - never before or since did one people construct a vast industry of death for the sole purpose of rounding up and destroying every single member of another people. But the Nazis exterminated 11 million innocents; the Communist death toll surpasses 100 million. Nazi power lasted from 1933 to 1945. The Communist nightmare began in November 1917, and continues to this day.

In Ukraine, for example, where 7 million people were starved to death on the Kremlin's orders. ``If you go now to the Ukraine or the North Caucuses,'' wrote British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge in 1933, ``exceedingly beautiful countries and formerly amongst the most fertile in the world, you will find them like a desert; . . . no livestock or horses; villages deserted; peasants famished, often their bodies swollen, unutterably wretched.'' Farmers who took grain or vegetables from their own land were shot. Dead bodies littered the streets of Kharkov, the capital. ``It was,'' an eyewitness later recalled, ``as if the Black Death had passed through.''

Communism equaled murder in Ethiopia, where Mengistu Haile Mariam became dictator in 1977 and embarked on what he called his ``Red Terror.'' Tens of thousands were massacred, including the graduating seniors of almost every high school in Addis Ababa.

Communism equaled murder in North Vietnam as far back as 1945, when Ho Chi Minh resolved to annihilate his Nationalist rivals. ``It was appalling,'' recorded the historian Lucien Bodard. ``Thousands, maybe tens of thousands of men had been liquidated . . .. The intention was that horror and dread should extinguish the last trace of respect for them among the masses: Their execution had to be both shameful and terrifying. That was the reason for the mass executions of hundreds at once, the fields of prisoners buried alive, the harrows dragged over men buried up to the neck.''

Communism equaled murder in Tibet, where Mao's campaign to extirpate Buddhist culture turned 1.2 million Tibetans into corpses. It equaled murder in gentle Cambodia, where the bloodlust of the Khmer Rouge vaporized one-third of the nation in less than four years. It equaled murder in Cuba, in East Germany, in Afghanistan. From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic - murder. In the Gulag and the laogai - murder. At Tienanmen Square - murder. In the Korean War and the Vietnam War, in the forest of Katyn and the dungeons of the Lubyanka - murder.

One hundred million victims of Communism. And those are only the victims who were slain. It doesn't include those who were maimed or driven mad. Those whose lives went dark when a loved one was butchered. Those who spun out their years in potato queues, in vodka stupors, in daily fear. It doesn't include those who wasted 30 years as slaves in Siberia. The boat people who flung themselves into the South China Sea. The stifled poets, the gagged priests, the tormented refuseniks, the exiled democrats.

Rarely do we think of them, or of the hundred million. We forget how pathologically evil Communism has been, or why we poured so much blood and treasure into fighting the Cold War. It is to correct that amnesia that the Victims of Communism Memorial will be built.

While this Norwegian may be rare in his stated desire to sacrifice himself for his ideology, he is surely not unique in his desire to sacrifice his fellow comrades.

Yes, indeed, if one believes in an ideology strongly enough, he is ready and prepared to see his countrymen slaughtered for "the greater good". To a great degree, Pelayo, that was the history of the 20th century. This is why I am so afraid that as communism is now drained of political energy and is now defunct, the Left has taken up islam as the new hatchet and with it they will continue to butcher the western world in the 21st century.

Posted by: August22 at September 29, 2006 8:44 PM

It is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip.

Does he think he is going to preserve an open and tolerant society for very long if people start listening to and emulating him?

I believe certain things are true. I have friends that believe things I think are wrong, stupid, even evil. I try to be open and tolerant to them. Why? My friends have no wish to kill, destroy or enslave all I love.

Some religious people say things I just don't like. I try to be open and tolerant to them. Why? These religions have no wish to kill, destroy or enslave all I love.

I have a problem with Islam. Islam, for hundreds of years, has tried to destroy, enslave or kill any country, any person, any thing that it encounters. I am neither open nor tolerant to Islam. In my lifetime several horrible diseases have been eradicated from the Earth. I hope to see Islam go as well.

Will this idiocy cease once the Louvre is in flames and Shakespeare is banned?

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at September 29, 2006 9:02 PM

McCain 2008, point well taken. I also live in Ontario, and we're no better than the UK- and getting worse daily.

Posted by: libbysmom at September 29, 2006 9:04 PM

August22 said

we must not focus on the terrorists, or even their law-abiding counterparts, the islamic organizations. No. To fight islam we must first destroy the Left

Another attempt to turn JihadWatch into LeftWatch.

I'm gonna have to stick with focusing on the terrorists and the Islamic organizations. If you believe that the biggest threat to civilization is Liberals, there are plenty of blogs and talkshows and tv shows that will cater to your interest.

Posted by: special_guest at September 29, 2006 9:14 PM

August 22, You did not cite the ideology expressed by Bjorn. Your gave examples of the ideology of the aggressor not the passive object of that aggression. Those victims you cited did not yield just "to preserve an open and tolerant society." Bjorn has a choice, and he chooses to keep his false sense of humanity and die. Nevertheless, there were others who resisted. Those people without the means to resist had no options. This is what perplexes me so much: The French, Norwegians, and others resisted the Germans at the cost of their lives. What happened to the European backbone? Hitler erased the Czech village of Lidice because he thought that villagers helped the assassins of Reinhardt Heydrich. Yet more and more people fought and died in anonymity. The more brutal the Germans became, the more people fought.

If our dear Bjorn was the norm, the Soviet Union might still exist.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 29, 2006 9:18 PM

Learn to live with terrorism!
Stop listening to your instincts, they're wrong!
Weapons can't harm us more than fear!
Death is a part of life!
Allah will reward you with 72 virgins!

Sorry about the last one. Got carried away. The others are indeed from Staerk's blog.

Also sorry there are those who actually believe this moron who seems to subscribe to the Zawahiri school of (*cough*) logic.

Posted by: s at September 29, 2006 9:22 PM

special_guest, I agree. When the "big" attack comes, the left will change their minds just as the isolationists did in 1941. Charles Lindberg was one of the more prominent isolationist in 1940. But he changed his attitude after December 7. At one point he went to the South Pacific and helped the Army Air Corps get better performance from the P38 Lightning. He actually, as a civilian, flew in combat zones. I think I heard where he actually shot down a Japanese plane. When it really starts, the left will change, if only to save their own skins.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 29, 2006 9:27 PM

I read the whole article, which is not as entirely awful as the quoted paragraph. But it is awful, and so are his replies to those very sensible people from such places as Connecticut and Massachusetts who write in to take issue with him. His notion of what he thinks we should all sacrifice, so as not to offend, or to protect the "civil rights" of, people who do not wish us well, who wish us harm, who are against free and skeptical inquiry, and everything that makes our civilization what it is, is infuriating but also dismissable, without the slightest twinge of regret or embarrassment. Unhinged by something, possibly the entire messy modern world, is Bjorn Staerk.

His views immediately put one in mind of a certain painting by Edvard Munch, recently returned to its rightful museum wall in Oslo, in once-sane Norway. Where have all the thor-heyerdahls gone, long time passing?

Posted by: Hugh at September 29, 2006 10:05 PM

I used to read BS's blog (hmmm BS?) quite a lot.
Looks like he and Esmay have a lot in common.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 29, 2006 10:22 PM

special_guest certainly has a point about bravery...

Posted by: Johnny Drops at September 29, 2006 10:40 PM

I guess if you want to die for multiculturalism and political correctness. I can't stop you.

When a conservatives looks at a liberal, they see someone with a bad idea.

When a liberal looks at a conservative, they see a bad person.

They really don't see many concepts from opposite points. Its more like they look at concepts from right angles to each other.

I see political correctness as being a very large stumbling block. I really hate it. When we get done with this war, that's going to be next thing on my list.

God willing, of course.

Posted by: credit man at September 29, 2006 11:14 PM

Pelayo, you are missing my point. The point being that Leftists do institute ideologies that are destructive to their own people for sake of being true to an idea. Just as Bjorn is willing to do.

Remember, his stated willingness to die himself is not his main point. His point is that we should all sacrifice our collective safety, and ourselves if need be, to remain true to this multicultural ethos. And it is the Left that gave us multiculturalism and the PC mentality that safeguards it. Just as it is the Left that gave us communism.

Posted by: August22 at September 29, 2006 11:17 PM

Wow, I better start paying attention. I thought this was a parody, and a good one at that, until I started reading the comments. Then I went back and perused the article more carefully. Wow, what an idiot this guy is! He has no more respect for life than his muslim conquerers. He's a self-hating left-winger with a god complex, oblivious to the paradoxical implications of his statement: "and because even if there's a chance that they are terrorists, it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip."

How does one "preserve an open and tolerant society" by surrendering to totalitarian megalomaniacs? The far left wants islam to destroy the West. They are morally bankrupt, childless, Godless, and the only gratification they derive from life is a smug assurance of moral superiority. If this idiot has nothing more important than political correctness to live for, he deserves whatever miserable fate befalls him. How do people get so screwed up in the head?

Posted by: Susanp at September 29, 2006 11:24 PM

Oh dear, oh dear, "read the whole thing". You're completely misinterpreting it. What he's actually saying is don't give in to the terrorists. Don't give in to your fear. Don't let them rule your life. Terrorism will, quite likely, be with us for a long time but don't let it colour your actions.

Sometimes, I wonder if any of you bother to "read the whole thing", as Robert always says, before you type a post.

Robert, you should have read the whole article, too. You've completely misinterpreted what he, Bjørn Stærk, said on this occassion.

Consider:

"You call that brave?! Why, that's nothing!" Yes, it's barely anything. I'm presenting a minimum standard here. Something almost anyone should be able to do, small acts of bravery to begin with. Once you've managed this, go and seek larger challenges. Go on vacation to a city that has recently been bombed, for instance.

Some anti-terror warriors will say that I hate my own culture and secretly want the terrorists to win, (maybe even subconsciously - yay Freud!) Others will say that if everyone thinks like me the Islamists can just walk in and take over. Suicidal tolerance! But if the only major weapon the terrorists have is fear, then the best way to fight them is surely to confront that fear? Hack it away, piece by piece. Liberate yourself.

Read the whole thing, for Heaven's sake.

Oh dear, oh dear!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at September 29, 2006 11:33 PM

Susanp/

Read it again. Yor quote is just a 'straw man' set up to be knocked down. Read on! Don't you know irony when you see it, for Heaven's sake!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at September 29, 2006 11:35 PM

From Bjørn Stærk's article:

"Let us take away the most powerful weapon the terrorists have: Fear. Be less afraid of terrorism. Make it your personal project not to fear terrorism, and not to let the fear that remains influence your life."

And what's wrong with that sentiment.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. I forgot all you Americans who cancelled you holiday in the UK after 7/7 - all of you who gave in to Fear and left us in the lurch. So much for allies, eh?

"Read the whole thing" with your brains switched on, for once.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at September 29, 2006 11:43 PM

Brave is inviting someone to kill me because I am not afraid. Brave is asking my wife and children to not mourn for me because I am so brave. Brave is embracing death over life. Brave is being a martyr. Brave is being a muslim.

*BARF*

Posted by: infidel4life at September 30, 2006 12:24 AM

Dominic, I think you are misinterpreting a certain, crucial aspect of Staerk's point: you are correct that he is saying we should not allow ourselves to be crippled by fear, because then the terrorists would have the upper hand by intimidating us: however, he is also saying that this fear is bad in addition because it makes us unduly, and irrationally, and incorrectly suspicious of the vast majority of Muslims who are, of course, harmless "moderates" (since, of course, the terrorists are only a tiny minority of "extremists" who can never possibly emanate out of the larger population pool of the harmless "moderates"). Staerk is therefore half right, and half wrong -- and the half he is wrong about is monumental.

Posted by: remote_control at September 30, 2006 12:29 AM

I once read about a guy who overcame his fear of grizzly bears. He got to know them so well and they got to know him so well that they ate him.

I tried reading Bjorn's article, but I couldn't; I do not have to examine every apple in the barrel to find out that it is full of rotten apples.

His comparisons to past terrorist actions by anarchists and others is a red herring that people lke him use to deflect the argument. He did omit terrorism associated with the Irish struggle. Those examples were examples of localized terrorist activity perpetrated by a relatively few. Once the core was defeated, the terrorism stopped. The Beider-Meinoff Gang is one example. Terrorism in the 70s was limited; Islamic terrorism is world wide and perpetrated by a cast of thousands upon thousands.

The paragraph about other terrorist activity is a far as I got.

Cemeteries are full of people who have overcame their fear.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 30, 2006 12:50 AM

I see what is happening in Scandinavia and my heart is breaking. My mother was a true viking, very tough, strong and brave and must be rolling over in her grave as no doubt many others are.

Posted by: pigtails not veils at September 30, 2006 12:52 AM

He ended with this question: "what more can they do to us?"

For starters they can intimidate us so that we quit criticizing their religion and their repressive laws. They can demand that we allow their amplified calls to prayer to blast across a quiet neighborhood. If we protest, they riot and people get injured. They can demand that we remove symbols of other religions. They are doing that in Thialand and Indonesia. They can demand that we not prosecute "honor killings" and other Muslim "traditions." We have seen the protests concerning a Colorado Muslim who kept a woman as a slave. They can demand that we have Islamic courts. There is the threat of bombs and bullets if we do not comply.

We don't need to be afraid, just do what they say. I am not afraid of sharks or stingrays; that is only because I live 1000 miles from the ocean.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 30, 2006 1:13 AM

There are so many things wrong with what Bjorn wrote that it is difficult to know where to begin.
For a start, Bjorn says "But if the only major weapon the terrorists have is fear" - why do so many people say this? Do they assume that the only response to terrorism is fear? That is not true. Many people are angry. It can also be viewed as rational to not want to die, and not necessarily 'fear of death', but 'love of life'. Is fear the only weapon terrorists have? No. They have other weapons, like bombs. It is rational and moral in my view to try to prevent people getting bombed by terrorists. Another useful terrorists' weapon (an essential weapon to achieve their aims)is people who wish to appease them or people who will do nothing to stop them. And no, it is setting up a straw man to say that to act against terrorism means you are'hysterical' or controlled by fear or setting up a police state, that is just not necessarily true.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at September 30, 2006 1:44 AM

remote_control/

Yes. I agree with you. But I feel that we should not be too hard on those like Staerks who are arriving, by circuitous routes, at some sort of understanding - inchoate though it might be. I feel that the taking of his quote out of context (by Robert) didn't do us any service and might easily alienate those who may otherwise be persuaded to our point of view.

However, all that said, I did not get the "harmless moderates" bit out of this particular article. He may, indeed, have made your point about this in other articles (which, obviously, I have not read) but in this article he does not seem to me to have made that point either by ommission or by commission.

Fear, and our fear of Fear, seems, in this article to have been the thesis on which he expounded - and I find myself agreeing with his reasoning on this.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at September 30, 2006 1:45 AM

It sounds like irony or a joke to me.

No one can be that stupid. Or perhaps they can, didn't the word "Quisling" originate in Norway?

Posted by: rocky at September 30, 2006 1:49 AM

As the author of this piece, I'm surprised by the things I'm accused of. It seems to me that very few have read it on its own terms, and instead just read enough of it to categorize it as leftist cowardice, and then aimed all their arguments at the stereotypical leftist coward instead of at me. That's your choice of course, but if the intentions of the author matter here at all, let me just point out that I'm not a leftist, and that I'm no more ready to give in to Islamists than I am to fear of terrorism. I thought I phrased myself clearly enough, but apparently I didn't. My recommendation is to read the piece again, but this time without assuming that one must either belong to your side or the leftist coward side.

In the paragraph that is quoted here, what I have in mind is the passengers who recently refused to board the plane unless two Arab passengers, who they thought looked "suspicious", were thrown off. So here's a question for the community of Dhimmi Watch: How should passengers behave in a situation like this? Should they 1) insist that any Arab who looks suspicious is thrown off, or 2) swallow down their fear and go on the plane? Consider the consequences if everyone acts like yourself: If everyone does 1, then Arabs are in effect barred from flying by plane. If everyone does 2, then possibly a terrorist attack takes place that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Answer, then read the paragraph quoted above again. That is my answer to this dilemma. I'm not saying you shouldn't fight terrorists - if you know they're terrorists. But if you only know that they're Muslims? Then you're sacrificing the rights of many for a tiny increase of your own expected life span. Is not that the definition of cowardice?

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk at September 30, 2006 2:52 AM

This guy is not only a coward but stupid too.
Brave to me is to fight and offer up ones life in order to save other lives. To prevent something horrible happening.

How self-centered this fool is. He thinks nothing of the innocents. Only himself.

You can't fix stupid. And this fool is stupid, but he thinks he is brave. Loser. Tragic.

Posted by: Suz at September 30, 2006 3:45 AM

Bjorn,

Don't you realize that when you say:
"I do not believe we can make the threat go away with outside force..."
You have already given up?

Posted by: rocky at September 30, 2006 3:46 AM

Yah, thank you Bjørn Stærk for clarifying your post. I am joost surprised that Vikingskald is so ignorant of the "old country" Norway, which has already shaken off the "prison chains of Christianity." If Vikingskald can take off the apparently too tight Viking helmet, the blood may return to its brain long enough for a simple internet search (e.g., adherents.com) and the discovery (Oh my Thor!) that up to 72% of Norwegians are "Atheist/Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God" according to a study by Phil Zuckerman (www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html). So instead of Christianity, they now labor under the self-imposed "prison chains" (PC) of political correctness (PC) -- how ironic. The passivity expressed in the blog posting appears based on the post-Christian values that are really taking a beating in Eurabia nowadays!

Posted by: Leif the Lucky at September 30, 2006 4:01 AM

Bjorn, I'm sorry if some of the comments seem extreme, but understand: playing Russian roulette requires no bravery, only madness.

Is it more or less brave to flout political correctness and risk arrest or violence than to passively sit by with internalized fear and hope that nothing untoward happens?

I would argue the former is far bolder. Calling a spade a spade (if you'll excuse the expression) is braver than silence - after all, public speaking (and, thereby, spectacle) is and remains the greatest of societals fears and phobias, with death coming a distant second.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at September 30, 2006 4:11 AM

After 1 1/2 years of commenting on a Swedish Forum,I can understand to what extent the viking are walking on there knuckles in there effort to be Political Correctness.I was banned from the main Swedish Forum (FOMI NU) for criticizing the Political Correctness of the administrators and general decietfullnes they resorted to so as the Forum was house trained.

Sweden has given refuge to leaders of at least two Asian Terror organizations.The have a long history of cuddling up to the moslems that date back several hundred years,

In 1657 King Karl X Gustav sent an ambassador to Istanbul to gain the support of the Ottoman rulers against Russia.10 The sought after political pact between Sweden and Ottomans became a reality during the 18 th century when the King Karl XII ended up in Bender in the
Ottoman Empire after a devastating military setback against the Russian armies at Poltava 1709.
The King spent five years under Ottoman protection before returning to Sweden. During the 18 th century there were continuous contacts between Sweden and the Ottomans.11 Among the elite there were those who admired Ottoman civilisation, and Turkish studies were encouraged by theState.

And just reccenly the swedes organized fund raising for Lebanon and the terrorists Judea/ Sinea(Palistine)

Posted by: shiva at September 30, 2006 4:32 AM

Suz: "Brave to me is to fight and offer up ones life in order to save other lives. To prevent something horrible happening."

Yes, and why is that brave? Because you risk your own life for the sake of something you believe is even more important. That is precisely what I am describing here. We may disagree about which ideals are important, and which aren't. I believe that the right of everyone to be treated as individuals with the same rights regardless of how they look or what they believe in is such an ideal.

Leif the Lucky: "So instead of Christianity, they now labor under the self-imposed "prison chains" (PC) of political correctness (PC) -- how ironic."

I don't. It can be difficult to understand other cultures. Europeans find it difficult to understand how Americans think, and they find it especially difficult to understand that American culture can not be summed up easily with one or two words out of some Michael Moore book. I've been writing about this problem for years - check my archives. But the same applies the other way: Americans find it equally tempting to stereotype Europeans in the same way. Which is what you're doing here. Here's a suggestion: Instead of telling some European you hardly know that they are a politically correct coward, how about just asking them and find out? Surely the terrain is more reliable than the map. Ask me. Ask me anything you like. Test your assumptions.

Geoff: "Is it more or less brave to flout political correctness and risk arrest or violence than to passively sit by with internalized fear and hope that nothing untoward happens?"

Sorry, I won't let you rephrase your way out of my question. And this goes for anyone here who wants to tell me how foolish and cowardly I am. I want to know how you would behave if you saw two Arabs on your plane who struck you as "suspicious"-looking. Would you get them thrown off, thus (assuming everyone acts like you do) making it impossible for a large number of Arabs to ever travel by airplane, or would you let the plane take off without complaint, thus exposing yourself to a tiny risk of death? Which is morally right? Which is more brave? Forget what you think you can tell me about my depraved p.c. cowardice, just tell me what you would do.

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk at September 30, 2006 4:47 AM

Political correctness from a coffin? No thanks.

Posted by: DCWatson at September 30, 2006 5:42 AM

Bjorn,

I have taken the time to skim through your essay. I understand the point that you want to make, but I disagree with some of your conclusions.

From the psychological point of view, I believe that you are right, that in order to defeat terrorism we do need to control our own fears relating to the increase in terrorist activity that we are witnessing.

I do think that there are some holes in your argument, but it might be that I have not totally understood what you are trying to state. I agree that bad laws are not going to end the terror. In fact some of the things that are banned on aircraft, such as knitting needles seem a little bit absurd to me... however, you never know what can be used as a weapon ;-)

Where I think that you are wrong, is the fact that you have trivialised the Muslim threat in our world today. This is a threat that has been around for 1400 years. It will not go away because anyone who takes the Koran literally knows precisely what is stated in those Satanic Verses. Islam was spread by the sword. True followers of Mohammed believe that we must either all convert to Islam or die.

Now, as a Christian, I should be able to say that I am not afraid to face death, for I will not convert to Islam. This is the same dilemma that was faced by the earliest of Christians when they were told to either worship and sacrifice the pagan gods or die!! In fact we can go back to the Maccabean Wars when the Jews were told to either sacrifice to the Greek gods, and eat pork, or die!! If you are familiar with the Books of the Maccabees then you will know of the story of the mother and her seven sons who stood steadfast against the demands to sacrifice to pagan gods, in the face of ill treatment and torture.

The question you ask is one that is reasonable, because most of us would feel uneasy if we saw Arabs acting suspiciously. However, how do we define suspicious. In one case that was highlighted where the Arab passengers were refused the right to enter the aircraft, there was some speculation about the way in which they had behaved. Some men of Middle Eastern appearance have a habit of being rather menacing towards others. Yes, you are right, they behave that way because it is fun to watch the Dhimmis cower. Perhaps, if this is what happened, the passengers should have just directly confronted the Arabs about their behaviour and then tell them to either stop behaving in that way, or else.

However, I think that you are confronting the wrong questions. I think that you should be confronting the spate of recordings from Al Qaeda members, demanding that world leaders either convert to Islam or else. Just as some Christians have a notion that we are in End Times (the end of the world according to their interpretation), the Muslims who believe in the coming of the 12th imam believe the same thing. What we are dealing with here, is the president of Iran, who was once a member of the revolutionary guard, believing that the coming of the 12th imam is imminent and that he must hasten this event by declaring war on the rest of the world.

Whilst I agree with some of the main thrust of your arguments, I do not believe that you have studied the issue sufficiently to draw some of your conclusions. I think that the biggest mistake in the twentieth century was the way in which the the danger posed by Adolf Hitler was overlooked. Perhaps it is true that the German people did not see what would happen because they were mesmerized by the personality of Hitler. Perhaps it is true that they in fact sympathized with him, because they related so well to his experiences that had shaped his later actions. Whatever, that is not my point in dealing with the harm done by Adolf Hitler. What is important here is the way in which Hitler used terror to stifle opposition.

I can vividly remember the day on which the Israeli athletes at Munich were murdered by the thugs from the Middle East. I can remember the terror that struck around the world before and after that event. At that time we never knew when another Pan Am jet was going to be either hijacked or blown out of the sky. I cannot forget that a disabled man was murdered on the Achille Lauro. It was shocking. It was sad. Yes, I do not like the idea of flying, and yes, I have flown from Australia to the USA without incident.

What we are facing now is a mixture of two situations that I have outlined. We are being forced to deal with people who employ intimidation tactics. If we back down then we are seen as being weak. They expect us to fight back. If we give into their demands then we are seen as being weak.

Take for example that scourge Nasreen. This person calles Pope Benedict weak because he apologised, not for what was said, but because his words caused terror to strike around the world. What Nasreen does not understand is that the Pope has not in fact backed down from the statement that was allegedly so offensive. The Danish government faced the rage of the terror mob because they would not chastise the editors of a newspaper over the publishing of some cartoons that were not offensive in the least. I have seen Arab cartoons that have been way more offensive in their content, especially in the messages conveyed. I am telling you that the cartoons that I have seen, ones that appeared in Arab newspapers are extremely offensive to my sensibilities, and the same goes for some very, very offensive "artwork" that appeared in the 20th century.

The riots and rage that took place recently were another attempt to intimidate the Western World. The real cowards have been the London Metropolitan police who have once again backed down on the issue of how they handle suspected terrorist threats. The pigs whose faces were totally distorted as they screamed in rage, made threats, and they were blasphemous. Not one of these rabble rousers have been charged with an offense. A very large operation in London took place and there were over 20 people arrested. The pigs in black sheets and white jihad garments had the cheek to claim that they were upset about being "targeted". This is a story that is still unfolding.

Some members of the Muslim community have been co-operative, and they have informed when they have noticed something suspicious. Can we rely upon these people all of the time? What if the friends of those arrested found out who did the informing, and then took intimadatory measures against decent minded citizens who put their new country first?

There are a lot of issues to cover here. I think that the arguments that you use are somewhat shallow because you have not penetrated into the reasons why all of this is happening in the first place. It goes well beyond 1948 and the decision to create a new state of Israel.

Posted by: Maggie4Life at September 30, 2006 6:07 AM

EUROPA UNITED: !!!!

When in doubt - THROW tehm OUT!!!!!

Posted by: germaninamerica at September 30, 2006 6:08 AM

Alas, we Sons Of Norway... we are destined to go the way of the Arabian pagans, and for the same reasons, and we will be sent that way by the same people.

We the descendants of Vikings who struck fear in the hearts of everyone from the Shetlands to far up every northern river in Europe. Normandy. Norway. The Normans. The Norse. The people of the North; big, brave, blue/green eyes and light skin with freckles. We were feared by Rome. We were feared by the Tatars. Soon we will be relegated to our designation-abroad-of-choice, Minnesota (dontcha know?) while first Malmo, then Bergen, then Oslo goes the way of Dearborn.

Well, maybe Ireland will hang on for a few more decades... and I have their name. Eventually we'll all be working for Microsoft, McDonalds or Walmart; and pretending to worship Allah.

Posted by: kj

NO FOOOKING WAY, DOOD...!!

You got Germany behhing you for sure! I am sure all of Britain and the REST of EUROPE too!!

**DO** feel free to strike fear in the hearts of the muftis who suck our blood whilst they insult us. RAPE their women if you can stand the post-burka stench!

SMOKE them from OUR common lands!!!!! OUR HOLY LANDS.. Our lands they DEFILE with their FILTH!!!

BURN DEM!!

WHEN IN DOUBT - THROW THEM OUT!!

VIVE LA RESISTANCE!!!

Posted by: germaninamerica at September 30, 2006 6:15 AM

It's a toss-up between whether to award this spineless, pathetic loser the Dhimmi of the Year Award or the Darwin Award.

Posted by: feralee at September 30, 2006 6:21 AM

if NORWAY wishes to LEAD in smoking the bastards out from our midst.. by all means.. do pick up the sword!!

Whoever RESISTS FIRST in Europe shall be know as the People BRAVE ENOUGH to start the RESISTANCE. I am afraid to say it won't be my German sheeples!

So please you Brave Norwegians!! Men of the NORTH!! Men of STEEL.. **UNLEASH** your fighting fury upon these cowardly bastards - and spare them no mercy!

Military men and Police Men in Norway shall have to stand aside OUR Freedom fighters when it comes to torching the mosks... and smoking out our enemies!

Let our women-folk and children join when we seem them humiliated and LEAVING our HOLY LANDS!!

Can Norway truly be the LEADER in this? You all know that my Germans are great at following.. mostly for evil so far, but why not for good next time?

WHEN IN DOUBT - THROW THEM OUT!!!

Posted by: germaninamerica at September 30, 2006 6:26 AM

How should passengers behave in a situation like this? Should they 1) insist that any Arab who looks suspicious is thrown off, or 2) swallow down their fear and go on the plane?

I suggest you read this post.

I'm not saying you shouldn't fight terrorists - if you know they're terrorists. But if you only know that they're Muslims?

If you know they're Muslims, then you also know that they belong to a religion demanding them to wage jihad against infidels. The question is whether you allow yourself to draw the logical conclusion from this.

Posted by: anonymous at September 30, 2006 6:36 AM

Yah, thank you Bjørn Stærk for clarifying your post. I am joost surprised that Vikingskald is so ignorant of the "old country" Norway, which has already shaken off the "prison chains of Christianity." If Vikingskald can take off the apparently too tight Viking helmet, the blood may return to its brain long enough for a simple internet search (e.g., adherents.com) and the discovery (Oh my Thor!) that up to 72% of Norwegians are "Atheist/Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God" according to a study by Phil Zuckerman (www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html). So instead of Christianity, they now labor under the self-imposed "prison chains" (PC) of political correctness (PC) -- how ironic. The passivity expressed in the blog posting appears based on the post-Christian values that are really taking a beating in Eurabia nowadays!

Posted by: Leif the Lucky

FOOOKJ pISALAM!! I hope that you brave Norsemen will accept freedom-loving Germans on your side!!

PIslam: WHEN IN DOUBT - THROW THEM OUT!!!

Posted by: germaninamerica at September 30, 2006 6:47 AM

Bjorn,

I did read your piece (article), but I believe the reason you are getting so much negative response is your own fault, as the author, for not being clear enough about your own views. In the piece, you even show signs of anticipating the negative response, such as seen above, but you still do not clarify your views adequately in the piece itself, which is worded very provocatively, almost as though you were courting this type of response.

The piece focusses on "terror" in a limited way, comparing it in only certain kinds of risk terms and showing that the average person has a greater risk of being killed in a car accident. The problems with this assessment are at least these two:

1. Low risk is no excuse for neglect, especially when we are talking about death and serious injury. Even rare diseases, for example, need to be researched and treated. Why? Because even one individual life is extraordinarily valuable--something which you do not emphasize enough in your piece.

2. A person in a car can and should regulate their risk to themselves by more careful driving, etc. In situation, people regulate their safety by being vigilant, watching where they are going and where everyone else is, etc.

Another problem with the piece is that you do not take into account that risk level is very different for different people in relation to Islam. And there are different types of "terror". For example, the risk of being assassinated for a critic of Islam is much greater than the risk for someone who does not criticize Islam or who does so only in a watered-down way. A known apostate is at much greater risk. Those women who call for reforms in Islam are at much greater risk. Any of those Islam-opposers who are well-known and influential are also at a higher risk. The trend here is that if a person does anything to oppose Islam, their risk dramatically increases. The more ffective they are at opposing the negative aspects of Islam, the more at risk they are. Yet it is precisely the risk-taking of these individuals that will reduce the political power of Islam in the long-term, and therefore reduce the overall risk of all non-Muslims, in the long-term (later in the century or in the next) of falling under the rule of sharia. Living under sharia means a perpetual state of terror for non-Muslims. We need to take some risks now to prevent a much worse situation later.

In addition, the piece is near-sighted by its focus on "terror" without reference to the goals of the terrorists in question. The goals of the terrorists in question are not "fear". The goals of the terrorists are to establish sharia law and convert or subjugate non-Muslims. Terrorism is used by these groups in order to bleed the enemy (that's non-Muslims in the west as well as in India, Russia, and elsewhere) financially and in terms of human resources over a long period of time while establishing a lasting enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims. This helps in their project to keep the Muslims socially segregated as much as possible from the non-Muslims, so that Muslims in the host country are not weakened or divided as a political group. They say they need to maintain a "holy hatred" against the infidels. Most of the "infidels" don't want to fight, so the jihadists use drastic measures to try and force them into a fight. Fighting creates enmity, enmity helps maintain segregation, segregation helps maintain Islamic purity and more importantly Islamic political power.

The (sharia) political Islamic groups embedded in the west as well as the jihadists are well aware of the long-term demographic situation in Europe. They are thinking long-term (in decades), whereas our leaders are thinking maybe four or five years ahead at the most, and most of the public has hardly a clue about what is happening. Several European countries could be Muslim-majority by the end of this century or sometime in the next century, if present trends continue. The political trend thus far has been that Muslim majorities tend to elect hard-line Islamic governments. Once the hard-line Islamic government is in power, it has control over the military and police force. You are then living in an Islamic state.

Contrary to what you suggest in your piece, the cost of terrorist attacks are actually relatively cheap for the jihadist terrorists (who do not value this life but only value the hereafter) monetarily, whereas the results of one attack can be hugely costly (as 9/11, 7/7, and 3/11 were) in monetary terms. Indeed, Zawahiri has stated that suicide (martyrdom) attacks are the most cost-effective way of attacking the west. By incurring those costs on our societies, that weakens us overall and affects our ability to deal with all kinds of ordinary probles that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Posted by: Archimedes at September 30, 2006 6:59 AM

Maggie4Life: "Where I think that you are wrong, is the fact that you have trivialised the Muslim threat in our world today. This is a threat that has been around for 1400 years."

Thank you for a level-headed response. You're right that I don't think much of the supposed Muslim threat to Western civilization. I think it has been exaggerated by people who have taken a superficial approach to the task of understanding Islam. This, however, is a separate debate. After all, Islamists are not the only extremists who use terrorism. My argument applies to all terrorism, past and future.

"Some men of Middle Eastern appearance have a habit of being rather menacing towards others. Yes, you are right, they behave that way because it is fun to watch the Dhimmis cower. Perhaps, if this is what happened, the passengers should have just directly confronted the Arabs about their behaviour and then tell them to either stop behaving in that way, or else."

I didn't say that. Do you have any reason to think that these two Arabs behaved in an intimidating manner? If not, it's not relevant here. But don't let the difficulty of defining "suspicious" keep you from answering the question. You may define suspicious any way you like. I still want an answer. What would it take for you to get someone thrown off your plane?

Another question: If this sort of behavior becomes common and accepted, do you think it will generally be used responsibly, or abused? Will it do more damage or good?

"In fact some of the things that are banned on aircraft, such as knitting needles seem a little bit absurd to me... however, you never know what can be used as a weapon ;-)"

But what good is a knitting needle against a planeload of passengers who know that their lives depend on their defending themselves? Before September 11, it was accepted wisdom that the smartest thing you could do if your plane was hijacked was to sit quietly and do nothing. Now, we all know the smartest thing you can do is to attack the hijackers as soon as you can, with whatever you have at hand. On this, I think all of us agree. Which is another reason why these regulations are counterproductive: They teach us that security in the air is the responsibility of airport security and the airliners, when a great deal of it is really the responsibility of individual passengers. As, of course, is the responsibility not to act like cowards just because there are some Arabs on your plane.

Archimedes: "I did read your piece (article), but I believe the reason you are getting so much negative response is your own fault, as the author, for not being clear enough about your own views."

If I was unclear, you have my apologies, but I suspect a lot of the confusion I've seen comes from the prejudices of the readers, who expect people to be on either on one side or the other. Since I'm obviously not on their side, I must be on the other side. I aim to write as clearly as possible, but I will not dumb down my posts just because they might be featured on Dhimmi Watch and Gates of Vienna. I expect my readers to think when they read, and not leap to insane conclusions about my views and motives. If in doubt, ask, don't just go into flame mode.

Low risks should not be neglected, I agree. Nowhere have I said otherwise. But we should weigh the cost against the benefit. The cost of throwing any suspicious-looking Arab off airplanes whenever the other passengers say so, is much much too high. So is the cost of many other anti-terror measures. In the end it comes down to whether you believe it is worth it to sacrifice the rights of many for a slight increase in your own expected lifespan.

"Contrary to what you suggest in your piece, the cost of terrorist attacks are actually relatively cheap for the jihadist terrorists (who do not value this life but only value the hereafter) monetarily, whereas the results of one attack can be hugely costly (as 9/11, 7/7, and 3/11 were) in monetary terms."

Yes, but they are expensive in terms of time and human resources. My point is simply that terrorists are unable to destroy us simply by blowing us and everything we own to bits. Stupid behavior on our part is also required. So if we don't act like idiots, the terrorists can't win. This is why fear is the only major weapon they have.

Btw, I would still like an answer to my question. Put yourself in the place of these passengers. What would you do?

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk at September 30, 2006 9:11 AM

This is Bjorn's problem in a nutshell:

I don't think much of the supposed Muslim threat to Western civilization.

I think it (the threat) has been exaggerated by people who have taken a superficial approach to the task of understanding Islam.

This, however, is a separate debate. After all, Islamists are not the only extremists who use terrorism.

That ignorance explains his views. What I prescribe for that malady is for Bjorn to educate himself about islam, and that means spending a few months on jihadwatch and reading all the articles posted here so that you will understand the topic of which he blogs.

Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 10:01 AM

Mr. Staerk,

I admire you for coming here to answer the comments in here. I'd like to recommend coming back often- reading the articles featured here on a daily basis might give you a completely different picture of Islam and the threat it poses the West.

As for your question, it is one which at least some of us must face on a daily basis. I'll start with your example: in that situation, I'd have been first off the plane, and while I was still aboard would probably have been one of the more vocal passengers. My reasoning is that if I get off a plane because I don't feel safe with the behaviour of certain passengers, I'll feel foolish if it turns out to be a false alarm. If, on the other hand, it does not turn out to be a false alarm, I won't feel anything at all, I'll be dead. As will my children, and I'm not at all willing to take that risk. I know there are risks I cannot avoid, accidents being one of those risks. However, it does not logically follow that therefore I must take all risks because they are weighted evenly. Living is always about risk assessment, people do it every day. Is it safe to drive on the freeway today? Usually. How about walking on that same freeway? Not at all. I've already eliminated a risk for myself.

Ok, now for my examples, and this time, you must answer my questions: I live in a mostly Muslim neighbourhood, and the largest shia mosque in my city is a block from my house. During the recent war in Lebanon the majority of cars in my neighbourhood flew the Lebanese flag as well as one proclaiming "Hezbollah!". I allowed fear to rule my actions then. I decided not to fly an Israeli flag from my car, even though my children wanted me to. In other words, I gave up my right to free speech. I am still upset with myself for not flying my flag, but at the same time, I think it is probably why I still have a house and my car still has windows. What would you have done in this situation, assuming that you are an ardent supporter of Israel?

One more, please: this past summer, my eldest son was hired as a security guard. He was gurding the new Habitat For Humanity houses being built, and these were in the very heart of the Muslim area. All of the homes were being built for Muslim families. My child had been on duty for only an hour when he called, nearly in tears. Now, this child is 19, he's 6'2", a black belt in karate and has since signed up for Army ROTC- in other words, it takes a lot to rattle him. However, he called me to come and sit with him for a while, because the neighbourhood children had been outside playing. Their game? Suicide bomber meeting his virgins. The children, all between 8 and 12, had made a pretend suicide bomb belt with pop cans serving as the bombs. The bomber would run up to a small group of younger boys who were being 'the Jews' - my son understands quite a bit of Arabic. Anyway, the bomber would run into the Jews, pretend to blow himself up, and then the little girls waiting on the other side of the street would begin their trilling screaming, clapping and smiling, and would wave the bomber over to them, covering him with hugs when he arrived. This is what so upset my child. How would you have responded to seeing this?

We can do all sorts of things to reduce risk in our lives, such as wearing our seatbelts, driving carefully, and, in my opinion, reacting to the threat Islam poses by speaking up when we get the chance. I've missed some chances, but taken other opportunities to do so. I proudly wore my sweatshirt with the Danish flag on it when I went to England this past spring. I've begun teaching my children about the threat Islam poses to their future. What are you doing?

Posted by: libbysmom at September 30, 2006 10:34 AM

Wait, the Norwegians have abandoned religion all together? That is probably the problem.

Norwegians have got to belief that they are worthy of survival and continuation, that they are unique. Otherwise, they are done fore.

Posted by: skald at September 30, 2006 10:40 AM

"Should they 1) insist that any Arab who looks suspicious is thrown off, or 2) swallow down their fear and go on the plane? Consider the consequences if everyone acts like yourself: If everyone does 1, then Arabs are in effect barred from flying by plane. If everyone does 2, then possibly a terrorist attack takes place that wouldn't have happened otherwise. "

Bjorn, do you know that when south american citizen travel by plane they are stopped and searched in every cavity of their body for drugs?

Have you ever heard on the news, south american organization calling for latinophobia etc etc?

I have been told this by a guy that looks JAPANESE but has brazilian passport.

No south american ever talks about how you mis-judge them because of the faults of a "tiny minority". And life goes on.

Muslim people (both natives of muslim lands AND converts) need to be SCRUTINIZED 10 times more than the rest of the people. If that means making their life a hell, then be it.

Posted by: FedUp at September 30, 2006 11:10 AM

August 22: "This is Bjorn's problem in a nutshell: [..] What I prescribe for that malady is for Bjorn to educate himself about islam, and that means spending a few months on jihadwatch and reading all the articles posted here"

Why would I trust these blogs and their communities to teach me about the complexities of a religion with a billion followers that spans 1400 years of history and great parts of the world, when they're unable to understand even a simple blog post that contains views they're not used to reading?

libbysmom: "I decided not to fly an Israeli flag from my car, even though my children wanted me to. In other words, I gave up my right to free speech. I am still upset with myself for not flying my flag, but at the same time, I think it is probably why I still have a house and my car still has windows. What would you have done in this situation, assuming that you are an ardent supporter of Israel?"

Assuming that I shared your views, I hope I would have had the courage to fly the Israeli flag. We're only on this earth for a short time, and there are very few things that are truly our own. One of them is the ability to stand up for our opinions. What's the price of new car windows compared to that? If you felt that the lives of your family was in danger, that would have made the choice more difficult, and I won't tell you to do that - I have no children myself. But I will tell you that I don't think it will ever be easy to believe something radically different from the people around you, and that our children should be taught how to deal with that. I think most children are taught that they will have it easy in life, that they can just sail through it all without risking anything, without making any hard choices. I think they should be taught instead that fear and greed and hatred and corruption will always be around them, and also be taught to ignore it, and play by better rules. If the society they grow up in turns out to be nice, no harm done. If it turns out to be bad, then they'll be mentally prepared to put it right again - like our ancestors have done before us, at great risk to their lives. I'm told by people here that my continent will turn into some Eurabian hellhole under Islamist rule. I don't believe that, but I hope that if I have children, and that is the world they become adults in, that they will be among those who won't bend, who say "no".

"Anyway, the bomber would run into the Jews, pretend to blow himself up, and then the little girls waiting on the other side of the street would begin their trilling screaming, clapping and smiling, and would wave the bomber over to them, covering him with hugs when he arrived. This is what so upset my child. How would you have responded to seeing this?"

I don't know. I know I would have been horrified, and wanted to do something, but I don't know what I would do. Where was this?

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk at September 30, 2006 11:19 AM

Bjorn writes, "I don't think much of the supposed Muslim threat to Western civilization."

Well, I do and so do the rest of us at JW and DW. I believe i can say this because I have read the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah. Have you? Based on your comments, I'm willing to bet that you haven't.

I can appreciate your sentiment that not all Muslims are terrorists nor should they be treated as such and you wouldn't want to tar all Mulsims as such. However, I have no qualms about critiquing the theology of Islam. This is where the fight must be directed; not at individual Muslims but at Islamic theology. It is violent, intolerant, prejudicial and racist. We must seek to ban Islam as a form of hate speech. You'll be all over this and probably say I am contradicting myself but I believe every single Muslim offers tacit compliance and approval to all that JW and DW disapprove of. Most Muslims refuse to dirty their hands with blood but have no problem allowing other Muslims to do their dirty work for them. This is a multi-pronged offenseive they have launched upon us for 1400 years. Each Muslim has a role to play. The women breed exponentially yet terrorism is only a flanking move. The major thrust comes from a demographic assault and taking advantage of political correctness. We will win this war not with bullets and bombs but with legislation.

Read and re-read the post of "libbysmom". We had a similar situation in Ontario Canada. A Muslim school boy drew a picture of him murdering Israeli soldiers with his AK-47 and the teacher wrote, "you do good work" They are raised to hate, as per Islamic teachings. I think you may perceive yourself as noble for your unremitting devotion to your ideals but look at it from the Muslim point of view. They see you as weak and contemptible. Tragic.

Posted by: McCain2008 at September 30, 2006 11:25 AM

If Bjorn had children, his attitude would change; I hope. If after having children, he still has these foolish ideas, he has no backbone. As I said much earlier, he needs a vasectomy, but on the other hand he has no balls anyway.

Posted by: skald at September 30, 2006 11:38 AM

Why would I trust these blogs and their communities to teach me about the complexities of a religion with a billion followers that spans 1400 years of history and great parts of the world, when they're unable to understand even a simple blog post that contains views they're not used to reading?

I'll tell you why. Because the blog happens to be led by an expert on the koran, which is the basis for islamic societies and the basis for terrorism. You, on the otherhand, know nothing about the koran, and don't want to learn because your ideology does not allow for non-white, non-westerners to be a threat. If islam had 100 followers on a tiny island, with no history to judge it by, we wouldn't be discussing it. The fact that is has been around for 1350 years and has a billion followers, and is spreading to great parts of the world, does not one whit argue in favor of it, but indeed lets one see it as the monolithic force that it is.

You think you are taking a principled stand, but it is based more upon ignorance than principle. If you don't have the will to read the koran, then at least read some of the books about it, or failing that, at least read the news items here at JW.

Norway is not very islamic yet, so you can afford to be ignorant, surrounded by the beauty that is Norway. Your world looks safe. But look were islam has made inroads, and you will see the beauty gone, peace and security finished.

Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 11:50 AM

Fear...'There is nothing to fear except fear itself'.

There is only one fear, but lots of things can bring it up. Fear is unnecessary baggage that destroys intelligence. The more fear the less intelligence is possible. The ultimate in fear is to be 'scared to death'. The next most potent symptom is to be paralized with fear. Lets say that you were walking in the jungle, you go around a big bush and there on the trail is a huge tiger. He looks at you and licks his lips. You're dinner...You recognise the danger and quickly climb the nearest tree...your safe and the hungry tiger eventually goes away. The question is, what made you climb the tree? Fear or intelligence?
If you had frozen yourself with fear, you would be eaten, but something else was working there. Intelligence took over and you climbed the tree.
Right action was not determined by fear, but by intelligence. Islamic terrorism attempts to destroy intelligence and replace it with paralizing fear.
It wants to eat you up while you stand there frozen in debilitating PC/terrorism inspired fear.
The only thing necessary is to recognise the problem and fix it. It does not require fear or hate. Those only get in the way of right and effective action. You cant stop the tiger by appeasing him with fear. The superior man is fearless.There are no fearless muslims, so there is not one superior man among them. Superior men are in short supply everywhere, especially among the politically powerful. The fight against Islamic terrorism and hegemoney, must be fearless and intelligent. If not, we will lose to people who are more fearful and less intelligent than we are...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 30, 2006 11:54 AM

"Then you're sacrificing the rights of many for a tiny increase of your own expected life span. Is not that the definition of cowardice?

Hell no that is not the definition of cowardice.
"a tiny increase on your own life span" I have a grand son who is two; I espect him to live perhaps eighty more years, hopefully someone will stand up for him and show their strength and not ride a plane with snakes on it. You seem to have a "different" attitude of bravery. Are you so afraid of insulting someone that you will knowingly place yourself in jeopardy?

There is bravery to face physical danger and then there is bravery to face criticism (mental bullets); I suspect you are afraid of criticism and those mental bullets. Misplaced ideas of intellectualism are blueprints for suicide..

Posted by: skald at September 30, 2006 12:03 PM

Bjorn said:
"Do you have any reason to think that these two Arabs behaved in an intimidating manner?"

yes, they did behave in a suspicious manner, I saw them interviewed on TV and they were laughing, especially when the interviewer asked them about the little girl who was crying. She has rights too by the way. I do not have much sympathy for adults who deliberaletly scare children and think it is funny, it is cruel. Even if one had unintentionally scared a child, it is not appropriate to laugh at her crying. They admitted many suspicious acts during that interview and were asked if it had been a 'student prank'. They laughed again at that question.
The majority have a right to life. Bjorn speaks of majority rights, but seems not to include right to life or property of security.
"My point is simply that terrorists are unable to destroy us simply by blowing us and everything we own to bits."

And, so many errors in what Bjorn said but I will only mention one more now - the two men were not Arabs. I guess Bjorn grew up not in a multiracial area so they may all look the same to him, but these two men were of Asian heritage. I'm guessing Bjorn is not really from 'the hood', but he may like to go there for trips, or even move there.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at September 30, 2006 12:15 PM

There are so many little, but important, things wrong with Staerk's piece, that one gets an annoying headache contemplating a refutation.

Just to pick one out of a hat:

"Only with nuclear weapons might terrorists come close to the threat posed to us by cars."

Staerk here ignores the horrifically devastating potential of chemical and biological weapons.

And although Staerk lends a casual tip of the hat to the difference between terrorism and the "threat" of car accidents -- "Terrorism is naturally more frightening than, say, car accidents or natural disasters. Accidents are impersonal and random, terrorism is personal, it is evil" -- everywhere else in his essay, the blending of the two is paramount for his logic.

The point is not merely that terrorism is "personal" (and evil); the point is that, terrorism is planned, plotted, motivated, inspired and directed by human agents with grandiose and fanatical designs & dreams. Car accidents have no entelechy to expand and to target vast swathes of populations based on ideology and hatred. There is no pertinent comparison between car accidents and terrorism. The fact that deaths result from both is an asinine basis upon which to blog about some profound connection.

Furthermore, Staerk ignores the cogently defensible argument that Muslim terrorists have motivations and an inspiration far more grandiose, fanatical and global -- and therefore dangerous -- than any other terrorists of modern times, including the Communist-inspired terrorists.

In sum, Staerk takes a residually interesting and slightly valuable nugget of thought that should remain small and bite-sized, and expands it to unwarranted proportions as a general prescription on how we should all view life and the inevitability of terrorism. As such, it becomes not only worthless, but positively counter-productive. Our energy is, in fact -- contrary to Staerk's ballooned logic -- better spent being anxious and worried and afraid of terrorism, for that (along with the knowledge about what motivates jihadists) will continue to motivate us to devise ways to MI-NI-MIZE (not perfectly ER-A-DI-CATE) the dangers of terrorism.

Posted by: remote_control at September 30, 2006 12:31 PM

August22

"History disagrees. Ideology has killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century. The people that implement such ideology are not crazy or masochists. They are believers of what they think is a greater good.

The Left's political goal, communism, now abandoned in favor of islam, was the hatchet with which it butchered its own people for over 100 years."

You entirely missed the point. Really strange and disturbing distortion of what Pelayo and others have been saying.

Communists killed others to advance their own interests/ideology, just like today's Jihadis. They did not advocate that others or themselves commit suicide for the sake of their ideology. On the contrary.

Such thinking would have been impossible/insane for believers and opportunists who thought they had to be the rulers, thence the ones who enjoy the fruits of power, while the rest had to submit, reform or die. This kind of ideologues are butchers of those who do not submit to their vision of the "greater good," not self-denying suicides. Those would be more in the vein of non-violent Buddhists and such, for whom self-immolation is a powerful act of protest, an act of personal freedom in the face of murderous, enslaving forces. Not an act of surrender, folding up and waiting for the scimitar to saw off your head like this Norwegian blogger advocates.

Again, it's sickening to read ideas like yours and what's-his-name Norwegian blogger.

May Jan Palach's memory live on for ever.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at September 30, 2006 1:03 PM

When two people share the same 'puter, sometimes they forget to sign out. The last two or three comments from Skald were actually from Pelayo.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 30, 2006 1:03 PM

Bjorn Blogger

It's as simple as that:

Better cause a little "civil/personal rights" annoyance at the airport terminal--please don't make it into the melodrama/tragedy you are desperately trying to do--than risk the lives of hundreds.
It's clear to me you've got no idea what you're talking about when you raise the issue of civil rights infringements. You've lived in a society that's never as much hurt one hair of your head, or of the foreigners and Jihadists you are so sympathetic with.

When you can bring us examples of Norwegian/Scandinavian people removed from their homes for as simple a "crime" as an anti-establishment, anti-Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot joke (remember the Mohammed cartoons????), removed, I say, in the middle of the night, sent to labor camps/the Gulag, most never to be seen again,
then I dare you to blog again, useful idiot, as Lenin called your kind.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at September 30, 2006 1:29 PM

Bjorn,

In posting on the internet, there is always the possibility of having what you write yanked out of context and misinterpreted/flamed. On the Internet I sometimes write what I hold dear and sometimes I throw out crazy ideas. Either way, my purpose is to get people to think and to respond. Sometimes the response confronts what I believe and then causes me to rethink.

The small part of your article posted above, taken by itself and out of context is foolish and unwise. I did not give it any serious response because I felt it deserved none. The internet is a great place for throwing out hateful, immoderate, rude, stupid, unthinking comments. Your whole article and your comments above are a bit more balanced than the short quote by Robert at the top, though I still have some issues with them:

I agree: All life has risk. Should we have paranoia fits whenever we see a potential threat? No. Everyone has to choose which risks he or she is willing to live with and which risks need to be eliminated. If I were on a plane with some menancing looking Arab men, would I have them thrown off? Probably not—not unless they did something obviously wrong like trying to set their shoe on fire. Would I mind my own business? No-probably not. While looking like I was enjoying the flight minding my own business, I would be aware of whatever they are doing and planning what I will do if they do something. Why focus on just them? This group of people have shown themselves to be a greater than normal threat to me. I would not instigate a confrontation-disturbing a flight involves prison. A confrontation, proven unfounded, would only give terrorists news that they can use for their propaganda. That said, I would rather give an hysterical false alarm and suffer embarrasment than to allow danger to go unchecked until people are hurt.

Evil-looking Arabic-looking men have a right to fly on airplanes and ride the bus without undue harassment as long as they behave properly. Should I create fear or mistrust while riding, I expect myself to be thrown off and arrested. I hold others to the same standard. Should we scrutinize young Arabic-looking men more? Yes—you should put your assets where the greatest danger lies. Will young Arabic-looking terrorists realize this and try to recruit elderly, British-looking grandmothers? Probably, but at a great deal more time and effort on their part. We may not be able to stop the threat, but we can limit it. And we should not ignore the possibility that non-Arab elderly grandmothers can be a threat too—we should not allow preconceptions to blind us to other possibilities. Should we go to the trouble and expense of actually ensuring that there is no possibility of terrorism on any flight? That would be an absurd waste of money and effort. With few exceptions, most security measures are aimed at making threats difficult, not impossible. Prohibiting fingernail files and knitting needles is mostly useless. Anything can be used as a weapon—what will we eliminate next? Laws and prohibitions will not protect anyone in an isolated environment at 10,000 meters. Knowing that many people riding in planes are determined not to allow hijackers free reign regardless of personal cost will keep people from hijacking planes. How many planes have any of you heard of being hijacked since 9/11?

You comment in your article that Muslims are not the first and will not be the last to use terror. If the Western world was only confronting anarchists, Irish IRA, Basques, anti-federalist rednecks in the US, I would agree with you-ignore them. The Islamic terrorists present a problem that is far greater and deserves a different response. With Islam, we are confronted with an enemy that has over 1200+ years been intolerant and closed, taken over large portions of the world by force, enslaved whole peoples, and destroyed much of those conquered peoples' art and culture. I don't think we are in an insignificant fight with a few testoterone-poisoned Arab youths, I think we are in a clash of civilizations. Both the Islamic terrorists and the 'moderate Muslims' intent on dialogue with the West have the same goal-our subjection.

Legislation is a popular strategy, well in keeping with our political culture: If Something Bad happens, pass a law. Don't think, don't ask if it will work, don't ask what it will cost, just write it, pass it, and sign it. In fact, the more expensive it is and the more it hurts, the more it feels like we're doing something.

I don't want a police state or knee-jerk laws anymore than you do-but sitting back and waiting for the right response to present itself is no solution either. Sometimes it is better to try a messy, unkempt solution fraught with problems than wait for an illusive perfect solution to come along. The West is law-crazy. Anything that happens, someone wants to create a law to limit, define, promote or prohibit it. The West used to have just a few laws and some unwritten common laws. Judges were expected to decide matters that came up that were not defined by law. Bad judges, corrupt judges were expected to be thrown out. These judgments usually did not create precedents-each case was decided on its own merit. The West has had many silly laws and reactions in response to communism. While communism is still in the world, the larger threat it posed seems to have been largely eliminated.

In the comments above, I say I want to see Islam eradicated in my lifetime. I do. Is there much chance of this happening? No. Does this mean I would nuke Mecca? No. Does it mean we start wars that have little chance of changing the status quo in the Islamic world? No. Does it mean we point out the irrationality of rioting and passing parliamentary resolutions on cartoons and historical quotes? Yes.

In Europe 2000 years ago our ancestors had human sacrifices, were headhunters and occasionally practiced forms of cannibalism. Over many years and with the personal sacrifice of many people they were civilized by example, by war and by word. I hope that one day the same will happen to the Islamic world.

While reading the Quran, Hadith, Sirat and such to familiarize myself with Islamic thought, I understand that many Muslims have little grasp of what their religion is about. How many Westerners, traditionally Christian, have a detailed understanding of Christianity? Most know about Jonah and the whale, Noah and the flood and about Christ and the crucifixion, but are unable to place these stories in context. Many Muslims in the West are sick of the sharia laws in their homelands and have come to the West to be free of them. I have a Kuwaiti friend that I used to go drinking with before he returned to Kuwait. He thought many of those laws were ridiculous. I met an Iranian that spat every time he mentioned the Ayottolah and hates what Iran has become. I have no animosity against Arabs or Muslims—I think most of them are victims of Islam too. I have animosity against a religion/political power that wishes to destroy my religion, my culture, and make me into a puppet or kill me. I dislike a philosophy that refuses to confront possible flaws it has and condemns those who wish to discuss them.

Where I work I see Muslims daily. I don't treat them any different than I do anyone else—at least outwardly. I do watch to see if they do anything strange or threatening.

I think one of the best things the West could do is create much stronger immigration policies that work to keep out Western-hating immigrants and allows entrance to those who wish to try to integrate. Will such policies have problems and be unfair to some? Sure. Any such law has problems. But anarchy is worse. Limiting entrance to those who wish to destroy us will aid those entering who wish to join us—they won't be confused for terrorists.

Why would I trust these blogs and their communities to teach me about the complexities of a religion with a billion followers that spans 1400 years of history and great parts of the world, when they're unable to understand even a simple blog post that contains views they're not used to reading?

Like any blog, there are all kinds of readers. Some people won't think about anything. Some people will hurl out baseless accusations and accuse you of opinions you do not hold. Some people will ponder what you say even if they disagree and try to either seriously confront what you say and change your mind or they will change their own mind.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at September 30, 2006 3:11 PM

Ovidius, you keep missing my point, which I explained quite clearly more than once. But since you, at least, still don't get it, I shall repeat myself. Don't make me draw pictures. I only have a keyboard.

The point being that Leftists do institute ideologies that are destructive to their own people for sake of being true to an idea. Just as Bjorn is willing to do.

Communists, killed their own people, in the millions, in their own revolutions. That is my point. We shall not let Leftists do that here. Bjorn, with his stated intent of remaining true to an ideology of putting political correctness ahead of security, rather than fight to preserve our culture, would sentence millions of us to death. All for an idea.

Remember, his stated willingness to die himself is not his main point. His point is that we should all sacrifice our collective safety, and ourselves if need be, to remain true to this multicultural ethos. And it is the Left that gave us multiculturalism and the PC mentality that safeguards it. Just as it is the Left that gave us communism.

Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 4:17 PM

As far as this theory goes, and in the USA as a base, the answer is quite simple.

Islam is not compatable with our laws, and way of life.

You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole ,thinking that if you keep at it long enough an it will work and fit. The laws that are the base the U.S. ways and life, will never be equal to the laws of islam. It is one ,or the other. A battle is brewing between them, and only one will survive here. It is all people free on the plane, or all who follow islam, they will not mix.

You are trying to fashion a argument with both togeather, it fails on the surface of your theory.

It is about those who follow islam, tring to mix with free people. Can this REALLY be done?

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 30, 2006 4:53 PM

Geoff: "Is it more or less brave to flout political correctness and risk arrest or violence than to passively sit by with internalized fear and hope that nothing untoward happens?"

Bjorn: "Sorry, I won't let you rephrase your way out of my question. And this goes for anyone here who wants to tell me how foolish and cowardly I am. I want to know how you would behave if you saw two Arabs on your plane who struck you as "suspicious"-looking. Would you get them thrown off, thus (assuming everyone acts like you do) making it impossible for a large number of Arabs to ever travel by airplane, or would you let the plane take off without complaint, thus exposing yourself to a tiny risk of death? Which is morally right? Which is more brave? Forget what you think you can tell me about my depraved p.c. cowardice, just tell me what you would do."

Let me rephrase my question? My, aren't I being complemented?

Let me illustrate something for you: "Which is morally right? Which is more brave?" This, mon ami, was your exact question, which I have politely answered.

As to what I would do: I would ask the authorites to investigate. Are not "suspicious" men worthy of investigation? Should we not ask questions? Should we not use caution? Are we not to be concerned?

You have, in effect, answered your own question. The preference for taking chances with our personal and group safety on the basis of politeness to investigating our suspicions amounts to little more than a long-term suicide play.

And would my concern really "make it impossible for a large number of Arabs to travel by plane"? Are all Arabs suspicious looking? Are all muslims Arab? Are all Arabs muslim? How can we tell the maniacal from the moderate, until their jackets are opened?

You may call it overreaction if you wish: that is your perogative as a citizen of a free society. But a little more reaction and a little more courage would have saved 3000 lives about five years ago; more of the same saved those of ontold thousands mere months ago.

How, precisely, do you support your position that we should simply lie down and hope for the best? From where do you derive the basis for it? It does not appear to be supported by the recent facts.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at September 30, 2006 5:34 PM

August 22: well put indeed.

Posted by: Geoff at September 30, 2006 5:35 PM

EnglishBlondie:

They were interviewed, admitted to deliberately acting suspiciously, and laughed at a little girl crying because she was afraid of them? Really?

Such brave warriors Allah requires, who can scare little girls into tears.

But only, it seems, if they outnumber her 2:1.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at September 30, 2006 5:44 PM

Would you get them thrown off, thus (assuming everyone acts like you do) making it impossible for a large number of Arabs to ever travel by airplane, or would you let the plane take off without complaint, thus exposing yourself to a tiny risk of death? Which is morally right? Which is more brave? Forget what you think you can tell me about my depraved p.c. cowardice, just tell me what you would do."

This is a no-brainer. I would throw them off. I don't care if the risk is small. The risk is also small that smoking in a lavatory will cause a fire, but they ban it anyway Why? Because the risk is documented.

The risk of muslims in the air transport system is also documented.

Indeed, remember that in the air transport system, an airline will deny you boarding if they even suspect you are intoxicated. Why? Because intoxicated people have caused problems onboard flights. They have never crashed a plane, but they have caused problems.

Muslims have not only caused problems, but they have crashed planes. So in keeping with that level of prevention, anyone who is even suspected of being a muslim should be barred from boarding.

The only problem is that smokers and drunks are not special interest groups. Muslims are. THAT is the only difference. And because of that, we are asked to make concessions on safety that would otherwise never be made with any other form of threat, proving that political correctness trumps safety, just as Bjorn suggests is proper.

Should we inconvenience an entire religion for security? I can see no better reason, and no better cause. Because terrorism is so widespread among islamic males of a certain age group, because it is a documented phenomenom, and because it is virtually impossible to tell a terrorist from a non-terrorist, the only rational thing to do is to ban all muslims from western aircraft.

And we should feel no pity for the muslims who can not fly our aircraft, for they have brought this on themselves as they have rightly foistered suspicion due to the cultural and political separation they have not made between themselves and their terrorist brothers.

Muslims cry discrimination for being tarred with the same brush as we tar their comrades-in-arms, but when asked to demonstrate their hatred for islamic terrorists, when asked to denounce the fundamentalists for whom they work, when asked to swear loyalty to their adoptive country, when asked to separate themselves from their terror-employing ilk, they have refused.

The reason why muslims have not done any of the above, is due to their ideological sympathy with the cause of terrorists. The terrorists are fighting for islam, all muslims are islamic, they both believe in the same end game, some want to achieve that end through terror, the majority wish to achieve the goal through more clever means. Regardless, that very sympathy with the terrorists is reason to deny them flight privileges as we do not know if that sympathy will be expressed during the flight using terror as the means to express that sympathy.

Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 6:22 PM

"Btw, I would still like an answer to my question. Put yourself in the place of these passengers. What would you do?"

I thought my car-driving analogy would have made my answer clear enough, but maybe I should take my own advice and be more clear.

The point was that generalized statistics are useful but they are not enough. People must make decisions based on the reality and the perceived level of risk in front of them, in situation. In the incident in question, the passengers reacted by refusing to fly until the Muslim (Arab? I'm not sure) passengers were removed. Their decision was in response to the exaggerated provocative actions of the two Muslim passengers, as well as to the fearful reaction of children on the plane.

In that situation, I would react by asking the security personnel to investigate the men. If nothing was done, and if the 2 men in question continued with their antics, I would refuse to fly on the plane and would launch a formal complaint against the airline for not taking appropriate security measures. This has nothing to do with prejudice, because I would have had the same response if there were some drunk and disorderly college kids getting on the plane, even though the risk in that case is probably lower than for the suspiciously-acting Muslims.

I think the passengers on that plane who refused to fly made an important statement: Life is more important than the risk of being accused of racism or political incorrectness (when in fact there is nothing "racist" about the response because it was based on the perceived ideology and specific behaviour of the 2 disruptive Muslim passengers). But it seems to me that many people seem to think that being falsely accused of "racism" is worse than being killed in a situation that could have easily been avoided.

Posted by: Archimedes at September 30, 2006 6:34 PM

Skald, min Norsker Bror, when we Norwegians (including those of us in diaspora--like Minnesota and North Dakota) worshipped the old gods, we were indeed the terror of the world. That was why Olav Trygvesson did the world a great service by offering his Jarls the choice of baptism or the sword.

Also, in the economy of God, Christ's first coming was before Islam arose. Were Christ to return tomorrow and hear the Muslims screaming "Destroy the Cross-worhippers" and numerous blasphemies against the one who said "Before Abraham was, I AM", Jesus would not let himself be crucified anew, but would say, "Depart from me, I never knew you," and the whole horde would find themselves in Hellfire in the blinking of an eye. Indeed, the Scriptures say that it was appointed for Christ to suffer ONCE to deliver us from sin and death; and his return will be to judge the living and the dead. Every knee shall bow, either in gratitude for saving grace or in terror of everlasting damnation.

Further, I can't help but notice that when you get away from the American intermountain region, the Norwegians and their descendants (to say nothing of the Swedes, Danes, Faeroese, and Icelanders) have done a VERY good job of "liberating" themselves from Christianity--like most Europeans. Perhaps that is why all Europe now cringes and whimpers cravenly before a band of savages brandishing nothing but the Qu'ran and their overripe adolescent rage.

Indeed, Heinrich Heine proved prophetic when he said that once the power of the cross is broken in Europe, it will unleash a flood of Teutonic bellicosity, with "Thor, leaping to life, will smash the Gothic cathedrals". Maybe we should've taken the hint when Erich Ludendorff spewed his idiotic neo-Pagansim and gave his blessing to that Austiran Paperhanger. Instead, we bowed before Hairy Karl; and now bow before every Hairy Muhammad, Ali, and Hussein who washes up on our shores.

Skald, those cleverly whittled sticks of wood you call One-eyed Odin, Tor, Baldur, and fair Frygge would serve you better if thrown on the fire to warm you through the Nordic winter. I will stick with the God who is from eternity to eternity, and who sees all rather than going half-blind.

Posted by: Kepha at September 30, 2006 6:38 PM

Hi Geoff,
They did not admit to acting suspiciously on purpose, but they did admit to suspicious behaviour (e.g. wearing heavy clothing in the heat when everyone else was in T shirts and flip flops etc.). I watched the interview on TV and in my opinion they were not terrorists. If you think about it, to act so much like terrorists invites suspicion and would not be a smart tactic for real terrorists since it would increase the chances of being stopped. In my opinion they were a pair of nasty boys who thought it would be funny to set up the passengers to be scared - acting suspiciously to set up people to react. They were sniggering about the little girl crying in fear of her life, which really sickened me. I hate people who scare or harm kids. If I had scared a little girl (and I would only do such a thing unintentionally)I would apologise and apologise again.
The thing is, by setting up the passengers to react (which it looks like was probably the truth of this situation), this pair have probably actually helped terrorists because when it was found that the pair did not have explosives or anything on them then it makes attempts to protect ourselves and our children look bad to some people, and people like Bjorn can call imply that any such measures will be wrong. Obviously the fact that one was a false alarm is not an argument against all reasonable measures, but some people can take it to be so. I know that one of the two Asians has a recent previous conviction for fraud, not that I don't belive in the rehabilitation of offenders, I merely mention this to show that at least one of them has perpetrated fraud before.
It is difficult to know why they did it, maybe they had their eyes on compensation as well, who knows. Maybe they wanted fame? Maybe they enjoy scaring people? It did look to me in the TV interview as though they really thought they were very clever scaring people, nasty sniggering, really nasty and smug. Maybe they wanted to inhibit actions in the future?
I just hope that this false alarm does not inhibit people reporting suspicious activity or acting to protect themselves or others.

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at September 30, 2006 6:40 PM

"A fad or heresy is the exaltation of something which even if true, is secondary or temporary in its nature against those things which are essential and eternal, those things which always prove themselves true in the long run. In short, it is the setting up of the mood against the mind."

GK Chesterton

Fad or heresy: Politically correct multiculturalism

Essential and eternal: the value of human life

Posted by: atheling at September 30, 2006 6:44 PM

To August 22

Our efforts to quash Islam like a bug has been grossly hindered by the Left Wing ideology that includes but is not limited to: political correctness, anti-semitism, multiculturalism and concerted efforts to prohibit profiling of Islamists.

To those who direct their anger at the Bush Administration, think again. Bush is NOT a true conservative. Aside from the tax cuts and stance on same sex marriage, he is a liberal twit. He fawns over Islam like it is the greatest gift to America since the Constitution. He brags about progress in Iraq at the tune of $500 Billion. His soldiers are now social workers handing out candy to Muslim kids trying to win their "hearts and minds." Sorry, but their hearts and minds belong to Allah. Do you seriously believe a Muslim kid will choose candy over 72 virgins? Gimme a break. Our soldiers should never enter an Islamic Republic unless it is to kill or capture.

Our politicians and mainstream media are slaves to political correctness. The chief at Reuters had refused to call the 9/11 hijackers terrorists since "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This nonsense from the media and our politicians refusal to call a "spade a spade" (ie: calling a terrorist a Muslim) is placing us directly behind the 8 ball.

Do you think the ACLU is a Conservative movement? They are trying to rip the Christian-Judeo roots right out of ther country. These roots were the beacon of a great nation (most Western nations) but multiculturalism is a cesspool that has contaminated our pristine environment. No we are a toxic soup that is no longer unified. Our vast differences make us weaker, not stronger. The Islamists know this. Our PC elite can not even begin to comprehend this.

To paraphrase a poster from above:

A liberal with a bad idea is just a liberal with a bad idea.
A conservative with a bad idea is a bad and evil person.

Have a conversation with a conservative about immigration and Islam. Then have the same conversation with a liberal. The difference should be obvious and proves the point of August22 and myself. The left is getting us deeper and deeper into this mess. True conservatives will rescue us if they are true conservatives (not slaves to political correctitude) and not Bush-bots.

We need to end immigration from Islamic Republics and end multiculturalsim immediately. This will stop the bleeding. Then we work to end Islam as a religion as it is grossly in violation of our Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and violates the criminal code of Canada's hate crime laws.

Posted by: McCain2008 at September 30, 2006 7:20 PM

McCain, there is no doubt that Bush is deeply involved with islamics. His administration, the US government in general, and the Washington corridor is rife with them. Cast of characters

However, considering that you support McCain in 2008, how do you feel about his bill prohibiting the torture of suspected terrorists? I look at that, his only stand on the biggest issue of our time, and dismiss him as a viable candidate to fight islam.

Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 7:31 PM

August22...

I hate my user name on here. I have been thinking of changing it. It irks me every time i see it. Now i will probably change it since i've been called on it. I don't really support McCain in 2008 but needed a name and was at a loss to pick one. Although, a Conservative in the White House is better than a Demo-rat any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I couldn't give a rats ass about McCain's anti-torture laws. He should work for Amnesty International and not the US govt. He is a decent, honourable man but we need an unapologetically defiant SOB in there. The kind of man Bush dreams of being but isn't even close to becoming.

There was a scenario in a German police station where a captured pedophile bragged that a little boy's life hanged in the balance but he would not tell the police where the boy was. The cops went to their Chief and asked to torture him to extract the intel. The Chief gave them permission in writing. The cops told this pervert what they planned to do to him if he did not comply. The pervert gave the info without ever being touched. Mind you, the kid was already dead but i do agree with torture under most circumstances.

Herein lies a fundamental difference you and I are trying to point out: a Liberal twit (maybe Bjorn) would likely refuse torture to extract info because it would violate his precious values. Even if it meant the death of a child.

Let's look at the ticking time bomb scenario: We capture an important Muslim terrorist who knows of a nuclear attack pending on American soil. Do we torture him to get the info? Bjorn and his liberal zombie friends would cry foul. I say we hang him from his toe nails until we get all we need. This is the crux of the matter.

Bjorn is trying to be noble. Bjorn will end up dead or dhimmi. Same difference in my opinion.

Posted by: McCain2008 at September 30, 2006 8:06 PM

Bjorn wrote: "it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip."

Pelayo wrote: "That kind of ideology is bound to destroy that society."

Pelayo,

You were refuting August22 and I with the above comment. Doesn't your comment ring true to what is happening in Europe and North America? This leftist ideology IS destroying our society!!!
The leftist self haters hate the Christian Judeo society and are unapologetically waging war against it since the 60's.

They are committing societal suicide for all of us.

As August22 said, we must destroy the Left and remove their massive influence from Universities and mainstream media.

Posted by: McCain2008 at September 30, 2006 8:19 PM

Why would I trust these blogs and their communities to teach me about the complexities of a religion with a billion followers that spans 1400 years of history andgreat partsof the world,

Where exactly would that be?

This is a statement from a muslim leader here in the USA -

Omar Ahmad (Click Photo)

Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies.
A Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

You tell me if we should worry about their intentions.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 30, 2006 10:01 PM

True leftist America haters like Noam Chomsky might feel that way, but not for the same reason as Bjorn. I do not know of many leftists who lack self-preservation to the point that he or she would act like Bjorn when faced with a potentially dangerous situation. As I said before " ... if this is ideology, it is twisted beyond the fringe."

Posted by: Pelayo at September 30, 2006 10:07 PM

I doubt that Bjorn would actually board a flight suspecting he might die. This is just hyperbole on his part, to make a point about the sanctity of political correctness. But I don't doubt that he would like the West to take that leap of faith to pay hommage to this perverted ideal. He wouldn't sacrifice himself, but he would sacrifice the rest of us.

Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 10:56 PM

I said:

"Anyway, the bomber would run into the Jews, pretend to blow himself up, and then the little girls waiting on the other side of the street would begin their trilling screaming, clapping and smiling, and would wave the bomber over to them, covering him with hugs when he arrived. This is what so upset my child. How would you have responded to seeing this?"

Mr. Staerk answered:

"I don't know. I know I would have been horrified, and wanted to do something, but I don't know what I would do. Where was this?"

Mr. Staerk, this was in southern Ontario, right accross the river from Detroit, and only a few miles from Dearborn, the largest Muslim city in the U.S. In other words, in an area where Muslims are close to outnumbering the rest of us.

You remarked that you would have wanted to do something. I'm still interested in what that might be. McCain 2008 knows that due to the hate crime laws in Canada, I couldn't write an editorial in the local paper without fear of being charged with hate speech. I couldn't call the police, since they have proven to be completely unsympathetic. So, I sat with my son, and when I got home, I began looking at real estate ads. Of course, that's no long-term solution, either. Especially when the majority are more concerned about making Muslims feel bad than about protecting our civilization - and yes, it's really about that - there isn't any safe place to run, at least not for long.

I've reread your essay a couple of times now, and I could have written what you wrote three years ago. I almost agree with one of your points:

"But it is bad for us when terrorism makes us do this. Islamist terrorists will never succeed at whatever it is they're aiming for, but they often make us do foolish things. The fear makes us stupid. It makes us want to throw out centuries of experience with democracy and rule of law, it makes us consider identity cards and massive surveillance, it makes us treat all Muslim immigrants as suspects, it makes us take hasty and clumsy decisions in foreign policy, and give massive powers to the state, and bog our airports down with pointless security measures.

For a time after 9/11, I really believed the rhetoric, the 'don't let them make us become like them' lie. And it is a Great Lie, after all, because fighting for one's life is never about being PC, and defending one's children is not weak and not cowardly. Instead, I insist that those like Mr. Spencer, Hugh and others here at JW, who lead the fight against Islam at great personal expense are really the only ones who are brave. If there is to be a world in which democracy is valued and children cannot be threatened by thugs on airplanes (dang - where is Samuel L. Jackson when you need him?) then it will be the people here, the ones whom you accuse of being incapable of entertaining an idea foreign to their mindset. In fact, it is you who are doing that very thing. Although it is changing, currently it is far easier to agree with the "Islam is the religion of peace' crowd. Saying so doesn't get you excluded from the best parties. However, speaking the truth, while unpopular, just might get us all out of the horrible mess into which we've been tossed.

Posted by: libbysmom at September 30, 2006 11:02 PM

Why don't we all lay down and die. And yes, why don't we march single file into the nearest prison, and wait for the Jihadists to take over. The man is an idiot, and only proves Spencers argument, rather than proving it wrong.

The man sounds defeated.

Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at October 1, 2006 12:03 AM

let's just ignore Bjorn and he might go away, his writing gave me a headache and he doesn't even know the difference between an Asian and an Arab, and snobbing over little girls who get scared by people pretending to be about to kill them is not on. What was his sneering little phrase 'scared headless chickens' or something? I guess he'd think I'm gripped by fear cause I lock my front door - 'hey man, you can't stop all burglary, learn to live with it or I'll call you chicken'. Sensible precautions are sensible.His one point that being scared is a bad thing, well who'd have figured that? But of what relevance is it to say that? does that therefore mean do nothing? It is not worth writing any more about his nonsense.
Anyway, I have a tiny bit of good news, Danish exports to USA are up!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1884506,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
Rose makes a persuasive case that the paper did the right thing. It has still not apologised - and does not intend to, he said. In an article in the New York Times Rose argues that Europe's left is deceiving itself about immigration, integration and Islamic radicalism in the same way "young hippies" like him fooled themselves about Marxism and communism 30 years ago. "It's part of the Enlightenment tradition in the history of Europe and western civilisation to mock religious symbols. I think the debate we started was fruitful. We live in a state where there are basic democratic and constitutional values. And then you have immigrants with other value systems. How far do you go in accommodating these newcomers? What is a deal-breaker? The question of integration and assimilation is the number one issue facing Europe over the next decade."
While Danish milk products were dumped in the Middle East, fervent rightwing Americans started buying Bang & Olufsen stereos and Lego. In the first quarter of this year Denmark's exports to the US soared 17%. The British writer Christopher Hitchens organised a buy-Danish campaign. Among the thousands of emails sent to Rose was one from an American soldier serving in Iraq. "He told me he was sitting in Iraq, watching a game of football and drinking a can of Carlsberg," Rose said.
Rose is not the only person to have prospered from the crisis. Re-elected last year, Mr Rasmussen last week became Denmark's longest-serving Liberal prime minister. Danish troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than this, his sceptical line on immigration appears to have been vindicated as other EU countries follow suit.
Right turn
Denmark has now drifted to the right - as has neighbouring Sweden, which last week booted out its Social Democrat government. The chill hand of pragmatism has even arrived in Christiania,

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at October 1, 2006 12:05 AM

" ... there isn't any safe place to run, at least not for long." by libbysmom

Well, you might try the following states in the US: Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia (away from Atlanta), Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Kentucky, Both Carolinas, and there are a few others.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 1, 2006 12:36 AM

Map of terrorist cells in the USA

http://www.esuhistoryprof.com/islamic_terrorist_cells.htm

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 1, 2006 2:01 AM

Another:
http://standeyo.com/News_Files/NBC/Terrorist_cells.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 1, 2006 2:04 AM

Read Steven Emerson's statement about the threat they pose to the US
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6453/emerson.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 1, 2006 2:11 AM

I hope this sad excuse for a human doesn't breed.

Posted by: stdp1 at October 1, 2006 6:43 AM

americaningermany said

Well, let's hope for libbysmom that she's not a Gringo, otherwise she'll be threatened by the America-hating, White-hating Mexicans. "

My mama's people were all from east Texas, and Alabama and Mississippi before that. And somehow, none of us seem to have any trouble getting along with my brother's Mexican wife and her huge extended family, and his Mexican neighbours and soldiers under him where he's stationed, in Arizona. Comments like that don't help the cause of this site. In my opinion, anyway.

Posted by: libbysmom at October 1, 2006 9:10 AM

Oh, and carolyn2, that map is a great resource! Thanks for posting it.

Posted by: libbysmom at October 1, 2006 9:13 AM

>> My point is simply that terrorists are unable to destroy us simply by blowing us and everything we own to bits. Stupid behavior on our part is also required. So if we don't act like idiots, the terrorists can't win. This is why fear is the only major weapon they have.

Posted by: Josephine at October 1, 2006 10:19 AM

[Sorry for the previous partial posting: I don't know what I did wrong.]

Bjorn,

Perhaps one main difficulty in this discussion is that you view Islam one way and many of the people who are posting here view it another way. If we don’t agree that Islam threatens Western civilization and democracy, then our discussion is stopped before it can get started.

I view Islam (the combined religion and political ideology) the way I view Nazism. I view moderate Muslims the way I view moderate Nazis.

Lots of Nazi supporters, whether or not they were members of any official Nazi party organizations, were seemingly ordinary folk: hardworking men, decent housewives and delightful children.

They might not have beaten or killed anyone but what did most people do as their elected government terrorized, victimized and murdered people? Nothing. No, worse than nothing. What did most ordinary folk do when the businesses and homes of "disappeared" Jews became available for good, decent, non-enemies of the state? Nazi supporters benefited from the actions of their elected representatives: they accepted the bounty and either turned a blind eye or didn’t care about how it was obtained.

To me, Muslim terrorist = Nazi + Kamikaze to the power of 10, because today’s weapons are more lethal, Muslim terrorists are eager to commit suicide for their cause (so we can’t see them coming, marching down the street in their uniforms) and because they do live among us.

I think that many people feel threatened by Islam and it is not an unrealistic fear or a phobia.

I also think it is a huge mistake not to listen to our instincts. Our instincts are there for a reason: our survival. Isn’t that what we are taught in self-defense classes? "Listen to your instincts."

You state that, "terrorists are unable to destroy us simply by blowing us and everything we own to bits". I guess it depends on how you define "us" and "terrorism". We go back to our basic definition of Islam and whether or not it threatens our way of life.

From what I’ve read, I believe that followers of Mohammed are determined to live in North America under Sharia law, whether through lawful means, outright bombings or general anarchy (and possibly a combination of these).

If our history books, textbooks and literature are secular and sinful, wouldn’t they be destroyed?

If our media didn’t follow the Muslim party line, wouldn’t they be muzzled (as is happening in other countries right now)?

Our political process, personal freedoms and popular culture would surely be eradicated.

And without a recorded history, what would happen to our identity after two or three generations? Our past would be obliterated, history rewritten.

If terrorists / Muslims / Muslim terrorist sympathizers use a nuclear bomb to "blow us and everything we own to bits", then I’d say that, yes, indeed, they will have succeeded in destroying us.

If they do it more slowly, but eventually eradicate our culture and our history, then, yes, they will have succeeded in destroying us.

You wrote, "Stupid behavior on our part is also required. So if we don't act like idiots, the terrorists can't win."

Tell me how the stupid behaviour of Jewish people in Europe allowed the Nazis to win. Tell me how they acted like idiots and allowed the Nazi terrorists to win.

(Although technically the Nazis didn’t "win" the ultimate battle, they succeeded in killing millions and that’s some kind of success by their standards.)

Many Jewish citizens of various countries followed the rules, obeyed the laws and hoped that by being quiet, the Nazis might be satisfied and stop their persecution. It didn’t work, though. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was war: the brutal deaths of their sons and fathers on the battlefield, the bombing of their own homes and families.

To me, Islam = religion + ideology of hatred and world domination = Nazism + Kamikaze.

And yet, I would be happy if we could continue to "live and let live". If Muslims hadn’t threatened to destroy the state of Israel, and if they weren’t continually attacking Israel, and instead just ruled some other countries in the middle east, I’d probably sleep easily, because I’ve been taught that a religious war in other countries is none of my business.
And if Muslims hadn’t attacked the United States of America, and if our governments weren’t kept busy thwarting future attacks on the U.S. and Canada, it wouldn’t concern me too much. I live in a large, multicultural city in which I, as a white Christian, am a visible and statistical minority; but so what, if we all agree to get along and act like Canadians?

You wrote, "this is why fear is the only major weapon they have."

I disagree. Most of us are not afraid of someone because of skin colour, religion or ethnicity: we’re generally more civilized than that.

We feel threatened because we are being threatened, and attacked, with real weapons and real tyranny.

Since we cannot identify a Muslim friend from a Muslim foe by appearance alone, we have to rely on our instincts, as well as our intellect.

Muslim organizations have real weapons, real nuclear bombs, real kamikaze bombers, real fundamentalists who support terrorists in theory and in deed. They wield real blades that cut off the heads of non-Muslims or force conversions to Islam. They kill their daughters for being raped (whether by relatives, friends or strangers). They mutilate their daughters’ genitals. They teach their children to hate from birth. They want the entire world to be run their way and are happy to kill anyone who disagrees with them.

Tell me how Daniel Pearl’s stupidity and idiocy allowed Muslim terrorists to saw off his head using nothing but the weapon of fear. And then let me read you an article about the alleged terrorists who plotted to behead our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

I think we would all benefit from reading about the way the Nazis stripped Jewish citizens of their rights and keep that in mind as we read about yet another person who has been forced into hiding for exercising his or her legal right to express an opinion out loud in a public forum.

The will to survive is our strongest, most basic instinct. It is hardwired into our systems.

The love of freedom is part of our cultural identity, possibly more for Americans than Canadians (God Bless the U.S.A.).

Our ancestors came to these rugged lands amidst great hardship and forged new lives and, with them, a new identity. Many of us are descended from fighters and pioneers. True, we have grown soft as a result of the lives our ancestors, through their sacrifices and struggles, made possible.

The many American movies and books about pioneers and cowboys and the Wild West do not just glorify a distant past: they reinforce a cultural identity. I suspect that the cultural identity of the descendants of pioneers in a dangerous, often hostile land is different from that of a people who never left home and never had to start over again from scratch.

What you are hearing, Bjorn, aside from mere disagreement with your posting, is the rumbling of a populace that is waking up to a new danger that threatens its existence.

Posted by: Josephine at October 1, 2006 3:54 PM

Josephine wrote:

"I view Islam (the combined religion and political ideology) the way I view Nazism. I view moderate Muslims the way I view moderate Nazis.

Lots of Nazi supporters, whether or not they were members of any official Nazi party organizations, were seemingly ordinary folk: hardworking men, decent housewives and delightful children.

They might not have beaten or killed anyone but what did most people do as their elected government terrorized, victimized and murdered people? Nothing. No, worse than nothing. What did most ordinary folk do when the businesses and homes of "disappeared" Jews became available for good, decent, non-enemies of the state? Nazi supporters benefited from the actions of their elected representatives: they accepted the bounty and either turned a blind eye or didn’t care about how it was obtained."

Very well written Josephine. I like your analogy a lot. For some time I have struggled to find an apt identity for the moderate Muslim and now I have it.

Usually, I say that we are better off ignoring the deeds, misdeeds or lack of deeds by Muslims and focus on Islamic Ideology instead of its worshippers but i now feel confident using your analogy. Good job.

Posted by: McCain2008 at October 1, 2006 5:40 PM

I find it interesting that the word "lemming" originates from the Norwegian "laemingi".

Posted by: atheling at October 1, 2006 6:09 PM

McCain2008,

Thank you.

Some time ago, I started to read the book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust", by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, but I had to put it down because it was so depressing. I'm going to start it again as soon as I finish Irshad Manji's book.

Posted by: Josephine at October 1, 2006 6:13 PM

The meek shall inherit the earth. (If the rest of you don't mind.)

Posted by: MP at October 2, 2006 11:42 AM

Well, with statements like:

"even if there's a chance that they are terrorists, it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip."

He has finally set his postition as a political/social joke in stone. He actully did those of us who prefer common sense to political correctness a huge favor.

To ask us to "risk suicide" is insane... nothing can erase that now.

Posted by: meredith at October 2, 2006 1:03 PM

The meek shall -- future tense -- inherit the Earth. In the meantime, in the present tense, we need to stay tense, and keep our guns locked and loaded.

Posted by: remote_control at October 2, 2006 1:14 PM

If Islamists are untrusted... is it not up to them to become trustable...

Untill Islamic society stops rioting and killing and terrorizing it will be deeply resented by all others.

No one but the muslims can change this.

They have every oppurtunity to change... they are free to intergrate with Modernity... be it beer and bikinis, becoming an Athiest or a Jew or a Christian.

Western society has offered all this freedom on a plate. It has been up to islam to take this chance we offered, they haven't, won't or can't

What the PC do not understand is there is no more we can or will do.

We are not the ones with suicidal tendencies.

Posted by: meredith at October 2, 2006 1:26 PM

The Downfall of the Netherlands, Land of the Niave Fools -( Could just as easily be Norway )

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/heroes/downfall.htm

And this - Muslims Are From Another Solar System.
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Borg at October 5, 2006 11:18 AM