What a load of crap this report is. So then, moderates on both sides are being squeezed out by further isolation, hindered integration, and growing intolerance.

This is patent doggerel, if doggerel can be patent. Islam is all of those things: further isolated, resistant to integration, and wholly intolerant.

So that's your problem, Moslem. And if you don't like it, let the socialists running the UK buy you a first class ticket to Aden so you can realize your dream.

Victimhood is what Moslems do. That started in the months after that bug crawled out from the cave in Mt. Hirat in 610 AD. Always victims.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 24, 2006 1:15 AM

They worry about an honest debate while Coptic christians are slaughtered and oppressed in Egypt. Yeah the European muslims have a lot to worry about.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 24, 2006 2:04 AM

"Ali Kizilkaya, head of Germany's Muslim Council, said Muslims were now seen "as a kind of security problem"."

Yep. Kinda like drunk drivers. They used to be tolerated.

Now, they're not.

Posted by: PRCS at October 24, 2006 2:20 AM

And still they persist in the constant victim stance. No self-examination. No calls for reform. No plans to change how they have been behaving and letting islamists behave.

Posted by: Lili at October 24, 2006 3:16 AM

We shouldn't be expecting the vast majority of Muslims to behave like rational human beings, just because a small minority of them might, and just because an eensy-weensy minority seem to. Such an expectation if pursued sincerely by us (rather than as a calculated ploy on our part to reveal Muslim pathology) will not only be a waste of time, but could also open us to dangers.

Posted by: remote_control at October 24, 2006 3:41 AM

Of course, how can a Muslim, who is perfect by the virtue of being a Muslim, discuss his perfect religion with an infidel dog?
He has no right questioning the perfect religion. What an affront even to mention it.
How dare you! Know your place, infidel!

/sarc off.

Posted by: pr126 at October 24, 2006 3:47 AM

Victimhood is what Moslems do. That started in the months after that bug crawled out from the cave in Mt. Hirat in 610 AD. Always victims.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 24, 2006 01:15 AM

.. that is because muslims get away with it since 610 AD. Islamic terror is Islamic responsibility and non-muslims are the real victims. Anything else is a Islamic-taqiyya.

Posted by: Alert at October 24, 2006 3:49 AM

Victimhood is what Moslems do. That started in the months after that bug crawled out from the cave in Mt. Hirat in 610 AD. Always victims.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 24, 2006 01:15 AM

.. that is because muslims get away with it since 610 AD. Islamic terror is Islamic responsibility and non-muslims are the real victims. Anything else is a Islamic-taqiyya.

Posted by: Alert at October 24, 2006 3:49 AM

How can you expect anything else from a people who lionise the murdering, lying, thieving rapist Muhammad. He taught his people well how to adapt and overcome every obstacle.

The pity of it all is that they can only get away with it because of western kindness as if Europe were a totalitarian state they would be kissing its backside.

It is rather the same as the late 20th century western attitude towards criminals which said that most criminals were victims of society and that with TLC, treatment and the right opportunities all could contribute to the state.

This brave if very stupid little hypothesis totally ignored the ethical factor and the fact that some people are just born bad, period and was responsible for putting so many recalcitrant criminals back onto their feeding grounds that it was a very hushed up disaster in most western countries.

The reason why trhe US has faired so well cf Euriope is because it rarely treats criminals as other than criminals and even though I am against such, I see the death panalty here as a deterrent factor.

So, by comparison ALL these whingeing muslims are doing is comparing themselves to said criminals and if they do beelove in Muhammad that is absolutely correct and they should be deported immediately.

Thie is one group to whom the state should show an IRON fist and ONLY that and bugger even the velvet glove. The only other choice is anarchy or Sharia.

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 24, 2006 4:34 AM

Consider this pearl of logic:

""With all the security concerns, people feel they can be more frank," Hussain said. "The reaction from Muslims is to recede further and further into a sense of victimhood.""

"Security concerns" means that the native population don't like being blown up and are taking steps to avoid it, including being "more frank", i.e. criticize Muslims. Who's doing the blowing-up? Muslims. So the reaction of Muslims is to think themselves as "victims". Priceless!

Translate "people can be more frank" as "they're waking up at last".

Posted by: JFGR at October 24, 2006 5:17 AM

I think that it is a good thing that European attitudes are beginning to change. It is my hope that the bleeding heart Pommies will also get their act together and begin to question whether or not these people really are victims, or whether they are assuming victim status, when they are the aggressor.

I am thinking that now is the time to really start the push in showing how the Islamofacists have been taking us for a ride. I have heard very well intentioned people going along with the idea that the Palestinians are "victims" and that they behave that way because they have been oppressed. These well-intentioned people are totally unaware of how the Palestinians have been manipulating us through the complicity of the Press.

The perfect example is the case of the alleged death of Mohammed Al Durah. There was a funeral, but was there a body in the coffin? Did Mohammed Al Durah really die? Or, did he assume a new identity? Most of you are aware of the Pallywood tapes. I think that all of us have a duty to spread the word that this was a staged scene and that if the boy really was killed then it was the Palestinians who killed him.

I have viewed the tapes relating to the incident. I am aghast at the idea that father and son deliberately set themselves up to be killed. The tapes prove that they had the opportunity to leave the scene. The tapes also show that there were other cameramen who were close to them, in fact standing behind them near the barrel. If they had the opportunity to leave when the other people ran off in front of them (but they stayed put) then one has to question why they remained. Did they participate as potential "martyrs" for the cause of blood libel?

We need to get the information out there on the net about what blood libel really means, and how the Al Durahs participated in a libel against Israel with the sole purpose of turning the world against Israel. In particular we need to convince the French that they are wrong in their attitude towards Israel, and that the Palestinians deserve to be held in contempt.

I mention this under this thread because the scene in the year 2000 when it was claimed that Mohammed Al Durah at the age of 13 was killed by an Israel bullet has been used over and over again as justification for the rage that we have been witnessing on an ever increasing scale all over the world. They use the scene as the icon of their contrived victimhood.

As a non-feminist, I am totally against the use of the Niquab, the burkha and every other veil that is used by the Islamic women. It is not appropriate to wear that garb in European society. The people who have come out in opposition to the veil are correct because these women are using the niquab as a way of showing that they are superior to European women. They see us as being sluts because we do not wear that kind of garb. They have no idea that we see it as a form of oppression. That is why it is just so crazy when these stupid females hold up signs saying that they are being oppressed because people want them to show their faces. As a Catholic, I am against this garb on the grounds that they are not using it for religious reasons, but for political reasons. They assume a false sense of hurt when they face opposition.

On the other hand, I do not endorse people doing anything when they see these sluts wearing that stupid garb. They are deliberately attempting to seek attention, and if they are attacked then they are getting the kind of attention that they do not deserve. We should ignore these sluts when we see them on the street. We should pay no attention to them. I should add here that here in Australia I have heard an elderly man complaining that these women are behaving badly towards western men. By this I mean that he was "attacked" by a woman wearing a headscarf in the supermarket. Certainly, he believed that she deliberately pushed her trolley into him. He was powerless to complain because the slut would have made herself into a victim.

That is why we must expose their false victimhood, and continue to blog about how these people are taking the bleeding hearts for a ride. I despair because the lefties are just too dumb for words, and they attack anyone who is willing to expose the Islamofacists.

Posted by: Maggie4Life at October 24, 2006 5:27 AM

I am not a psychiatrist, but it seems to me most sociopathic deviants and anti- social lumpen petty criminals use victimhood to rationalize their despicable behavior.

Posted by: David England at October 24, 2006 6:57 AM

Islamist radicalism, ethnic segregation and clashes of values must be discussed openly, they [i.e. the muslim spokesmen] agreed
...
"With all the security concerns, people feel they can be more frank," Hussain said.

The two remarks side by side seem to suggest, that an opone discussion is ok as long as only the muslims speak.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at October 24, 2006 7:18 AM

"I despair because the lefties are just too dumb for words, and they attack anyone who is willing to expose the Islamofacists."

Not all of them -- see, e.g.

http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=53

Posted by: JFGR at October 24, 2006 7:18 AM

Some questions every immigration officer in western countries should ask of arriving Mohammedan infil-traitors:

Violence: Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and al-Qaida?
Modernity: Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Do Muslims have anything to learn from the West?
Secularism: Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? May Muslims convert to other religions? May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men? Do you accept the laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government? Should the state impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan? When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers' license pictures), which should give way?
Islamic pluralism: Are Sufis and Shi'ites fully legitimate Muslims? Do you see Muslims who disagree with you as having fallen into unbelief? Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice?
Self-criticism: Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the 9/11 suicide hijackings?
Defense against militant Islam: Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)? Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut down, or do you see this a symptom of bias?
Goals in the West: Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?
It is ideal if these questions are posed publicly - in the media or in front of an audience - thereby reducing the scope for dissimulation.

No single reply establishes a militant Islamic disposition (plenty of non-Muslim Europeans believe the Bush administration itself carried out the 9/11 attacks); and pretence is always a possibility, but these questions offer a good start to the vexing issue of separating enemy from friend.

There's more, much more where that came from: Read it all, its worth it!
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/327

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1322

Check out the reaction of the seething Mohammedans and how they report that they "proudly failed the test, like every proper Musselman should..."

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 24, 2006 7:43 AM

JFGR

They may not all be stupid but they are about as as useful as the proverbial 5th wheel and they still have absolutely no idea of who the real enemy is and even less of what to do about it if they did know and certainly less backbone to even countenance doing it once they did.

The very weakness of Clinton and Carter placed us in this mess(and I am no fan of Bush although I had some respect for his father(for throwing up on the Japanese PM's lap)).

Posted by: MisIslamist at October 24, 2006 7:45 AM

The average Muslim apparently is an ostrich, sticking its head in a hole in the ground about what the Jihadists do. They don't want the West to urge them to clean up their own act while they also hope the Jihadists simply leave them alone until they somehow disappear. This is why the West has to fight-had these so called moderates cleaned up Islam years ago maybe the world wouldn't be in the mess it is today. But then again, they're all "victims" of everything and eveyone so we can't expect them to straighten anything out. I guess they just can't help themselves for either being ostriches or savages.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 24, 2006 7:51 AM

Does anyone agree that it was such a pity last night's Channel 4 debate on Muslims and Free Speech in Britain ended so weakly?

Posted by: jaimehuelva at October 24, 2006 7:53 AM

Maggie4life
What a great post! Totally agree!
I have been following that Al Durah stiff a long time,,,and it is sad the ending wasn't a big win for the good guys.

And all the other bits are great also.

Posted by: Gramfan at October 24, 2006 7:55 AM

They're bullies and they're pushing the buttons that they think will work. Crying "victim" has worked in the past. They'll keep using it until it no longer has the desired effect. Of course, coupled with the victim statements are lightly veiled threats of violence if the victimhood isn't believed and catered to.

They say it's insecurity but it's really arrogance.

Posted by: Josephine at October 24, 2006 8:11 AM

"Does anyone agree that it was such a pity last night's Channel 4 debate on Muslims and Free Speech in Britain ended so weakly?"

The fact that it ended weakly was predictable given the make-up of the audience - "carefully selected to represent the ethnic mix of modern Britain". (by whom ?)

I found it incredible that even a small majority disagreed with the main point of the debate, that muslims threaten freedom of speech. Have none of them listened to what is going on in Pakistan, where prosecutions for blasphemy are increasing to the point that even al-beeb is reporting them ?

The most disgusting moment was when an elderly lady in the audience pointed out that as Britain was predominantly a Christian country, the debates surrounding muslim rights etc were somewhat out of proportion to their numbers, only to be greeted with the sound of hisses and tutting from some in the audience.

If this response had come from the muslim part of the audience (somewhat over-represented in my opinion), this would have been bad enough. What sickened me was that it appeared to come predominantly from the non-muslim contingent.

Presumably, this hand-picked audience were selected from the usual self-hating feeble minded liberal bunch of anti-patriotic neer-do-wells who subscribe to rubbish like the guardian.

Posted by: idiotboy at October 24, 2006 8:20 AM

Agreed: I thought that Jon Snow lookedpretty pissed off with the result at the end. He also appeared to look sheepish when he pulled the stunt with the "message from the Director" (?) What would constitute an editorial imperaivem I wonder. 99.999999%

Posted by: jaimehuelva at October 24, 2006 8:28 AM

Just study this from the above article for a moment:
Islamist radicalism, ethnic segregation and clashes of values must be discussed openly, they agreed, but the increasingly polarised debate squeezes out moderates on both sides.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sparked off the British debate this month by saying the full facial veils some Muslim women wear hindered integration. Some Muslim leaders called his remarks offensive and accused him of whipping up Islamophobia.

I would say that the intention of discussion on the non-muslim side is a moderate one. Jack Straw opens the debate on a matter that is not integral to Islam, but is a regional tradition that is being used as a statement of non-integration. So how do you counter? You might argue about where it is found in the Koran that a woman has to wear a veil? No, you produce signs reading "Jack Straw, oppressor of muslim women." This is not a discussion. This is a demand to shut down the debate. It is an admission that there can be no debate about Muslim integration. Well, we all know that here at Dhimmi Watch.

It is the muslim reaction that is causing polarization. Not the debate. They cry Islamaphobia, and the MSM help them into the Victim pigeon hole because the MSM LOVE a victim. From that position, they become unassailable, and more importantly, they become JUSTIFIED when they make thier demands (i.e. Sharia). And the demands are always tinged with a little threat, because they can get away with it. So why not?

The big problem is becoming the disconnect between what the MSM and the Dhimmi Establishment see (the Councils, Police, Social Services - in short Government), and what is blatantly obvious to the rest of us. The Leftist State forgets that it is there by the grace of the people. In the end, the people will decide which laws to disobey or to obey.

Posted by: FREE LEE at October 24, 2006 8:40 AM

"The reaction from Muslims is to recede further and further into a sense of victimhood." a sense of victimhood..."
-- from the Reuters article above

What nonsense we are told by the Reuters reporter, attempting to mold our reaction. And what nonsense any Muslims who, having been permitted by the milliions, and now the tens of millions, to settle deep within the Lands of the Infidels (which most Muslims regard as an undifferentiated mass, characterized mainly by its Infidel character, and the individual nation-state, with its own history, literature, language, mores, political and legal system, does not much matter from what is seen as merely one or another insignificant administrative unit within the Bilad al-kufr), that is deep behind what they are taught to believe are enemy lines, and where they have received every conceivable benefit that the generous welfare states, with their Infidel taxpayers, can offer.

But this is not what they want. They do not want what every other immigrant group -- the Hindus, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Caribbean blacks or Christians from Togo or Nigeria or Ethiiopia want. No, they want, they deserve, they are entitled to more. They deserve to be supported by the Infidels. They have a right to express their contempt for Infidel authorities. They have a right to demand that the local Infidels shut up about Islam altogether unless they wish to praise it effusively, and have a right to demand changes in the political and legal rights that are the most important defining characteristics of the modern advanced Western democracies. They have a right to disrupt schools and refuse to read texts by authors they deem unfriendly to Islam. They have a right to have their way with the Infidel womenh, who dress provocatively and in any case, are merely the "women" of the Infidel enemy, and what fun, from Sydney in Australia to the banlieues of Paris, all the way to Manchester and Leeds, to have a Muslim gang-rape of some "Bridget" or other (fill in whatever generic name is used by Muslim rapists for the Infidel women). They have a right to the property of the Infidels -- as much right as Muhammad did when he raided and looted and killed the inoffensive farmers of the Khaybar Oasis. They have a right to be exempt from any discussion or examination, by Infidels, of the texts of Islam, of the meaning of hundreds of passages in the Qur'an, or thousands of stories in the Hadith. They have a right to silence, thorugh threats, and riots, and threats carried out, anyone they deem has spoken ill of Muhammad. They have a right to try to change the foreign policies of the Infidel nation-states in order that nothing is done elsewhere to prevent the spread of Islam, or to oppose, however minimally, the Lesser Jihad against Israel, or India, or even by Muslims within such countries as Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines. They have a right to work their way through the system, taking every advantage, spreading taqiyya-and-tu-quoque everywhere, to work their way into and through the colleges and universities to insure that the teaching of Islam, and of all subjects related to Islam, are safely in the hands of Muslims -- often paid for directly or indirectly -- by Arab governments and individuals, busy endowing chairs, departments, whole "Centers" of Islamic or Arab Studies -- or if not Muslims, than of non-Muslim collaborators and justifiers of Islam. They have a right, a right, a right.

And if anyone would deny them that right, then that person, that group, that government, has made those Muslims into victims. And you know what "victims" have, don't you?

That's right.

They have a right.

Posted by: Hugh at October 24, 2006 8:58 AM

I have long been aware that the intellectual and academic elites of the Left have subjected us to a number of frankly ruinous policies - the effects from which they are largely insulated by class and socio-economic barriers. Western society has been a guinea pig for their ego-driven paroxysms of philosophising and hypothesising. Nothing like seeing your intellectual idling being taken seriously - it gives them a thrill beyond the worldly. Then their fellow elites pat them on the back and reaffirm their sense of superiority.

Meanwhile, the average man on the street, who lives with Muslims for neighbours, whose kids go to schools alongside Muslim students, who faces the intolerance, threats and aggression inherent to Islam every day, knows the real deal. The comfortable elitist, living in a rich, upper-class suburb, sending his kids to private schools, knows nothing, But that doesn't stop his from quoting his fellow elites (all of whom are in on the deal), citing a few statistics and churning out voluble ideas, "research" and conclusions to further screw up society. It's a monstrous collective masturbation of the ego and it has to stop.

Posted by: Holy Wart at October 24, 2006 9:06 AM

"We recognise that when statements are made about our religion, we get hurt, but we don't express it violently. That's because at the end of the day, we must always believe that the other side is ignorant, who is not familiar with the basic tenets of Islam."
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/237343/1/.html

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 24, 2006 9:11 AM

Interesting how when some Christian nations tried to dominate Europe others banded together to stop them. Nobody waited for the Muslims to clean up what was supposedly a Christian mess. Had Britain, France, Russia, Italy and the US waited for that the Kaiser and his bunch would have won WW1 and God knows what the world would be like today. The Christian world cleaned up its mess;why can't the Muslim world do likewise?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 24, 2006 9:13 AM

I see the British Airways employee persecuted for wearing a Cross has been in new York courtesy of Fox News - I saw her on Sky today.

That is the main issue in Europe.

The issue is how far Christians have been brow-beaten by the Secular Left using the Muslims as a battering ram to destroy Christianity; and how far the Christian churches have cooperated in this political action.

The Left want only to turn things upside down and they have now provoked too many people who are tired of being caught between the business interests exporting jobs and importing cheap labour - after all Europe's immigration was to serve Business interests from the 1950s onwards.............and the Left adopted them as a clientele and the Unions try to collectivise them and generate business for themselves.

The private profit for business through importing cheap labour has become a national disaster both financially and in terms of national identity. Noone would believe Muslims are only 2.7% population in Britain, when every day there is not a single news bulletin or problem that is not involving Muslims/

The word Islam is heard much more in the media here than the word Christianity

Posted by: Voyager at October 24, 2006 9:48 AM

"they [the left] still have absolutely no idea of who the real enemy is ..."

I suggest you read Nick Cohen's blogs a bit more closely. I'm no leftist, but blanket condemnation is a bit unfair. And Cohen's not alone, at least in the UK.

Posted by: JFGR at October 24, 2006 9:57 AM

'Political correctness' is fast becoming the butt of a joke in Europe and America. It's time to shine the light of day on that Muslim dark side, hiding behind the veil. They shouldn't feel 'put-upon' but rather 'open-up'. Time to talk straight about Islam. India, Africa, listen up. 'Victimhood' don't work no more, we got the light on you.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 24, 2006 10:02 AM

I would pose this question to muslims.

According to muslims' statement, when islam is criticized, the moderates side with the extremist.

Therefore why sicilian people DON'T side with MAFIA when MAFIA is widely criticized?

In Italian people emigrating in the US had sided silently with mafia during the 20s/30s/40s/50s during the Al Capone time, I suppose Italians would have had a very terrible backlash.

That's what is happening to muslims, RIGHTLY.

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 24, 2006 10:06 AM

I am not a psychiatrist, but it seems to me most sociopathic deviants and anti- social lumpen petty criminals use victimhood to rationalize their despicable behavior.

Posted by: David England

Mr. England, I think you've gone to the heart of the heart with this statement. I have noticed this as well. It's never their fault.

The whole body of Islam is sociopathic by free world standards. Ali Sina describes the ummah al islamiyya as living in the 'narcissistic bubble universe' that Mohammed created to justify his crimes. I think that's the same thing you're saying.

The creator of the Islamic cult-ure, Mohammed, ordered his followers to use his life and words as uswa hadana ‘a model for all time.’ Allah told followers that Mohammed was al-insan al-kamil ‘the best of men to be emulated by all Muslims.’ If Mohammed practiced his example today he would be in prison sharing a cell with Charles Manson.

By any definition you care to use he was a pedophile, for God’s sake, as well as rapist, a war criminal, a slave trader and a murderer -- just to name of few of his crimes. He was a shaman - a witch doctor who believed in superstitious compulsions.

He saw the Arabs as the ‘best of peoples’ and was as bad as any white Supremacist you care to mention, including Hitler. In fact, Mohammed killed a higher percentage of the Jewish people in his grasp than Hitler did. He was worse than Hitler in killing and on top of it he was a sexual deviant who could get away with it because he 'spoke for allah'. I don't know of any other documented leader of people more depraved and twisted than this.

This is why they [the nation of Islam] on the whole are inverted. They are perverted because they live in a prison of the mind, which has a far more powerful hold on them that any set of iron bars or fettered chains could ever place on them.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 24, 2006 10:10 AM

The whole body of Islam is sociopathic by free world standards

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 24, 2006 10:10 AM

Aint that the truth. While the world's standards have gone up in the last 1400 years, Islam's have not. No wonder they appear so backward. Mo might as well have lived in the Stone Age as far as standards go.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 24, 2006 10:16 AM

I find it a bit of very good news that "moderates" on both sides are feeling the heat. So called moderates on our side rarely take a stand on anything anyway and have been instrumental in directing the debate away from the cold hard facts about Islam. I don't worry about moderates on Islam's side since I think most of them are moderates in name only, secretly supporting the Jihad's aims.

Since the Muslims are starting to lose control of the debate in Europe maybe now we'll see some changes in the way Islam is delat with there. Not a moment too soon, me thinks.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at October 24, 2006 10:24 AM

Semi-related anti-dhimmitude in Michigan:

Woman who won't lift veil loses lawsuit

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Court_Defendant_Veil.html

As an attorney, I believe the judge acted correctly. He only wanted the veil off to be able to judge the credibility of her testimony - on which her entire case rested. The remainder of the time she could have had the veil on.

CAIR of course reacted predctably.

Meanwhile, they're banning the veil in Tunisia, and it's banned in Turkey.

Oh, and the word "row" keeps coming up every time the mohammedans get agitated, but would someone please tell radio and TV journalists that in this sense it rhymes with "cow" not "low."

Posted by: Jan III Sobieski at October 24, 2006 10:39 AM

I see the problem of the Left clearly. As for the flies in the ointment, they may subscribe to a few basic points of Leftist principle at the thin end of the wedge, but I suppose in their sphere where muddled thinking is King, they fail to see the implications. I say that Socialism is not the choice of the clear of thought, and those who are on their way to becoming enlightened would still consider themselves to be of the Left.

a blanket statement about the Left:

Ultimately the Leftist Elite stands for its perpetual empowerment. Everyone else is kept down by a false equality where the lowest common denominator is the bench mark. No one from this strata can improve: competition is outlawed because the succesful are an offense to the rest.

The old order of class where the best rose to the top (and the rest of society benefitted) had to be undone and dismantled once and for all.

Wastage is a policy of oppression, and huge amounts of money are pumped into the public sector only to be haemorrhaged. The people are only under the impression that they are benefitting, but their common wealth is being pissed up the wall to keep the Leftist Elite in power.

Other cultures are imported and promoted above others.
(And for all those who go about this being a ploy of big business, in Britain at least, various people of the Empire only knew the Culture of the Empire. Immigration in itself is different to importation of a different belief system or culture).
The Christian church is pilloried and set against. Old common sense values become thought crime, and expression of them deemed unacceptable. Political Correctness is Control. Values that used to cement society are scrapped. Family is discouraged. The State will intefere in the business of bringing up children. Society is kept in a state of disjointedness, without cohesion, frightened to raise its voice. Under control.

The film "V for Vendetta" imagined that a Conservative off shoot would opress the Liberal Left and Muslims together. How ironic is reality. The Labour nightmare is here.

Posted by: FREE LEE at October 24, 2006 10:49 AM

"European Muslims worry about frank new Islam debate"

Well, sure they're worried. The Infidels of the West are finally educating themselves. And what can Islam do to reform itself? Really nothing.

To give my Islamaphobia a break I sometimes visit websites where moderate reform-minded Muslims post. A Muslim lady named Eteraz (http://eteraz.wordpress.com/) is really knocking herself out to "reform" Islam. In a recent post she was arguing that the crime for adultery should be changed from 100 lashes with a whip to 40 since most women wouldn't survive being whipped 100 times. She did not support stoning because it was not in the Quran but came from the Hadith.

This is called "reforming Islam." Like trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl at October 24, 2006 12:27 PM

Of course Muslims worry about a debate on Islam.
They fear learning what we all know to be true about it-that only a nut would embrace a death loving cult like this and that Mo is one of the most depraved people to ever come up with a world philosophy. Such a discovery would shake these people since they would have to admit that they've been hoodwinked as well as wrong all this time. How would they be able to live with that?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 24, 2006 12:32 PM

"Meanwhile, they're banning the veil in Tunisia, and it's banned in Turkey. "

please let's not forget that the ban is ONLY in state office, if you go to turkey and tunisia countryside you see PLENTY of veiled women.

One of the few retards in italy with burqa is a woman from tunisia

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 24, 2006 12:41 PM

The Arab will defend Islam and Mohammad until the end of time--because it is "The Arab religion" and Mohammad was an Arab. A Jew defends his religion (good, bad or indifferent) because of ethnic identification. The Arab will do the same.

It's a tragedy for the world. How do you explain to the Arab masses that their greatest linguistic treasure, the faith of their ancestors, their ethnic self-esteem, their whole way of life is rotten and evil to the core.

You can't explain it to the Arabs.

Unfortunately, the world waits till the blood of the slaughtered innocents (of Mohammad) screams long enough and loudly enough and then heavenly forces will go to work. It's called Armageddon. Nothing less will rid the world of the accursed creed of Islam.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl at October 24, 2006 1:41 PM

I'm no leftist, but blanket condemnation is a bit unfair.

It is absolutely unfair. There are many good men and women who call themselves Muslims and make a positive contribution to our society.

But in the world where small groups of people with ill intent will soon be able to eliminate population centers, the interests of ‘good’ Muslims become increasingly irrelevant. The issue needs to be considered with a cold, rational heart that gives consideration to the interests of the host country.

If rational thought rules the day, the price of admission to the western world will include the renouncement of the teachings of the Qu’ran. If rational thought loses, the consequences will be far less fair to those good men and women who call themselves Muslims.

Posted by: limes at October 24, 2006 1:58 PM

From the article

but the increasingly polarised debate squeezes out moderates on both sides

"Their" side is following a religious edict from Allah that all infidels must be given the chance to convert, submit to jizya, or die.

"Our" side wants to continue to live, and has bent over backwards, sideways, and every other which way to accomodate their beliefs and practices.

Where is the room for "moderation" in this situation, "on both sides"? If we insist on not being murdered, does that make us "extremists"?

Posted by: special_guest at October 24, 2006 2:06 PM

"I am not a psychiatrist, but it seems to me most sociopathic deviants and anti- social lumpen petty criminals use victimhood to rationalize their despicable behavior."

Posted by: David England
----

Couldn't have said it better myself. This victimhood routine has gotten really tired, and I wonder how much longer it can be used until people get enough of it?

Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 24, 2006 2:09 PM

"Britain's heated debate about Islamic veils reflects a growing frustration with Muslims in Europe that risks further isolating these minorities rather than integrating them"

Talk about missing the forest for the trees! This is like saying that society risked "further isolating" poor misunderstood Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson and Andrei Chikatilo rather than "integrating" them.

Instead, the debate should be about WHY there is a "growing frustration with Muslims in Europe". Let the debate be about the murders, extortion, gang rapes, rioting, terrorism, etc. etc.

Posted by: Provoslavni at October 24, 2006 2:13 PM

Off topic but please check this out, pass along and participate if possible:

the United American Committee will be holding an INTERNATIONAL Rally Against Islamofascism Day (R.A.I.D.) sometime this March with rallies across the nation and around the world. The plan is to hold rallies in front of the radical CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) offices across the U.S. on that day, with effigies of bin Laden being hung at each one and challenges to be issued publicly to CAIR to support a fatwa against bin Laden. A specific date has not been set and more details will be announced officially by the UAC in the coming weeks.

http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org/

Posted by: adobe at October 24, 2006 2:37 PM

Britain's heated debate

Heated ? ! What planet are these people on ? This debate is not a debate and is certainly not heated

There is no debate. It is simply that the very very few women who dress like dead souls should cease to do so - end of story. NO politician or journalist has urged Mrs Azmi to pursue her crackpot case for wearing a face-mask to any form of appeal

Posted by: Voyager at October 24, 2006 3:26 PM

Victor Davis Hanson has a good essay on Islam and the Middle East:

"It is difficult in history to find any civilization that asks as much of others as does the contemporary Middle East—and yet so little of itself."

http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/22/middle_east_madness.php

Posted by: johnb at October 24, 2006 3:33 PM

special guest writes:

"Where is the room for "moderation" in this situation, "on both sides"? If we insist on not being murdered, does that make us 'extremists'?"

How about if we insist on speaking our minds?

Looky here, Islam is founded on denigrating and debasing and cursing Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. Every page of Mein Koran is an insult to the Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. etc. etc.

Howzabout we let Muslims know what we think of Mein Koran and that accursed devil Mohammad, may his name be erased (mhnbe)? Let's talk truthfully and openly like that braggart and bully Mohammed (mhnbe).

They want this attention. Well, let them have it!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl at October 24, 2006 3:34 PM

Why would the Moslem community fear the French becoming more Frank?

Posted by: Chatillon at October 24, 2006 3:43 PM

In fact this non debate is just a time killer until we get onto the main course of ‘fire on the streets’

Then there will be a debate! In the red corner will be the all powerful leftists and Muslims armed with human rights lawyers, and in the blue corner will be the people who can see an invasion for what it is.

No quarter will be given by the left to the idea that Muslim only ghettos are a form of racism while they pursue anybody who fights back into prison.

They have a serious problem though and it is best summed up by perusing the ‘Readers Recommended’ section of the Al – BBCeera’s ‘Have Your Say’.

They can’t put us all in prison.

Posted by: Mert at October 24, 2006 3:46 PM

typical muslim psychology

(1) We will pump oil at $3 and must sell it over $50— and still blame you for stealing our natural treasure

(2) We will damn your culture and politics, but expect our own to immigrate in the thousands to your shores; upon arrival any attempt to integrate Muslim immigrants into Western pluralistic society will be seen as Islamaphobic

(3) Send us your material goods, whether machine tools, I-pods, or antibiotics. We desperately want them, but will neither make the necessary changes in our own statist, authoritarian, religiously intolerant, tribal, and patriarchal culture to allow us to produce them ourselves, nor will show any appreciation for the genius of others who can do what we cannot

(4) We ostensibly wish you to stop the killing of Muslims by ourselves and others—Milosevic murdering Kosovars, Saddam destroying Kuwaitis, Kurds, and Shiites, Russians killing Afghans and Chechnyans—but should you concretely attempt to do so, we will immediately consider your intervention far worse than the mayhem caused by others or ourselves.

(5) Any indigenous failure in the Arab Middle East will eventually be blamed on the United States or Israel

(6) Your own sense of multiculturalism must serve as an apology for our own violent pathologies, that can only be seen as different from, never worse than, your own culture.

(7) We must at all times talk of anti-Americanism and why we want you out of the Middle East; you must never become anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, much less close your borders to our immigrants and students.

(8) We will tolerate and often defend those who burn churches, ethnically cleanse Jews from our cities, behead priests, kill nuns, and shoot infidels as the necessary, if sometimes regrettable, efforts of our more zealous to defend Islam. But if any free spirit in the West satirizes Islam, we will immediately demand that Western governments condemn such blasphemy—or else!

(9) Material aid—billions to Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, or the Palestinians—is our entitlement. Any attempt to curtail it is seen as an assault on the Arab nation

(10) We are deathly afraid of nuclear Russia, China, and India who have little tolerance for either Islamism or terrorism, and so will ignore their felonies, while killing you for your misdemeanors.

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 24, 2006 3:58 PM

"I'm no leftist, but blanket condemnation is a bit unfair.

It is absolutely unfair. There are many good men and women who call themselves Muslims and make a positive contribution to our society. "

I wrote this, but what I meant was that blanket condemnation of "lefties" was unfair, if you read my posting in context.

Posted by: JFGR at October 24, 2006 5:27 PM

No intention to be critical; the words just caused a reaction. And concur with your sentiment. Regards...

Posted by: limes at October 24, 2006 5:48 PM

The average Muslim apparently is an ostrich, sticking its head in a hole in the ground about what the Jihadists do.

I think they sit around quietly rooting for the Jihad terror war activists who are out there acting on their behalf. It's a comfort to know that your team is gonna win, and they know they cuz the opposition refuses even to admit they're engaged in a death match.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 24, 2006 8:21 PM

Reading these comments makes me feel better. At times you feel the world as gone crazy, yet reading these posts and others like on Jihad Watch or The Jawa Report, gives me hope.

Hope along with the arsenal I'm gathering! :)

Posted by: Levi at October 24, 2006 9:29 PM

"It's called Armageddon. Nothing less will rid the world of the accursed creed of Islam."

I agree. However, in the meantime, in history (and only the Father -- not even the Son -- knows when it will end), we have to manage the problem. A global geographical quarantine of the virus of Islam and its human carriers might be the best way to minimize the mayhem and misery Islam causes. It won't be perfect, but it might be the best among our options.

Posted by: remote_control at October 24, 2006 9:29 PM

"Intolerance is growing in Europe," said Dalil Boubakeur, president of France's Muslim Council

What Orwellian deception from Boubakeur.

Europe's increasing rejection of Islamic culture's intolerance does not mean intolerance is growing in Europe. It means Europe's culture of tolerance is finally starting to defend itself. More power to Europe.

Posted by: traeh at October 24, 2006 9:36 PM

Class from JFGR

(

"Consider this pearl of logic:

""With all the security concerns, people feel they can be more frank," Hussain said. "The reaction from Muslims is to recede further and further into a sense of victimhood.""

"Security concerns" means that the native population don't like being blown up and are taking steps to avoid it, including being "more frank", i.e. criticize Muslims. Who's doing the blowing-up? Muslims. So the reaction of Muslims is to think themselves as "victims". Priceless!

Translate "people can be more frank" as "they're waking up at last"."

)

Oh , that's so true . Whenever you read basically anything by muslims , you get the wonderful upside down , inside out , square peg in a round hole , black is white , white is black thinking that passes for logic.

At first the expression of the reader is one of bewilderment followed by laughter.

Posted by: ewha1 at October 24, 2006 9:50 PM

David England said:

I am not a psychiatrist, but it seems to me most sociopathic deviants and anti- social lumpen petty criminals use victimhood to rationalize their despicable behavior.

I don't know if that would apply to Muslim apologists, but it's an interesting parallel. I recently read parts of a book about sociopathic psychology. The author said a couple of things that stood out for me:

1. Sociopaths, manipulators without conscience or compassion, are surprisingly common. Unless my memory is mistaken, the author claimed the number is one in twenty people.

2. The author said that a particularly tell-tale mark of a sociopath is that after he is confronted with something selfish or bad that he has done to victimize someone, he attempts to play on the accuser's capacity for pity and compassion. In other words, the sociopath starts presenting himself as the victim. The sociopath thus tries to enlist the accuser's compassion so that the accuser will soften or drop the accusation and so that the sociopath will be excused for the misdeed or will be able to deny the misdeed. The sociopath thus seeks to evade the confrontation and to maintain, undiscovered, his sociopathic approach to others.

It may be that everyone has engaged in a tad of sociopathic behavior at times, and has a bit of the sociopathic psychology within. But of course that is not the same as being seriously sociopathic, which according to the author applies to about five percent of people.

The sociopath attempts to act the victim and manipulate others' capacity for compassion because, maybe, the sociopath does not know how to interact directly with the compassion of others. Not having yet developed in himself a sense of compassion or emotional honesty, and unable as yet to participate deeply enough in the human world, the sociopath instead can only exploit that world for his own strangely narrow and strangely selfish ends. Exploitation would be felt as better than nothing.

Posted by: traeh at October 24, 2006 10:26 PM

sheik yer'mami - ""Some questions every immigration officer in western countries should ask of arriving Mohammedan infil-traitors:.."

This is where I disagree. The West should accept no more Muslims for any reason. If Muslim countries are unfit to live in, how is that our problem? Why should Western countries continue to accept people who have already caused severe social problems and violence in nearly every country in the world?

Is there some reason why we should allow ourselves to be outbred by Muslim hordes who have no worthwhile contribution to make?

Islam should be declared a polity and banned from the West.

No Muslims=no problems.

Posted by: Deecha at October 24, 2006 10:40 PM

Islamophobia is a good thing.

Posted by: ujaklija at October 24, 2006 10:58 PM

"Islamophobia is a good thing." Posted by: ujaklija

True, but one thing about this "phobia" is that it is NOT irrational or without basis.

"No Muslims=no problems." Posted by: Deecha

AMEN!!!

Posted by: Levi at October 24, 2006 11:39 PM

You can't explain it to the Arabs.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl at October 24, 2006 01:41 PM

What we consider to be the epitome of perversion and depravity is sacred to muslims. That is why they do not belong in Western societies, why they will never assimilate and fit in. They do not want to fit in; they prefer to parade around in their native Halloween costumes with their noses pointed skyward, avoiding all interaction and cameraderie with infidels, their inferiors. They invade our countries, bringing with them their repugnant culture and religion, and shun all but the most essential contact with natives.

Muslims are ostentatious, arrogant, defiant, nonconformist, and demanding, yet they expect their fulsome existence to be accepted with the utmost tolerance and respect. Their attitudes of superiority transcend fatuity; the savage hordes of Arabia and other islam- infected areas have arrived to pollute America with the filth of muhammad. We must avoid direct eye contact with these freaks so they won't feel threatened or intimidated, and despite their pathetic cries for attention--look at me, I'm wearing a mask and a shroud to prove how modest I am---we should pretend they're invisible. After all, they are muslims, the best of people, even in America.

The "Arabs", muslims, are as impervious to Western morality and ideals as our elite, governing class are to the islamic ethos. Our illustrious leaders appear to be incapable of comprehending that the islamic psyche is the product of an alien culture and belief system. They attempt to rationalize every islamic disparity and conflict with Western logic as if Western thought is universal. Therein lies their fatal mistake; they believe that all people are basically the same. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And we cannot afford too much more of their stupidity

Posted by: Susanp at October 25, 2006 12:36 AM

Worried?

I hope they panic and have reason too! I hope they FLEE the West. I hope they are chased out or hunted down.

My tolerance of Islam has ended.

"Tolerance of evil is a crime" - Thomas Mann

Posted by: Levi at October 25, 2006 2:41 AM

Limes,

Thanks -- I didn't express myself very clearly, did I? As I say, I'm no leftie, but when lefties start to wake up, I think we might be getting somewhere. I'm reminded on the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Uprising that 1956 was when the left (or the non-diehard left, at least)lost their faith in communsim. It's a sort of hopeful indicator, no more. I hope I'm not being too optimistic!

Posted by: JFGR at October 25, 2006 5:01 AM

I am intolerant of evil.

Islam is evil.

I am therefore intolerant of Islam.

If that makes me a bigot, then I am proud to be a bigot against Islam.

We should deport them or make them martyrs.

I will discriminate against Islam without repentance.

Posted by: Levi at October 25, 2006 7:24 AM

It is important to understand that we have SOME POWER here. We must BOYCOTT all Muslim stores and businesses. Flea market stalls, and all products that come from Muslim countries. We must buy gas at stations that get their oil from Canada or the United states and only buy goods or services from non Islamic sources. The Power is in our Money.
Since we can not get the stupid government to get rid of these people we must start a revolt. The other thing we need to do is make citizen arrests for Muslim hate crimes and abuse. Report every move they make. Try to get recording devices into their meeting places and prayer rooms have it translated and get them charged with hate crimes. Every time you see a women in a Burga complain to the store that you don’t feel safe and them tell them if they continue to allow abuse of this kind and lack of security for your family that you won’t shop there. Don’t get into their cabs or shop in any store where they are employed. If they try to bring their pamphlets to your school report them for trying to influence your children! Send a letter or fax that states you want to have the right to do that too AND DO IT !! Also if their is a women wearing a full Burga in your area start shopping in a ski mask and let them arrest you and tell them, if they can do it so can we. We have the right to fight this in our own way. Send a link to this video to every minister you know, to the pope, and to any politician that you know and ask him what he is going to do to stop this type of violence from being on the internet. Call the RCMP the FBI and let them know that these people should be charged with hate crimes and also with inciting a riot and with trying to induce people to kill people. TAKE ACTION and TELL ALL YOU FAMILY and YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS start talking about this. We all need to work together to rid ourselves of this horrific ideology.
Maggie

Posted by: Silly at October 25, 2006 8:30 AM

Re: Boycott of Muslim businesses. Are you ready to boycott all the corporations in which Saudis have invested millions? Like Hewlett-Packard and Apple, and many more?

Posted by: remote_control at October 25, 2006 11:46 AM

Are you ready to boycott all the corporations in which Saudis have invested millions? Like Hewlett-Packard and Apple, and many more?

----------------

think about it.

who is the enemy? surely the saudi rich but also the single muslims that want to implement sharia in our lands.

Damaging their businesses is a more important way than damaging the saudis.

After all, the saudis are greedy and won't share their wealth with the ordinary muslims.

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 25, 2006 5:03 PM

The reaction from Muslims is to recede further and further... Well, I hope they recede much further.

I don't think that I am suffering from Islamophobia. Perhaps Islamomachia or Islamadnauseam.

The smoke of the infernal cave,
Which half the Christian world o'er-spread,
Disperse, thou heavenly Light, and save
The souls by that Imposter led,
That Arab thief, as Satan bold,
Who quite destroy'd thy Asian fold.
-Charles Wesley, 1874

Oh We're Not Gonna Take It
We Ain't Gonna Take It
We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
We've Got The Right To Choose And
There Ain't No Way We'll Lose It
This Is Our Life, This Is Our Song
We'll Fight The Powers That Be Just
Don't Pick Our Destiny 'cause
You Don't Know Us, You Don't Belong

Oh You're So Condescending
Your Gall Is Never Ending
We Don't Want Nothin', Not A Thing From You
Your Life Is Trite And Jaded
Boring And Confiscated
If That's Your Best, Your Best Won't Do

We're Right/yeah
We're Free/yeah
We'll Fight/yeah
You'll See/yeah

-Twisted Sister, 1984

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at October 25, 2006 5:49 PM