Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Other threats from within
September 16, 2009 | Posted by Londonstani - 9:51am |
63 Comments
Threats to public safety and national security in the UK come from a variety of sources; and not all of them are Islamic.
We have seen the newly energised extreme right wing of UK politics flex its muscles on the streets of several cities. The last being the planned demonstration in front of a mosque in northwest London. While other extreme political strands like radical Islam make their hostility to mainstream British life clear. The extreme right-wing undermine it while claiming to defend it. This is something the government is seeking to address.
"John Denham, who has replaced Hazel Blears as the communities secretary, will ensure that funding goes to a wider range of organisations and the Prevent programme focuses more explicitly on rightwing racist extremism as well al-Qaida inspired ideology."
There is a tendency to focus so intently on Islamist extremism that "the enemy of my enemy" approach makes people who consider themselves open minded suddenly get up and go share a bench with those who admire Hitler.
"Nick Griffin (the head of the UK's main extreme party) wrote a pamphlet in 1997 called "The Mind-Benders", in which he said of the Holocaust: "The 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda and witch-hysteria."
Griffin usually dismisses these examples by putting them down to excitable youth. Because we've all got embarrassing snippets from our teenage days, so it hardly matters which of us wore crazy kipper ties and which wrote pamphlets denying the Holocaust, and the fact that Griffin wrote that when he was 38 only shows how young and full of life he is.
But around 10 years ago the BNP hit a snag, realising that their approach was holding them back. Maybe they had a focus group, with someone reporting that, "OK, if I can share my feedback, some of the policies, such as distrust of Europe, supporting British farmers, I'm hearing lots of positive energy. But, and don't take this the wrong way, the praising Hitler angle is proving mostly negative, I'm afraid."
So Griffin set about making them appear respectable. They would deny they were fascist, and claim to be an upstanding legitimate party. This creates another problem with them in the media, as their leaders are determined to conceal what I believe is their real mission, which isn't just to campaign in elections but to build a force of street-fighters. After a BNP member was elected in 1993 Griffin said: "The electors of Millwall did not back a post-modernist Rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites', with well directed boots and fists."
Preserving and strengthening the kind of communities and country we want to live in involves guarding against those who seek to undermine both overtly and covertly.
Griffin is a scumbag, a
Griffin is a scumbag, a racist and an anti-semite but lets be honest, the BNP's attraction largely has to do with the fall off in support for Labour from the white working class. The white working class come last in just about everything and they're p*ssed. Just sorting out the ludicrous housing lists would immediately halve the BNP's support.
Of course there are plenty of hardline racists and more than a few attempted white-nationalist terror plots but this is a case where the Govt. could ease the problem very simply with a few basic reforms (Frank Field had a good list). There will always be nutjobs but the rank and file support could easily be cleaved off with some straight thinking. Then the BNP would end up a rump party of skinheads and crazies like the rest of the white-nationalist parties.
MShannon Gee, having grown
MShannon
Gee, having grown up with the KKK in the South during the 50s and 60s, I never knew that they were devotees of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. I must admit they hid it pretty well.
EMN
Well, I see the others have
Well, I see the others have made the same point. Daniel Hannan makes the point at his Telegraph blog (sorry, Londonstani, but what else would expect an 'extreme right wing South Asian American to read :) ) that BNP are statists, essentially! Hey, I'm reading a lot of Hayek these days, it is very clarifying. I am not defending anyone in BNP, just saying far Right doesn't seem the perfect fit as a description.
From the Telegraph blog:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/9612526/New_Statesman_BNP...
"Regular readers will know how annoyed I am about the way the BNP is forever being called “far Right”. The soubriquet is intended to hurt the mainstream Right, by implying that the BNP are somehow like the Conservatives, only more so. When people see the phrase “Right-wing BNP”, it doesn’t make them think worse of the BNP; it makes them think worse of the Right.
Labour supporters often become tetchy when you point this out. So I was interested to read this article in the New Statesman, the unashamed voice of the British Left. The authors take issue with the usual way in which the BNP is labelled:
“A brief skim through BNP manifesto literature brings to light proposals for the following: large increases in state pensions; more money for the NHS; improved worker protection; state ownership of key industries. Under Griffin, the modern-day far right has positioned itself to the left of Labour.” - Daniel Hannan
All the caveats about me being American and getting all of this from an across the Pond perspective that is quite possibly all wrong apply.......
Isn't it interesting how
Isn't it interesting how different the effective tactics against left-wing extremists and right-wing extremists are?
To defeat left-wing extremists, we need to understand the root cause of their extremism, which is typically some injustice that the oppressed of the earth have suffered. We need to rectify this injustice, which will strengthen moderates and remove the grievances that lead to extremist terrorism.
To defeat right-wing extremists, however, all we need to do is freeze them out and crush them like bugs.
Can you imagine a society in which Nick Griffin was treated like Binyam Mohamed, and vice versa? Perhaps this exercise may be useful to both the Londonstanis of the world and the Jonah Goldberg readers whose comments are above, who imagine that right is no different from left. Well, Londonstani can certainly tell the difference - and his attitude is the official one.
It's understandable that moderate right-wingers don't want to see themselves as a step toward Hitler and Nick Griffin. Alas, the 20th century will never be famed for the high quality of its right-wing extremists. Even the second half of the 19th is a little weak. Stick with Liverpool, Wellington and Peel. Pour la canaille, la mitraille!
"the Jonah Goldberg readers
"the Jonah Goldberg readers whose comments are above, who imagine that right is no different from left."
Above it all, are we? How very god-like.
The right *is* actually different from the left. The right supports right of center policies and the left supports left of center policies. That's kind of different. Well, sorry, Mencius Moldbug, but you made a good point and had to ruin it. Also, I've never read Liberal Fascism, can't speak for the others. Thank you for granting some of us the modifying moniker of moderate, though.
Definition of irony: English
Definition of irony: English Defence League waving Israeli flag: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/uk-fascists-wave-israeli-flag-rally
This event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZmwy9VPfUQ&feature=related
seems to have kicked it all off
Ive been saying it for quite
Ive been saying it for quite a while: The anti-islamists are ralistically speaking our biggest internal problem, they are getting pretty organized. Check out Gates of Vienna, where Fjordman calls out for ethnic cleansing of Europe of all the muslims, like a cell-cure. Its a real fcking racist netwerk, and the weird thing is that this time they are pro-Israel.
Somalia: Harakat al-Shabab
Somalia: Harakat al-Shabab al-Mujahideen Announce Martyrdom of al-Qa'ida Liaison Salah 'Ali Salah al-Nabhan
I can't speak for England,
I can't speak for England, but in the United States the right wingers, particularly the Christian right wingers, support Israel because of their belief that the creation of the State of Israel is part of the Second Coming of Christ. It's an abstract, deeply ideological belief about the Apocalypse, having nothing to do with any respect for Judaism or Jews. The right is just as racist toward Jews as it is toward African-Americans or Muslims.
EMN
"Its a real fcking racist
"Its a real fcking racist netwerk, and the weird thing is that this time they are pro-Israel."
its not weird. they perceive Israel as practicing apartheid and ethnic cleansing. they perceive Israel being a nation state organised around defending the rights of a 'chosen people'
they perceive israel as having the correct doctrinal attitude towards arabs and muslims - ie bomb them and smush them and jail them. I've heard some pretty hard core stuff come out of the mouths of Israeli ministers along these lines.
I'm sure jews are on their list. its just they don't live next door to them in Birmingham
Now don't yell at me, I'm not agreeing with or advocating any of these positions. which reminds me, where is SNLI these days?
"To defeat left-wing extremists, we need to understand the root cause of their extremism, which is typically some injustice that the oppressed of the earth have suffered. We need to rectify this injustice, which will strengthen moderates and remove the grievances that lead to extremist terrorism."
hellishly good point. but was it not answered in Guy's post, which used that housing list example.
Also, since when are jihadi's left wing? If we are getting all 19th Century in our terminology, i thought they were nihilists?
Fnord and El Mestengo Negro,
Fnord and El Mestengo Negro, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are those for whom it's as simple as reading Genesis 12 "I will bless those who bless you" (God to Abraham). But yes, by and large, crazy support for Israel from the Christian Right has more to do with eschatology than politics or philosemitism.
and fnord, those insane groups, once they finished the muslims, would go right back to Jewbashing, and Israel would be easy target #1. Some people don't bother waiting... David Duke et al
Also, those perceptions
Also, those perceptions about Israel are shared by many on the 'left'
So by waving the Israeli flag these guys are agreeing with the left's analysis of the Israeli position, but saying that they think it's right on.
quite a wind up on multiple levels really.
For the mix: the BNP's
For the mix: the BNP's predecessor, the National Front, was all but destroyed by most of their rank and file, seeing the embodiment of much that inspired them, voting for Margaret Thatcher.
Oh, Mencius Moldbug, you had
Oh, Mencius Moldbug, you had to go and take my crankiness literally, didn't you? Why? :)
I'm fine with the tea party protestors, but then, I would be, wouldn't I? I'm the type who writes in to my local village government to protest, like, even five extra dollars spent on something I define as stupid. Not everyone that protests increased governmental spending is insincere, or hypocritical, or suddenly discovering the issue under this President. Some of us have read HR3200, or tried to - goodness, is that a bunch of yammering mumbo-jumbo - and we don't like it. It's easier to make fun of people as 'teabaggers' than to engage in the actual substance of the bill. I am not accusing you of doing so, just complaining in general, because the VERY INTERNETS will stop the day we can't complain, endlessly and pointlessly :)
Also, this is VERY far off-track from Londonstani's original point. I don't understand the British cultural scene, but I have little patience for identity politics. Absolutely zero patience for it, but I understand its essential seductiveness. It's a way to organize your whole life, isn't it? You ARE your level of brown, or your religion, and, hey, people feel sorry for you if you say how hard your life is *because* you are a certain level of brown or religion. Which is not to minimize real suffering related to bigotry. Which exists. It absolutely exists.
I am injecting my own experience with certain browns, so it's hard for me to understand the British scene, for lack of a better term. There is nothing so strange as listening to a Columbia or Harvard or Yale trained brown complain about their terribly hard life here in the racist United States. Class and your millionaire doctor parents don't matter, do they, young South Asian? How very difficult life is in your Ethnic Studies world. Well, I'm old and cranky and not very understanding. What can I say?
*Londonstani is talking about something else, I know, but beware of people using their brown identity as a way for you to feel sorry for them. That person might be gaming you.
**My rambling is sure to infuriate some.....
No disrespect to the fine
No disrespect to the fine blog hosts here at CNAS, but how I loathe the time it takes for comments to show up. It absolutely destroys conversation. Well, conversation-procrastination, if I am being honest.
Okay, final comment and to
Okay, final comment and to address Londonstani's actual point: isn't the government playing a dangerous game by all this funding to support this cultural group or that cultural group? It just sounds like a way for different cranks to milk the system of cash. Tell me how I'm wrong, someone!
*So, some interesting hearings on Afghanistan yesterday and today, eh? A blog like this might want to discuss them, seeing as one of them is linked on the front page of the CNAS site..... :)
http://globalsociology.com/20
http://globalsociology.com/2009/06/13/book-review-little-brother/
The New Social Movements Theory emerged at the end of the 1960s to account for changes in the composition, focus and strategies in some social movements in the Western world (Melucci, 1989; McAdam et al, 1988; Larana et al, 1994; Scott, 1995). New social movements themselves are a response to the massive social changes brought about by globalization. New social movements are diverse but share common foci:
*
Focus on social and cultural issues instead of the economic issues of traditional social movements.
*
Focus quality of life (environment, peace) and self-determination (contemporary women’s rights, gay rights) because of roots in high-income countries where survival is a less important issue. Accordingly, members tend to reject bureaucratic organizations and adopt a more participatory style.
*
Distrust for authorities, the government, the business community or the scientific community; although they do not seek to overthrow the government or radically change the social order, movements challenge the legitimacy of institutions of power and promote their own experts (Garner, 1996) or create their own independent research institutes as Social Movement Organizations.
*
Focus on multiple issues seen as interdependent. For instance, the ecofeminist movement associates environmental issues with patriarchy (Merchant, 1992; Mies and Shiva, 1993), that is, male dominance in society. The environmental justice movement makes connections between environmental issues and race problems through the concept of “environmental racism”, a practice that puts minority groups more at risk of environmental damage than dominant racial or ethnic groups; for instance, more hazardous waste sites or chemical plants are located in minority areas (Bullard and Wright, 1992).
*
Similarly, labor rights integrate human rights considerations into their activism while new social movements link terrorism and the rise of religious fundamentalism to the overwhelming power and influence of western countries (the United States in particular) over poorer countries,
*
Both a global and local orientation, as reflected in the slogan “think global, act local,” that might be evidenced by championing both global environmental standards and local recycling regulations in their communities.
*
Efficient use of new communication technologies to establish global connections and networks; such global networks coordinated the massive demonstrations against the World Trade Organization in Seattle in 1999, against the G8 Meeting in Genoa (Italy) in 2002 and the worldwide protests against the War in Iraq in 2003.
***********************
I have to start reading again - something, that is, other than blog pages, so I no longer am in the position of a dabbler, and so that I can do more than surface analysis of what I see while on-line and around me. In the meantime, in simple terms - for me, a significant difference between various ideologies is in whether or not violence, state or non-state initiated, is considered a tool to be used to assert dominance, regardless of category - social, religious, racial, political, economic, etc. A second equally significant difference is whether others are valued as equal to oneself, regardless of the form by which one makes that judgment. A third is the extent to which one requires that others act in accordance with one's values.
Religion, in so far as it attributes greater value to those of a particular religious identity, remains a potent source for inequality - as do race, economic class, political affiliation and other means by which people discriminate for and against others. To assert that it is only the Muslims who do so, violently, or only the far left or far right, is to ignore the current state of affairs in the Western world.
Madhu, Please don't
Madhu,
Please don't misunderstand me - I am fine with the tea party protesters, as well. (I said "teabagger" because, reflecting as it does the astounding puerility of the modern progressive, this insult surely deserves to be a badge of honor.)
However - to paraphrase Chesterton - once you stop believing in leftism, you need to find something else to believe in. Setting aside its large army of living supporters, the intellectual charms of modern American conservatism are not, by historical standards, terribly compelling to me. My experience is that one can find a much higher quality of right-wing thought in the past than the present, which is why I am a reactionary rather than a conservative.
Londonstani, Great to see
Londonstani,
Great to see you posting back to back.
Regarding Far Right and other anti-immigrant and nationalist groups. Really, from a government perspective, any group radical and concerned with anti-authoritative or illegal displays of power, should be an issue.
This is why it makes more sense to focus on radical and not specifically Islamic groups. They're are (from the states' perspective) all sorts of potential threats.
Madhu regarding, the recent hearings. You think bribery is teh answer? It seems a likely turn of course...
I think all intolerant
I think all intolerant people should be wiped out.
Mencius - At what point
Mencius - At what point would you have stopped social change?
Jusus Christ, when a man
Jusus Christ, when a man rapes your wife and sodomizes her when her ass rips are you gonna apologize and say " it isn't all him it's other influences in his life." Let him go I'll buy him dinner.
Sometimes you people make me sick deep inside.
...the extent to which the
...the extent to which the use of violence, by a state or non-state actor, is considered acceptable.
Margaret, I'm personally
Margaret,
I'm personally quite fond of the Elizabethan era, including the reign of James I. I also find Cromwell rather admirable. However, I don't think Anglo-American government has ever really recovered from the English Civil War. A long slow trip down a very tall hill - the bottom of which we are nowhere near.
But if foreign potentates can be admitted, I would settle for Frederick the Great. He was gay, you know.
My edit was written before I
My edit was written before I read the comment at 11:37pm. It was in recognition of the need for the means to prevent violence.
However, I find it interesting that the example used was of a wife being raped, expressed so graphically. Your wife, sir, would not be better off because of violence in punishment for rape. You do not use as an example harm toward yourself; and it appears your example derives from the gratification you receive in imagining such a sequence of events.
Police are not trained to depend upon violence for protection; it is a last resort.
re visitor 11:37 eww. its
re visitor 11:37
eww. its not that kind of website. . . .
although google will now think its is
I'm personally a bit torn
I'm personally a bit torn here. No doubt many of the SIOE are proto-fascist, but in Harrow they attended a legal demonstration and were attacked by upwards of 2,000 "anti-fascists" throwing rocks and yelling stuff like
“Allah u akbar… Allah… Takbir… Allah u akbar… Takbir… do not be afraid of those kuffar people… they are pigs, they are worse than cattle… westerners, don’t be scared of them, or the police or the cameras. You are only here to please Allah… Takbir… Alah u akbar… Takbir…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3VOh6Z-wTg
Well, at least these guys don't hide their ideological dispositions. I mean, what does takbir have to do with this? Or kuffars?
So why is it that 2,000 rock-hurling, religious chauvinists attacking 20 demonstrators, who weren't even allowed into the area, becomes "anti-fascists" "defending" a mosque that the mosque spokesman said needed no defending? In fact, he asked the Muslim protesters to go home so everyone could ignore the 20 SIOE demonstrators. He seemed to display best judgment of all in this altercation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6831609.ece
It seems to me that for historical and structural reasons, any group that can be labeled "extreme right" will be, and will be held in public contempt to the point where their professed beliefs are ignored and they become legitimate targets for violent anti-demonstrations.
Whenever the media portray these clashes, they will label them "extreme right wing groups" against "anti-fascists", no matter the political views of either group, the numbers of each group (usually 10x as many "anti-fascists") or the means employed during these clashes.
SIAD (the Danish branch of SIOE) has repeatedly had its tiny, peaceful demonstrations assaulted by far superior numbers of red fascists and islamists (they seem to go in hand here). This doesn't stop the media from applying the same labels and framing as the one above.
Wikipedia seems to find no fascist proclamations linked with SIOE or EDL:
SIOE: "The group's proclaimed aim is to oppose Islamic extremism; they have the motto "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense"..
"The group describes itself as an alliance "with the single aim of preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe." The British National Party denies any links with Stop the Islamification of Europe."
EDL: "The English Defence League (also known as the EDL) is a British political group whose professed aim is to oppose the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom."
On its face, this doesn't seem fascist. I have no doubts that the members of each group overlap with (proto)fascist groups, but that should hardly matter in the context of specific demonstrations. People with unsightly views are allowed to demonstrate.
I would contend that red fascism is the bigger threat to public safety (cf. Seattle, Gothenburg, Genova, Athens, Copenhagen). Imagine the public outcry if 10,000 neo-nazis thrashed a major city? But the red fascists are consistently called "anti-fascists" or "activists".
I will shamelessly admit
I will shamelessly admit that the comments at times help plaster over gaps in my education that previously I didn't even know existed (excluding the ones about rape). I did not mention this in the original post, but the second article is revolves around the BBC's plan to put Griffin on a televised debate programme. The writer thinks those that say "bring him on. let his arguments fall to pieces in front of serious scrutiny (which is where I'm leaning)", are naive and misguided. Interested to see what others think..Griffin seems like a
Griffin seems like a traditional White Power fascist who has been tapping into general right-wing populism to gain more power. I think his views should be dealt with in proportion to his vote. According to wikipedia, BNP received 0.7% of the national vote, so I wouldn't put him on national television. BNP got 5.2% of the London Mayorial election, so they should probably get a bit in local London news.
As a principle, I believe in allowing extremists to debate rather than banning them. Although I can understand Germany's and Austria's reluctance, I do find their ban on Nazi symbolism and Holocaust denial a medicine worse than the ailment.
Griffin really is an
Griffin really is an iedological fascist of the Julius Evola reading Iron Guard worshiping old skool. Not the sharpest tool in the box, though -- put him on telly and we'll all have a good laugh.
Which reminds me -- him and
Which reminds me -- him and Mencius should really get together over tea and discuss "Revolt Against the Modern World". I'd watch that as well!
Intresting post on this over
Intresting post on this over at Conservativehome.
OT, but not: Great. Now I
OT, but not:
Great. Now I can't escape COIN, anywhere. Even Arts and Letters Daily.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Summer/full-Marlowe.html
The newest hottest 'underground' military blogs will now probably all move on to discussing tanks, tanks, tanks or something.
@Londonstani - free speech for everyone, but the gov. shouldn't seem like it is meddling, because that just makes people resentful and that resentment can be exploited, which I guess means let the fool speak. You lot have a lot of speech rules that we don't in the US, with our first amendment, right? Or am I getting that wrong?
check it:
check it: http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscou...
Check it:
Check it: http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscou...
you can say what you want..
you can say what you want.. but that doesnt mean you get to say what you want. our freedom of speech is curtailed by public relations companies and spin doctors.. not to mention poverty of the news media.. i once chatted on a train with a woman who worked at a newspaper getting their coverage to appeal to various PR agencies or large firms so that they would pay "sponsorship".. which wasnt declared when the article was written. which reminds me of the curious case of "terror expert" glen jenvey.. i'm gonna have to do a whole new post on this guy.the important part of this
the important part of this story/post is that the British are taking a more holistic approach to counter-radicalization. PREVENT should be tailored to its overt purpose: Countering Violent Extremism... all forms of cve, not just targeting Muslim communities with counter-radicalization programs. Groups that promote extremism (be they BNP, Hammerskins, GNP, etc.) could possibly be countered in similar ways to Islamic extremism, by understanding the local dynamics that cause these groups to flourish, and target programs using locally derived solutions promoting cultural understanding.
Londonstani: How are Prevent programs determined currently? It seems that the HO and DCLG focus on demographics and crime rates. You have been outspoken about this before on this blog, just wondering if you think a broader approach will help perceptions about the purpose of PREVENT.
Oh, and 'right-wing' hate groups have been a perpetual problem for the Dutch, and are cited by the AVID as contributing to the radicalization of some Muslim youth (including the Lonsdale Youth).
Please Google Harrysplace.
Please Google Harrysplace. It puts this post in context. Also Google Londonstani. Read it and speculate- " Whats a nice boy doing in a blog like this ?". What is his agenda ?
While were all here why not
While were all here why not look up that well known Nazi Magazine "The Economist - "In knots over Headscarves".
All the Smart people will be able to tell us the distance between London and Belgium. Could they tell me the distance between Londonstani and England ?
You lads really dont
You lads really dont understand the danger of the new generation of haters. They are really pretty clever.
So I take it from all of
So I take it from all of your comments that if you don't like islamic terrorists you are "racist" Typical from AM
Lets see: We now seem to
Lets see: We now seem to have established a few strange facts. Extreme islamists are part of the "left", and by fighting fascists we support Al Quaeda? Muslims feeling provoked by idiocy among scared westerners are equal to terrorists. Muslims have a inherent higher agression level than the rest of humanity. There are no racists, only concerned citizens. And its perfectly "right" to be "against" a religion.
Did that sum it up?
So how does this square with
So how does this square with some of the lefts more radical elements (ayers comes to mind) who also listened to their focus groups and decided to become more respectable?
Just as this reporter heard this..
Quote:
Maybe they had a focus group, with someone reporting that, "OK, if I can share my feedback, some of the policies, such as distrust of Europe, supporting British farmers, I'm hearing lots of positive energy. But, and don't take this the wrong way, the praising Hitler angle is proving mostly negative, I'm afraid."
I could easily hear ayers' focus group meeting in the 70s saying "don't take this the wrong way but blowing up buildings is coming back as a negative from most respondents so you might want to look into community organising"
Don't most new ideas spring from or have roots in a more radical beginning?
And really.
How is this.....
Quote:
So Griffin set about making them appear respectable. They would deny they were fascist, and claim to be an upstanding legitimate party.
much different from the people who were claiming that obama was going to bring this radical leftist ayers inspired element into the white house?
Fnord: You forget the
Fnord: You forget the "demographic threat", whereby the Horde will conquer through inherent fertility. In the US, the source of danger isn't as easily typified, other than as "illegal".
Of course, a fundamental betrayal is the resistance of women to patriarchal authority.
Ah, the "refusal to assimilate" - wherein one refuses to wear a scarf as it "customarily" is worn, folded triangularly and tied under the chin (as is done in observance of Judeo-Christian religious custom), or cleverly arranged to accent one's work costume - thereby "...breaking with society..."
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14447929
"The row will probably lead to the establishment of Muslim state schools in Antwerp: the city already has Catholic and Jewish schools. Patrick Janssens, the city’s mayor, regrets this, saying he is “not particularly in favour” of single-faith schools." But is there any move to dissuade those who favor Catholic and Jewish academies?
Where did it start? Well, who first decided the 'Arabs' were terrorists - what with their stubborn refusal to be pacified by political assassination?
747
Alex Schlinder: Ann Coulter
Alex Schlinder: Ann Coulter isn't a "jewbasher"; she just wants "the Jews to be perfected". As she says, she doesn't intend her statement of "what Christians believe" to be offensive; she doesn't want others "to take it that way".
...they should just be normal people, like her.
And she is hot, isn't she!
So I take it from all of
So I take it from all of your comments that if you don't like islamic terrorists you are "racist"
Someone who doesn't "like islamic terrorists" because of a belief that terrorism is an inherent aspect of the race of someone who was Islamic would be a racist. Believing that someone was a terrorist because they were Islamic, and terrorism is inherent to Islam, would be religious bigotry.
Not liking someone usually isn't the problem one encounters with those who use terms such as islamic terrorist. After all, terrorism is serious stuff.
Unless it's practiced by a state. Then its called war, and that's OK, right?
747
Londonstani- are you really
Londonstani- are you really surprised? Private Eye regularly point out occurrences when newspapers give good press to a particular company and golly gosh, who'd ha' guessed it, but that company buys lots of nice expensive advertising in that selfsame paper.
Its even worse in TV news where most of the journo's on the ground are stringers, the newsteam are rarely experts, most sources are from plagirising the wire services or rival broadcasters and personal politics tend to be rather more influential than is altogether good...
As for factual broadcasting, well, half the researchers are too lazy to be any use and the other half whilst willing couldn't pass a History GCSE. Even the sources are outdated (I caught one organisation using a book from 1985 as their primary research document- they'd been fooled by the glossy new cover and nobody had checked the publication date).
Really, I could tell some horror stories!
@Fnord at 7:08pm: Right on. There is of course a reason why most of the anti-Islamist protesters never turned up. Because by organising and publicising an event then turning up in small numbers they guarantee large crowds opposed to them versus very few of their own. Hence mobs of baying loonies versus people who look like they are just trying to exercise their right to free speech...Great propaganda! One is reminded of the first Intifada.
Sept 19,
No mortality statistics of the 'collateral damage' of the "daring foray"; reports regarding Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan have the usual vague attributions of responsibility for terrorist activity - suspected, alleged, linked, ringleader.
Having a morbid imagination, the timing makes me wonder if this is to take the heat off politicians identified as pro-Israel. The cycle of violence certainly is familiar, as is the description of events. The State is depicted as executing a "daring foray"; retaliation by non-state actors is "an attack by Islamic insurgents."
That's disgusting.
ChickenHawks You thought you
ChickenHawks
You thought you were misunderstood!
I support Hitler's roading
I support Hitler's roading policies but oppose his racial policies.
Add your comment