Europe's shame

[nuttie]

From today's Telegraph:

The Spanish dishonoured their dead
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 16/03/2004)

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, naturally they will like the strong horse." So said Osama bin Laden in his final video appearance two-and-a-half years ago. But even the late Osama might have been surprised to see the Spanish people, invited to choose between a strong horse and a weak horse, opt to make their general election an exercise in mass self-gelding.

To be sure, there are all kinds of John Kerry-esque footnoted nuances to Sunday's stark numbers. One sympathises with those electors reported to be angry at the government's pathetic insistence, in the face of the emerging evidence, that Thursday's attack was the work of Eta, when it was obviously the jihad boys. One's sympathy, however, disappears with their decision to vote for a party committed to disengaging from the war against the jihadi. As Margaret Thatcher would have said: "This is no time to go wobbly, Manuel." But they did. And no one will remember the footnotes, the qualifications, the background - just the final score: terrorists toppled a European government.

What was it all those party leaders used to drone robotically after IRA atrocities? We must never let the bullet and the bomb win out over the ballot and the bollocks. Something like that. In Spain, the bombers hijacked the ballot, and very decisively. The Socialist Workers' Party wouldn't have won, except for the terrorism.

At the end of last week, American friends kept saying to me: "3/11 is Europe's 9/11. They get it now." I expressed scepticism. And I very much doubt whether March 11 will be a day that will live in infamy. Rather, March 14 seems likely to be the date bequeathed to posterity, in the way we remember those grim markers on the road to conflagration through the 1930s, the tactical surrenders that made disaster inevitable. All those umbrellas in the rain at Friday's marches proved to be pretty pictures for the cameras, nothing more. The rain in Spain falls mainly on the slain. In the three days between the slaughter and the vote, it was widely reported that the atrocity had been designed to influence the election. In allowing it to do so, the Spanish knowingly made Sunday a victory for appeasement and dishonoured their own dead.

And, if it works in Spain, why not in Australia, Britain, Italy, Poland? In his 1996 "Declaration of War Against the Americans", Bin Laden cited Washington's feebleness in the face of the 1992 Aden hotel bombings and the Black Hawk Down business in Somalia in 1993: "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew," he wrote. "The extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear." To the jihadis' way of thinking, on Thursday, the Spaniards were disgraced by Allah; on Sunday, they withdrew. The extent of their impotence and weaknesses is very clear.

Or, as Simon Jenkins put it in a hilariously mistimed cover story for last Thursday's Spectator arguing that this terrorism business is a lot of twaddle got up by Blair and Bush: "Bombs kill and panic the panicky. But they do not undermine civilised society unless that society wants to be undermined." And there's no chance of that happening, right?

Jenkins's argument, such as it is, is that a bomb here, a bomb there, nothing to get your knickers in a twist about: that's one thing we Europeans understand. But what he refuses to address is the shifting facts on the ground.

Europe's home-grown terrorism problems take place among notably static populations, such as Ulster and the Basque country. One could make generally safe extrapolations about the likelihood of holding Northern Ireland to what HMG used to call an "acceptable level of violence".

But in the same three decades as Ulster's "Troubles", the hitherto moderate Muslim populations of south Asia were radicalised by a politicised form of Islam; previously broadly unIslamic societies such as Nigeria became Islamified; and large Muslim populations settled in parts of Europe that had little or no experience of mass immigration.

You can argue about what these trends mean, but surely not that they mean absolutely nothing, as Sir Simon and the Complaceniks assure us: nothing to see here, chaps; switch back to the Test and bring me another buttered crumpet; when Osama vows to avenge the "tragedy of Andalucia", it's just a bit of overheated campaign rhetoric, like Kerry calling Bush a "liar", that's all.

For the non-complacent, the question is fast becoming whether "civilised society" in much of Europe is already too "undermined". Last Friday, for a brief moment, it looked as if a few brave editorialists on the Continent finally grasped that global terrorism is a real threat to Europe, and not just a Bush racket. But even then they weren't proposing that the Continent should rise up and prosecute the war, only that they be less snippy in their carping from the sidelines as America gets on with it. Spain was Washington's principal Continental ally, and what does that boil down to in practice? 1,300 troops. That's fewer than what the New Hampshire National Guard is contributing.

The other day, the editor of Le Monde, writing in the Wall Street Journal, dismissed as utterly false the widespread belief among all Americans except John Kerry's campaign staff that France is a worthless ally: "Let us remember here," he wrote, "the involvement of French and German soldiers, among other European nationalities, in the operations launched in Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban, track down bin Laden and attempt to free the Afghans."

Oh, put a baguette in it, will you? The Continentals didn't "launch" anything in Afghanistan. They showed up when the war was over - after the Taliban had been toppled and the Afghans liberated. And a few hundred Nato troops in post-combat mopping-up operations barely registers in the scale against the gazillions of Americans defending the Continent so that EU governments can blow their defence budgets on welfare programmes that make the citizens ever more enervated and dependent.

The only fighting that there is going to be in Europe in the foreseeable future is civil war, and when that happens American infantrymen will want to be somewhere safer. Like Iraq. There are strong horses and weak horses, but right now western Europe is looking like a dead horse.

For the original, LINK HERE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/03/16/do1602.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/03/16/ixportal.html)

[Mediocrates]

But in the end it's really not their '3-11' anymore than if those trains had simply slipped off the rails and crashed into pedestrians, killing 200. It's not the victimhood, though some could argue that 9-11 has in the US become a cross between an orgiastic death cult and a Hallmark card. It's the response it engendered. It caused American foreign policy and domestic actions, for better or worse to rapidly switch direction. It created a new forum for discussing whether the US should be isolationist or not. And it launched a few mini-wars.

I suspect that Spain, having tossed out the old administration will feel its job is done. Oh we may now see Spain host some antiglobalization conferences and attempt to extend its political agenda into places like Argentina, but I can't seem them either reaching out to 'understand and empathsize the Islamists who want to control their society nor do I see them getting into a schoolyard tussle with the French and the Germans who quite nearly support those very same terrorists anyway. I just don't see people like Chris Patten and Terje Larsen and Chriac risking their retirements on something as petty as this.

Let's face it, the EU is scurrying around with emergency sessions to address terrorism this week but they aren't really going to take any concrete steps that would address it from a law enforcement and intelligence perspective at home and they certainly aren't planning on doing something over there. Perhaps they will hand out some jobs programs to poor muslims in Europe and create some new humanitarian missions overseas. Perhaps they will make noises about cooperating with the Islamic bloc in the UN. Otherwise, we should be prepared to quietly forget this ever happened.

[Kev]

We are A Step Closer to an Socialist AntiSemetic Anti American European Union so says an wonderful Polish ( British educated judging from his accent) man at the moment on CNN.

He is claiming that Old Europe has won and a world wide split which is very serious has begun.

Italy I believe is now using rhetoric if I heard correctly, claiming they may also pull troops, which he claims is as good as suggesting an all round deal being made with Al Queda ( tm) in order to be elected as PM of Italy.

missed a few bits of information but that was the gist


:(



Wonders if a war between the EU and the USA is a possiblity for the near future?
Anyone?

[Mediocrates]

Will the next EU president be a mainstream moderate muslim or a radical muslim?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
But in the end it's really not their '3-11' anymore than if those trains had simply slipped off the rails and crashed into pedestrians, killing 200. It's not the victimhood, though some could argue that 9-11 has in the US become a cross between an orgiastic death cult and a Hallmark card. It's the response it engendered. It caused American foreign policy and domestic actions, for better or worse to rapidly switch direction. It created a new forum for discussing whether the US should be isolationist or not. And it launched a few mini-wars.

I suspect that Spain, having tossed out the old administration will feel its job is done. Oh we may now see Spain host some antiglobalization conferences and attempt to extend its political agenda into places like Argentina, but I can't seem them either reaching out to 'understand and empathsize the Islamists who want to control their society nor do I see them getting into a schoolyard tussle with the French and the Germans who quite nearly support those very same terrorists anyway. I just don't see people like Chris Patten and Terje Larsen and Chriac risking their retirements on something as petty as this.

Let's face it, the EU is scurrying around with emergency sessions to address terrorism this week but they aren't really going to take any concrete steps that would address it from a law enforcement and intelligence perspective at home and they certainly aren't planning on doing something over there. Perhaps they will hand out some jobs programs to poor muslims in Europe and create some new humanitarian missions overseas. Perhaps they will make noises about cooperating with the Islamic bloc in the UN. Otherwise, we should be prepared to quietly forget this ever happened.
It is really no longer about Spain. It is about the concept, no doubt ecstatically embraced by al qaeda after such a victory in one of islam’s former colonies, that elections can be so easily influenced.

The conjunction of this particular election with the potent numerological symbolism of 911 must have pleased them immensely, assuring them in their demented fantasy that the divine was indeed on their side. But no one should think for a minute that they aren’t perfectly happy to blow folks up on any day of the week. To get away with it and swing a national election though!! How the Spaniards have bolstered their confidence!!

Campaign blitz has taken on a whole new meaning.

[SteveMetch]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Will the next EU president be a mainstream moderate muslim or a radical muslim?

That’s like saying moderate Nazi and radical Nazi.

The only good Muslims are cultural Muslims and they would all make better (insert any other religion here). They only go through the motions and don’t believe most of what there religion teaches. Unfortunately Radical Islam lives amongst the Moderate Muslims who either protect it or fear retribution if they confront it.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
That’s like saying moderate Nazi and radical Nazi.

The only good Muslims are cultural Muslims

Can't you see how terrible it is to compare all religious muslims to nazi's? Watch out with what you're saying.
As a matter of fact, I know a moderate religious muslim.

[SteveMetch]

Originally posted by Kev
Wonders if a war between the EU and the USA is a possiblity for the near future?
Anyone?

The current European culture simple has no stomach for it. The thread that binds one generation of warriors to the next was severed in World War 2 in all European countries save England and the Russia. If all countries of the world had this same level of reversion to combat as the current generation of European’s there would be no need for the Military, which should be a long term goal for mankind.

I don’t know why we want to encourage their involvement in military affairs anyway. The level of combat effectiveness they bring currently is very low save England and historically the most dangerous nations militarily have been western as far back as the Greeks vs the Persians. In balance it took a lot of American lives to place the Genie of European Fascism and Communism back in the bottle, let’s leave it there.

I much prefer a heated debate over the correct geometry of bananas that can be exported to Europe from American owned operations in South America.

[SteveMetch]

Originally posted by Ahava
Can't you see how terrible it is to compare all religious muslims to nazi's? Watch out with what you're saying.
As a matter of fact, I know a moderate religious muslim.

Islam by design is a political ideology not a religion. This is what we in the west are so blinded by. In Islam there is no split possible between the secular and religious, the great truce of the enlightenment. The only “good” Muslim is not faithful to the direct edicts of Allah himself. The very fact he associates with you places him in violation with some of tenets of his religion. Having studied the teachings of Islam I don’t believe there is a “Moderate” version of Islam that still maintains anything over 20% of its teachings. The teachings that remain are ones Christians and Jews would recognize as from God. This all begs the question. Why be a Muslim if in order to be a Good Warm and Fuzzy Western Compatible Muslim you must run from 80% of teachings that make you different from Christians and Jews in the first place?

I know a Good “Muslim” as well but he is good because he doesn’t practice anything but the cultural aspects and good teachings of his belief system. The problem with Islam is that as one is more immersed in the actual teaching one becomes more violent. With Buddhism you become a monk, Christianity you preach incessantly, and in Judaism become a rabbi. With Islam you go out a kill people.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Kev

Wonders if a war between the EU and the USA is a possiblity for the near future?
Anyone?

Out of the question. In the end, we all share the same values and have the same objectives. Democracy, humanity, freedom, defeat of terror, peace.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
Islam by design is a political ideology not a religion. This is what we in the west are so blinded by. In Islam there is no split possible between the secular and religious, the great truce of the enlightenment. The only “good” Muslim is not faithful to the direct edicts of Allah himself. The very fact he associates with you places him in violation with some of tenets of his religion. Having studied the teachings of Islam I don’t believe there is a “Moderate” version of Islam that still maintains anything over 20% of its teachings. The teachings that remain are ones Christians and Jews would recognize as from God. This all begs the question. Why be a Muslim if in order to be a Good Warm and Fuzzy Western Compatible Muslim you must run from 80% of teachings that make you different from Christians and Jews in the first place?

I know a Good “Muslim” as well but he is good because he doesn’t practice anything but the cultural aspects and good teachings of his belief system. The problem with Islam is that as one is more immersed in the actual teaching one becomes more violent. With Buddhism you become a monk, Christianity you preach incessantly, and in Judaism become a rabbi. With Islam you go out a kill people.


Garbage!

[Ahava]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
Islam by design is a political ideology not a religion. This is what we in the west are so blinded by. In Islam there is no split possible between the secular and religious, the great truce of the enlightenment.

Are you unaware of the fact that many muslims say that those terrorists are not real muslims at all? The Koran is very open for interpretation, you can see the peaceful, good elements in it, or you can interpret it in an anti-Jewish, anti-western, anti-Kufar way. The terrorists seek those passages that fit them and explain it in the most disastrous way possible.

Originally posted by SteveMetch
The only “good” Muslim is not faithful to the direct edicts of Allah himself. The very fact he associates with you places him in violation with some of tenets of his religion. Having studied the teachings of Islam I don’t believe there is a “Moderate” version of Islam that still maintains anything over 20% of its teachings. The teachings that remain are ones Christians and Jews would recognize as from God.

One could say the same thing about liberal vs. orthodox Judaism. There are light years between Chassidim and me.
It depends on where you stand, and whether you believe liberal judaism is still Judaism, and I strongly believe it is. It can work the same way with Islam, although I agree moderate muslims are more orthodox than mainstream Jews. When I say "religious muslims" I mean belief in Allah and Muhammad, and not necessarily living to the letter of the law, rather the spirit of the law, or in a modern way.

Originally posted by SteveMetch
This all begs the question. Why be a Muslim if in order to be a Good Warm and Fuzzy Western Compatible Muslim you must run from 80% of teachings that make you different from Christians and Jews in the first place?

"For Muhammad is His prophet."

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Mira
Garbage!

That's the short answer. :cool:

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Ahava
Are you unaware of the fact that many muslims say that those terrorists are not real muslims at all?

Some Sunni do not consider Shiia to be Islam.


The Koran is very open for interpretation,

Not really no more so that the people who are 'interpreting' it. They have their literalists and their constructivists. But the source material is no more subject to interpretation than are the Gospels for example.

you can see the peaceful, good elements in it, or you can interpret it in an anti-Jewish, anti-western, anti-Kufar way.

The key is who is doing that. a) Islam like Christianity is triumphalist. It asserts it is the final and only word. b) Islam is not self directed; interpretations come from the top down. One is not permitted to do their own thing or permitted to splinter off the way Protestants do and can. The definition of apostacy is quite narrow. Now one could make the case for some schools of Orthodox Judaism but not all of them.

One could say the same thing about liberal vs. orthodox Judaism.

In what sense? There are quite few absolute Judaic literalists. Otherwise there would be no Talmud, there would be no Chassidim, there would be no Modern Orthodox, there would be no Orthodox Existentialists (R. Neil Gillman for example). Liberal Judaism and by that I guess you mean Reform, Reconstructionist and part of Masorti all pretty much assert the same things as Orthodox; the Torah is true, the mitzvoth are real and so on. Where they vary is in practice, liturgy.


There are light years between Chassidim and me.


You'd be surprised I discover that within Chassidim there are many different shades from Lubavitcher to Satmar and in between. Check out a Lubavitcher shul one time - you might like it.

It depends on where you stand, and whether you believe liberal judaism is still Judaism, and I strongly believe it is.

Why would you care all that much if someone else thinks its not? I get into arguments with my Lubavitchers all the time and I think a 'don't ask don't tell' policy is the best for everyone. No one is a 'superJew' and the hardcases will always spit on you and call you apikorsim anyway. I almost pity them their intolerance.


It can work the same way with Islam, although I agree moderate muslims are more orthodox than mainstream Jews. When I say "religious muslims" I mean belief in Allah and Muhammad, and not necessarily living to the letter of the law, rather the spirit of the law, or in a modern way.

There are modern observant muslims I am proud to know. Religion, any religion has a role to play in this world, not the 8th century mosque and not the shetl and it is vitally important to understand the difference between fanaticism and piety. We don't really care why fanatics believe what they believe, we only care why it's so attractive to other people, why it's so useful and efficient as a political tool.

[MichaelC]

Until we see an international movement among muslims that openly and unequivocally denounces terrorism, I am left to believe that the deafening silence from the world of islam indicates support for the terrorists. It may only indicate cowardice, but there comes a time in the affairs of nations and cultures when outspoken people must risk everything for the betterment of the people. Every advanced culture attains that level by the leadership of courageous individuals who inspire the masses. I hear nothing from the masses of muslims to indicate that they are against the murderous anti-western animals who continue massacres in their name.

Why is there no hue and cry from within islam to shame the terrorists? A voice here and a voice there is not enough. People all over the world are willing to march around in the street demanding their rights. Why no demonstrations from muslims demanding an end to those who wish to represent islam to the world by way of slaughter.

[Like2Talk]

Originally posted by Mira
Garbage! All over the thread actually ... :p

[SteveMetch]

Originally posted by Mira
Garbage!

I think it is time you started to read Koran, Hadiths and the Islamic Leaders teachings and stopped taking to these Islamic apologists at their word. Where is your western skepticism? Stop listening to their interpretation and go look for yourself. Remember most ideologies have good elements in them. If we were talking to a Moderate Nazi he would emphasize the loyalty, hard work, self sacrifice all the while saying that the Radical Nazis who are racist murders are those who “misinterpret” the teachings of Hitler.

The late Ayatollah Khomeini quoting the Qur’an and Hadith said, "Moslems have no alternative but armed holy war (jihad), the conquest of all non-Muslim territories. It will be the duty of every able bodied male to volunteer for this war of conquest. Islam does not allow peace between a Moslem and an infidel. Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country of the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.… Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says kill all the unbelievers. Kill them and put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah…. Islam says, whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword. The sword is the key to Paradise that can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other Qur’anic psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the prophet Mohammed] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men form waging war? "I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim." (Quoted from Dr. George Grant’s book, The Blood of the Moon.)

But is the late Ayatollah “misinterputing the Koran”?
There are over 120 verses in the Quran concerning fighting and killing for the cause of Allah? Here are but a few passages:

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. [al-Ma'idah 5:51.11]

Muslims are encouraged to be wholly occupied (Sura 2:273) with fighting for Allah's cause.

Allah will give "a far richer recompense to those who fight for him" (Sura 4:96).

Regarding infidels (unbelievers), they are the Muslim's "inveterate enemies" (Sura 4:101). Muslims are to "arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere" (Sura 9:5) for them. They are to "seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly" (Sura 4:90). "Fight them until Islam reigns supreme" (Sura 2:193). "Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers" (Sura 8:12).

If a Muslim does not go to war, Allah will kill him (Sura 9:39). He is to be told, "the heat of war is fierce, but more fierce is the heat of Hell-fire" (Sura 9:81).

A Muslim must "fight for the cause of Allah with the devotion due to him" (Sura 22:78)

Muslims must make war on the infidels (unbelievers) who live around them (Sura 9:123).

Muslims are to be "ruthless to unbelievers" (Sura 48:29).
A Muslim should "enjoy the good things" he has gained by fighting (Sura 8:69).

A Muslim can kill any person he wishes if it be a "just cause" (Sura 6:152).

Allah loves those who "fight for his cause" (Sura 61:3).
Anyone who fights against Allah or renounces Islam in favor of another religion shall be "put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off alternative sides" (Sura 5:34).

Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him. Sahih Al-Bukhari (9:57)

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5)

Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. (Koran 69:30-37)

I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them. (Koran 8:12)

They should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides. (Koran 5:33)

Know that paradise is under the shades of swords. Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 4 p55

I would really like to know how one is going to twist this towards moderation. Remember in Islamic teaching this is God speaking. To change and twist these verses is to change the word of Allah. The book is not up for “modernization or interpretation” by design.

My point stands Moderate Muslim is an oxymoron just like Moderate Nazi, Moderate Murder, and Moderate Terrorist etc. I think the term that best describes your friend is a Cultural Muslim who only lives by those Islamic teachings that are compatible within the bounds of a civil society. The Koran and Hadiths themselves are thoroughly contradictory and confused in nature. As such there is an incredible amount of wiggle room for both your friend and OBL to read the same book and come up with entirely different world views. This problem is possible even in well written documents but Islam is probable one of the most confused and illogically ideologies every to make into the modern era. The concepts of Communism are ultimately wrong but they are at least logically self-consistent within itself once one subscribes to certain articles of faith.