Is Europe Going To Get Lost In 'Anti-Islam' v 'Anti-Islamacists' Issue? [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Is Europe Going To Get Lost In 'Anti-Islam' v 'Anti-Islamacists' Issue?

Kathianne

01-12-2015, 10:45 PM

For the most part, most Americans seem to get the difference. Yes, we want the imams to preach their religion, condemning those that are looking for a literal definition of their religion. Not much different than the President of Egypt tried to bring to the imams on January 1. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/egypt-president-revolution-islam_n_6436734.html)

http://news.yahoo.com/german-anti-islam-rally-draws-record-25-000-213114541.html

<header class="header" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1421120419555_771" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 10px; overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', HelveticaNeue, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16.25px;">25,000 attend German anti-Islam march, but counter-protests bigger

</header>http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2013-08-26/d19448d6-6aaa-4359-a768-eadacf5fbca9_afp-gif_new.gif (http://www.afp.com/) <cite class="byline vcard top-line" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1421120419555_1230" style="font-style: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.1000003814697px;">By Coralie Febvre</cite>

5 hours ago

Dresden (Germany) (AFP) - A record 25,000 people joined an anti-Islamic march in Germany on Monday, claiming their stance was vindicated by last week's Paris jihadist attacks.

However, the impressive turnout was dwarfed by 100,000 counter-demonstrators calling for tolerance nationwide.

Chancellor Angela Merkel earlier stressed that "Islam belongs to Germany" and announced she would on Tuesday join a Muslim community rally in Berlin against extremism, along with most of her cabinet ministers.

Undeterred, supporters of the self-styled Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident, or PEGIDA, gathered for their 12th rally since October in their birthplace of Dresden in former communist east Germany.

The marchers waved the German national flag and held up placards that read "Fight Islamisation, stop the flood of foreigners now" and "Stop multiculturalism. My homeland will stay German".

Following last week's deadly Islamist attacks in Paris, they held a minute's silence and many wore black armbands.

Some carried French flags and signs that read "They can't kill our freedom" and "Je suis Charlie" (I am Charlie), claiming solidarity with those killed in the attack on the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo.

These terrorist attacks "can happen everywhere," said protester Juta Starke, 70, who added that she immediately thought "it is Islam, it is the political ideology of Islam" when she learnt of the shootings.

Political leaders had urged PEGIDA to call off their latest rally, saying it had no right to whip up hatred against Muslims in the name of solidarity with terror victims.

"It is simply disgusting how the people behind these protests are trying to exploit the despicable crimes in Paris," said Justice Minister Heiko Maas.

- 100,000 rally for tolerance -

PEGIDA meanwhile spawned its first spin-off abroad Monday, when 200 people rallied against Islam in Oslo.

Activists have also announced plans for PEGIDA-style protests in Switzerland and Austria, while other European far-right groups have voiced support for the movement.

Across Germany, however, revulsion with PEGIDA's xenophobic message has sparked growing counter demonstrations, which Monday dwarfed the anti-foreigner movement and its regional clones.

Anti-PEGIDA rallies drew over 8,000 in Dresden, 30,000 in Leipzig, 20,000 in Munich, 17,000 in Hanover, 9,000 in Saarbruecken, 5,000 in Duesseldorf, 4,000 each in Berlin and Hamburg, 2,000 in Rostock, and smaller crowds in other cities, national news agency DPA reported.

In Dresden, one PEGIDA protester carried a picture of Merkel wearing a Muslim facial veil, mocking the chancellor who has urged citizens to stay away from PEGIDA marches.

...

In Europe, Germany and some of the low and high countries, seems like battle lines are being drawn for the hearts and minds by the extremists of both ends.

Drummond

01-13-2015, 06:47 AM

For the most part, most Americans seem to get the difference. Yes, we want the imams to preach their religion, condemning those that are looking for a literal definition of their religion. Not much different than the President of Egypt tried to bring to the imams on January 1. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/egypt-president-revolution-islam_n_6436734.html)

http://news.yahoo.com/german-anti-islam-rally-draws-record-25-000-213114541.html

In Europe, Germany and some of the low and high countries, seems like battle lines are being drawn for the hearts and minds by the extremists of both ends.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But, I think you're buying into the lie that 'a few extremist fringe nutters' is the correct way to view terrorism, and those thinking in line with their mindset. But I don't believe this is any accurate way of viewing the matter.

Europe in particular is making the fundamental error, led into it by those in authority here, in believing the 'Islam is a religion of peace' lie. Every time terrorists commit their atrocities, there's an automatic kicking-in of the attitude which says, 'Oh God, not more extremist nutters'. Never, I mean NEVER, is there serious consideration that there's a wider truth in play .. and that's despite knowing just how many terrorist groupings there are out there, and how widespread across the planet they really are. Suddenly .. get anywhere near to thinking about that, and a certain dislocation of perception comes into play, and immediately predominates.

For as long as this persists, we in the West will continue to be outflanked by Islamist enemies of our very way of life. The 'mainstream' will continue to be 'inviolable' in peoples' minds .. so, their strength will continue, their radicalisations, ditto.

Consider Abu Hamza, an Al Qaeda supporter who was very recently jailed for life in the US under anti-terrorism legislation. Everyone considers him to be a typical example of an 'extremist', who ultimately got something of what he deserved (.. though the death penalty couldn't be applied, as through terms which the UK always insists upon, extraditions from the UK are ONLY allowed if absolute assurances are given that a death sentence cannot result).

However ... consider also that Hamza preached his so-called 'extremism' outside the Finsbury Park mosque in London every week, FOR YEARS, drawing crowds from the local Muslim community. NEVER, NOT ONCE, was Hamza the subject of any complaint against him coming from any of his preaching !!

This can only be explained in one of two ways. One .. the Muslim community, in that part of north London, 'just happened' to consist exclusively of the so-called 'extremist' element.

'Improbable' ... yes ?

The other is that HAMZA'S PREACHINGS WEREN'T SO FAR REMOVED FROM MAINSTREAM ISLAM, AFTER ALL.

You say ...

Yes, we want the imams to preach their religion

Seems fine, in terms of 'the right to freedom of expression'. But then, it's the very perception that their religion is NOT your enemy, that fuels this thinking. The US has fought wars against evils which defy all you believe in ... yet, where Islam is involved, that dislocation of perception happens, and suddenly everyone says 'we must be ultra-tolerant'.

Who - outside of Islamists themselves - absolutely do the most to insist upon that ?

Why, surprise surprise ... THE LEFT DO.

And we all know 'how very good for us all' the Left 'is' ... don't we ? Eh .. ??

Kathianne

01-13-2015, 07:58 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong. But, I think you're buying into the lie that 'a few extremist fringe nutters' is the correct way to view terrorism, and those thinking in line with their mindset. But I don't believe this is any accurate way of viewing the matter.

Europe in particular is making the fundamental error, led into it by those in authority here, in believing the 'Islam is a religion of peace' lie. Every time terrorists commit their atrocities, there's an automatic kicking-in of the attitude which says, 'Oh God, not more extremist nutters'. Never, I mean NEVER, is there serious consideration that there's a wider truth in play .. and that's despite knowing just how many terrorist groupings there are out there, and how widespread across the planet they really are. Suddenly .. get anywhere near to thinking about that, and a certain dislocation of perception comes into play, and immediately predominates.

For as long as this persists, we in the West will continue to be outflanked by Islamist enemies of our very way of life. The 'mainstream' will continue to be 'inviolable' in peoples' minds .. so, their strength will continue, their radicalisations, ditto.

Consider Abu Hamza, an Al Qaeda supporter who was very recently jailed for life in the US under anti-terrorism legislation. Everyone considers him to be a typical example of an 'extremist', who ultimately got something of what he deserved (.. though the death penalty couldn't be applied, as through terms which the UK always insists upon, extraditions from the UK are ONLY allowed if absolute assurances are given that a death sentence cannot result).

However ... consider also that Hamza preached his so-called 'extremism' outside the Finsbury Park mosque in London every week, FOR YEARS, drawing crowds from the local Muslim community. NEVER, NOT ONCE, was Hamza the subject of any complaint against him coming from any of his preaching !!

This can only be explained in one of two ways. One .. the Muslim community, in that part of north London, 'just happened' to consist exclusively of the so-called 'extremist' element.

'Improbable' ... yes ?

The other is that HAMZA'S PREACHINGS WEREN'T SO FAR REMOVED FROM MAINSTREAM ISLAM, AFTER ALL.

You say ...

Seems fine, in terms of 'the right to freedom of expression'. But then, it's the very perception that their religion is NOT your enemy, that fuels this thinking. The US has fought wars against evils which defy all you believe in ... yet, where Islam is involved, that dislocation of perception happens, and suddenly everyone says 'we must be ultra-tolerant'.

Who - outside of Islamists themselves - absolutely do the most to insist upon that ?

Why, surprise surprise ... THE LEFT DO.

And we all know 'how very good for us all' the Left 'is' ... don't we ? Eh .. ??

Condescension aside, you seem determined to miss what both the President was telling the imams and what I was saying.

He was speaking to 'mainstream'/moderate/everyday imams, not those self-acknowledged or known to be 'fringe', indeed he was saying that Islam itself has become a route to violence and its leaders are those that are causative. He was speaking to the 'educated' imams, not some tool that had been 'enlightened' by followers of bin Laden, etc. He was doing so in the mosque that is considered the center of Islamic education.

He was calling for an 'intellectual revolution' to those that preach and minister to the overwhelmingly uneducated and religious masses.

If you think that law enforcement and punitive government snooping is going to make attacks like we've been seeing, you are the one under delusions.

While groups like the Taliban or ISIS may offer some targets of 10-12 at a time for drones, they don't have the types of armies that make warfare possible.

The only way to win or rather change the nexus is ideological.

His point and mine is that while only a small percentage is radicalized into committing or even financing terror acts, a much larger percentage believes those acting ARE doing so in the righteousness of Islam. That must change.

Kathianne

01-13-2015, 09:07 AM

Speaking of 'the hearts and minds,' seems Al Jeezera has a problem between their Arab center and the Westerners they've hired in the past decade:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396131/i-am-not-charlie-leaked-newsroom-e-mails-reveal-al-jazeera-fury-over-global-support

‘I AM NOT CHARLIE’: Leaked Newsroom E-mails Reveal Al Jazeera Fury over Global Support forCharlie Hebdo (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396131/i-am-not-charlie-leaked-newsroom-e-mails-reveal-al-jazeera-fury-over-global-support)By Brendan Bordelon (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/brendan-bordelon)

January 9, 2015 8:00 PM (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396131/i-am-not-charlie-leaked-newsroom-e-mails-reveal-al-jazeera-fury-over-global-support)

As journalists worldwide reacted with universal revulsion at the massacre of some of their own by Islamic jihadists in Paris, Al Jazeera English editor andexecutive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr sent out a staff-wide e-mail.

“Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended — to make our coverage the best it can be,” the London-based Khadr wrote Thursday, in the first of a series of internal e-mails leaked to National Review Online. “We are Al Jazeera!”

Below was a list of “suggestions” for how anchors and correspondents at the Qatar-based news outlet should cover Wednesday’s slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo office (the full e-mails can be found below).

Khadr urged his employees to ask if this was “really an attack on ‘free speech,’” discuss whether “I Am Charlie” is an “alienating slogan,” caution viewers against “making this a free speech aka ‘European Values’ under attack binary [sic],” and portray the attack as “a clash of extremist fringes.”

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,” Khadr wrote. “Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response — however illegitimate — is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.”

His denunciation of Charlie Hebdo’s publication of cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed didn’t sit well with some Al Jazeera English employees.

...

Thursday, January 08, 2015
Subject: AJ coverage of events in Paris

Dear Editorial colleagues,

Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended – to make our coverage the best that it can be …. We are Al Jazeera!!!!

My suggestion is that we question and raise the following points in our coverage – studio/anchors/guests/correspondents:

This was a targeted attack, not a broad attack on the french population a la Twin towers or 7/7 style. So who was this attack against? The whole of France/EU society? Or specifically this magazine. The difference lies in how this is reported not in how terrible the act is obviously – murder is murder either way… but poses a narrower question of the “why”? attack on french society and values? Only if you consider CH’s racist caricatures to be the best of European intellectual production (total whitewash on that at the moment) (head in sand, ignoring the targeting of Jews, yet ranting against racism.)

Was this really an attack on “Free speech”? Who is attacking free speech here exactly? Does an attack by 2-3 guys on a controversial magazine equate to a civilizational attack on European values..? Really? (ignoring the admitted funding by AQL and the woman taking refuge in Syria).

“I am Charlie” as an alienating slogan – with us or against us type of statement – one can be anti-CH’s racism and ALSO against murdering people(!) (obvious I know but worth stating)

Also worth stating that we still don’t know much about the motivations of the attackers outside of the few words overheard on the video. Yes, clearly it was a “punishment” for the cartoons, but it didn’t take them 8/9 years to prep this attack (2006 was Danish/CH publication) – this is perhaps a response to something more immediate…French action against ISIL…? Mali? Libya? CH just the target ie focus of the attack..?

Danger in making this a free speech aka “European Values” under attack binary is that it once again constructs European identity in opposition to Islam (sacred depictions) and cements the notion of a European identity under threat from an Islamic retrograde culture of which the attackers are merely the violent tip of the iceberg (see the seeping of Far Right discourse into french normalcy with Houellebecque’s novel for example) (Example of how the 'moderates' actually believe that Islam is being defended by the extremists).

The key is to look at the biographies of these guys – contrary to conventional wisdom, they were radicalised by images of Abu Ghraib not by images of the Prophet Mohammed

You don’t actually stick it to the terrorists by insulting the majority of Muslims by reproducing more cartoons – you actually entrench the very animosity and divisions these guys seek to sow.

This is a clash of extremist fringes…

I suggest a re-read of the Time magazine article back from 2011 and I have selected the most poignant/important excerpt….

http://world.time.com/2011/<wbr>11/02/firebombed-french-paper-<wbr>a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-<wbr>own-obnoxious-islamophobia/?<wbr>iid=gs-article-mostpop1 (https://mail.aljazeera.net/owa/14.3.210.2/scripts/premium/redir.aspx?C=iCu5JwB00UGUQJXHKSNHI8LQaNew_9EIgGjyh lQ7XQ6EV_XEyA0RdzquT4d3LDHmmSNXbWIQ-tQ.&URL=http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/?iid%3dgs-article-mostpop1)http://<wbr>world.time.com/2011/11/02/<wbr>firebombed-french-paper-a-<wbr>victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-<wbr>obnoxious-islamophobia/?iid=<wbr>gs-article-mostpop1 (https://mail.aljazeera.net/owa/14.3.210.2/scripts/premium/redir.aspx?C=iCu5JwB00UGUQJXHKSNHI8LQaNew_9EIgGjyh lQ7XQ6EV_XEyA0RdzquT4d3LDHmmSNXbWIQ-tQ.&URL=http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/?iid%3dgs-article-mostpop1)

It’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists. (Totally ignoring that there were many more cartoons offensive to Christianity and Judaism.)

Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.

Kind regards

Salah-Aldeen Khadr
Executive Producer

Al Jazeera English

...

Drummond

01-13-2015, 10:53 AM

Condescension aside, you seem determined to miss what both the President was telling the imams and what I was saying.

He was speaking to 'mainstream'/moderate/everyday imams, not those self-acknowledged or known to be 'fringe', indeed he was saying that Islam itself has become a route to violence and its leaders are those that are causative. He was speaking to the 'educated' imams, not some tool that had been 'enlightened' by followers of bin Laden, etc. He was doing so in the mosque that is considered the center of Islamic education.

You see, there it is. A difference of perception between 'the fringe' and 'mainstream'. This is the sort of problem I tried to address before.

Granted, different Imams express themselves differently. But, like it or not, all represent just the same creed, they take their direction and faith from the very same Koran. There are those like Anjem Choudary, who show us the truth of what Islam is, what it aims for, what can or will be done to achieve those aims. Much though I'm opposed to him, at least I can respect his honesty !!!

Then again .. there are those who present a 'different face' of Islam entirely. That face is the one that people like David Cameron and your President Obama would like us all to believe in. No matter how many attacks are made, no matter how many deaths result, no matter how many terrorist groups exist, or how very widespread they are ... STILL, IGNORING ALL OF THAT, everyone's just meant to believe in 'peaceful' Islam.

The lie is exposed on a daily basis. But, so very many people insist upon ignoring the masses of evidence they're exposed to. Evidence be damned ... we're told something that defies that evidence, therefore' 'it must be true' ....

Orwell would've appreciated that.

Come to that, so would our friend Jafar. He worked so very hard to present the 'peaceful' image .. then, when tested, suddenly saw nothing wrong at all with what Hamas was doing ....

While groups like the Taliban or ISIS may offer some targets of 10-12 at a time for drones, they don't have the types of armies that make warfare possible.

It may not be an easy or a straightforward task to deal with them. However, likewise, I'm not willing to believe that everything done in Iraq and Afghanistan was a waste of time and effort. Is Gitmo a waste of time ? Big blows to terrorism, and the scum driving it, were meted out to them. Was it entirely successful ? Obviously, no. But that ultimately comes down to a lack of resolve to see the task through to its end.

The War on Terror should never have slackened. Quite the opposite, in my view.

The only way to win or rather change the nexus is ideological.

His point and mine is that while only a small percentage is radicalized into committing or even financing terror acts, a much larger percentage believes those acting ARE doing so in the righteousness of Islam. That must change.

It's only a difference between day-to-day commission of acts of terror, and more passive support for it ... yes. But no ideological impact is possible, because if you try it, then you're trying to defy an entire religion. Its adherents would never, in a million years, allow anyone to overturn their cherished beliefs. All the terrorism we see from Muslims is inspired by the Koran.

You'd have to prise Muslims away from taking any notice of the Koran to do anything worthwhile at all ! Good luck with that !!

No, Kathianne. The way forward is to show the enemy such power and resolve that their will to continue with attacks is broken. Convince them that they cannot possibly win through, THAT is the answer.

Not - instead - swallow their propaganda !! How will THAT deter ANY of them ??

Drummond

01-13-2015, 11:05 AM

Kathianne

01-13-2015, 01:50 PM

Drummond, you seem determined to ignore that I agree with you on the threat, that most Muslims that are 'religious' today are agreed with the 'righteousness' of the current venomous version of Islam.

What I disagree with at this point in time is that bellicosity is the way to convince the great majority of Muslims that are not willing to commit terror acts. How that can be accomplished would be from their mosques and that would only be likely if their governments are hurting enough to force it.

Thus the West must stop appeasing and supporting the states and people like Hamas.

The US supports the governments by not forcing sanctions. Europe tends to have people and groups that fund some of these groups such as Hamas and the Palestinians.

Good people in the West need to begin to make our desires known to those we are able to influence within our governments and 'benevolent' groups.

Drummond

01-14-2015, 05:59 AM

Drummond, you seem determined to ignore that I agree with you on the threat, that most Muslims that are 'religious' today are agreed with the 'righteousness' of the current venomous version of Islam.

I'm not ignoring you on this. My problem here is that I believe you don't completely grasp the full nature of the problem.

What I disagree with at this point in time is that bellicosity is the way to convince the great majority of Muslims that are not willing to commit terror acts. How that can be accomplished would be from their mosques and that would only be likely if their governments are hurting enough to force it.

Now, HERE, we're getting closer to the problem.

Kathianne, let me suggest this thought. If Muslims were 'peaceful' in intent, if their thinking about their own religion was as people such as Jafar would've claimed it to be, then we'd see ample evidence of Muslims taking a strong stand against those warmonger types who preach their so-called 'radical' version of it. WE SEE NO SUCH DEVELOPMENT, HOWEVER. The likes of Abu Hamza, as I've said, was never challenged by other Muslims during the period he was sermonising in London.

Which brings me to this point. OK, so in principle we seem to agree generally on the Muslim mindset. But consider ... IF Muslims cared a damn about others' thoughts, they'd have wanted to give the APPEARANCE of doing so, BY TACKLING HAMZA. Everyone knew how Hamza was regarded. Everyone knew what he was all about. But it made NO difference AT ALL.

What does this speak of, where such a high profile situation, with all the terrible publicity it generated, and all the debate over a VERY protracted period, didn't change a thing ? Answer ... THE GREAT DETERMINATION MUSLIMS HAVE TO CONTINUE ON AS THEY ARE.

Now, how do you achieve a breakthrough in a situation such as this, with a mentality that's immovable, where anything interpretable as weakness will be dismissed out of hand ... where savagery, barbarism, CAN BE, and IS, supported ?

By taking anything other than very strong and uncompromising steps ??

You say ....

Thus the West must stop appeasing and supporting the states and people like Hamas.

The US supports the governments by not forcing sanctions.

But we see that Muslims will not let sanctions get in the way of any objective they're sufficiently committed to. Do you believe that Iran is sanction-free -- OR, is badly hurting from the sanctions it's suffered in recent years. AND HAS ANY OF THAT MADE THE SMALLEST DIFFERENCE TO THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM ?

I suggest to you that Muslims see sanctions as proof of an unwillingness to show resolve beyond a certain, weak, point .. that they're seen as proof of weakness, which neutralises their persuasiveness.

What's left, therefore, is the need to be stronger still than this. If that involves 'bellicosity' .. and more, besides .. then it does.

Europe tends to have people and groups that fund some of these groups such as Hamas and the Palestinians.

True ! And what mixture of weakness and delusional thinking lies behind that truth ?

Good people in the West need to begin to make our desires known to those we are able to influence within our governments and 'benevolent' groups.

No amount of talking will do the smallest amount of good if it is seen to be evidence of any brand of weakness. The enemy, Kathianne, IS THE ENEMY.