Activity


  • Photo credit: The Spectator
    By Douglas Murray
    Well at least we all know the form by now.  This morning Islamist suicide-bombers struck one of the few European capitals they haven’t previously hit in a ma […]

    • Terrorists pick capital cities for their atrocities:

      a) because it produces a large impact on politicians who might be more detached from events,

      b) It is easy to hide in the densely crowded multicultural population, which also provides a rich target over extended periods, with numerous potential victims.

      c) The anonymity and multitude of business activities, provides cover which makes surveillance difficult.

      Belgium, while not a high profile state in terms of world politics, has Brussels, which IS one of the European parliamentary centres of government.

    • therealclimber #4
      Mar 23, 2016 at 11:47 am

      We often hear how some Muslims have helped the victims of such attacks as way to suggest that Islam isn’t the problem. What’s left out is the fact that many Muslim perpetrators hurt their victims because of their religion and that Muslim responders help the victims in spite of their religion.

      We also need to remember that in addition to “infidel victims”, many of the victims in majority Islamic countries, are victims because they are the “wrong” denomination of Muslims, (Shia, Sunni, Kharijites, ‎Ahmadiyya.) just as in the Irish troubles, there were victims who were the “wrong” denomination of Christians!
      In “religions of peace”, the “fellowship of peace” does not extend very far from core dogmatists!

    • I saw today that a fire started at the mosque near where I live in the UK.
      It didn’t look like an accident. The fire brigade and police attended and it was all over in about 5 minutes.
      However this doesn’t bode well for the future.
      A few more attacks and it could start to get quite nasty in the other direction. It must be the last thing most decent Muslims will want. But unfortunately there are those who will be very quick to jump on the bandwagon and I’m sure IS and others will be laughing with delight. Especially, as someone pointed out earlier, if they are the ‘wrong’ type of Muslim being attacked.

    • “The majority of Muslims don’t agree with any sort of extremism. They are tired of thinking not in my name please”

      Yes, but of course that ‘majority’ (of unspecified magnitude) isn’t the problem. It is the evidently significant minority that is the problem.

      I think we are all getting tired….. of this constant refrain of ‘No True Muslim’. It just doesn’t wash, whether it comes from Imam, or ‘community leader’, or Guardian correspondent, or BBC presenter.

    • The majority of the victims of Islamic fascism, which happens not in primarily in Europe but in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria , Sudan,Kenya etc are in fact muslim and the majority of people fighting Islamic fascism are also muslim.

      What does the fact that Hitler was Austrian tell us about all Austrians?

    • There’s another phase that’s been omitted:

      The ultra-pretentious social media like-whores who post an infographic or list of other atrocities that have recently taken place, all in war-torn despotic hell-holes along with a cringeworthy sanctimonious derpfest on how they prefer to show solidarity towards those events rather than the “status quo”…yet they haven’t mentioned anything about those events until the current one.

    • 14

      Beyond Paris: 10,000s Of Muslims Killed By ISIS Since Declaring Caliphate

      I just stated that fact and nothing else, so why you bothered to post all the irrelevent rest is beyond me. If you want to think all muslims are pop eyed babies for breakfast eating monsters that is your prerogative, or is it derogative as my spellchecker aptly suggests..

    • Some thoughts:

      I have met any number of people since the tragic incident occurred who do in fact blame Islam and all Muslims. That is a terrible mistake.

      We need to do everything we can to stop these people, but we will never get rid of terrorism altogether. We have to live with it. If we allow it to become an obsession, like Ahab’s white whale, we will destroy ourselves.

      What is Murray’s solution?

      A lot of talk about Islamic fascism. Belgium was fascist to the core at one point, had established a true, bona fide fascist regime. One of the worst ever. (Mosse) Next to Italy under Mussolini and Germany under Hitler, Belgian fascism ranks third. And those “rubber-seeking monsters” (J. Miller) also massacred scores upon scores of black Africans in the Congo.

      “Others will get onto Israel-Palestine.” – Murray

      And why the hell shouldn’t they? And he left out “getting onto” the second war with Iraq. Not significant?

      I hate what happened this past week. Sad and very anger-provoking. I hate cruelty and killing, hate terrorism, obviously. But let’s not forget: the world is a complex place.

      P.S. Neo-con Murray refers to Islamic fascism in his writings. Fascism is as misunderstood as socialism. It has certain specific features and elements. For example, “through stereotypes fascism worked not only with abstract symbols but with living human symbols as well. The true fascist man must through his looks, body, and comportment, project the ideal of male beauty. Men of flesh and blood were given a symbolic dimension, a fact which added to the fascist appeal.” If you are interested in fascism (and it’s a fascinating and disturbing subject) I would recommend George L. Mosse’s great work The Fascist Revolution. Mosse was a great historian and presented a penetrating rich and insightful analysis of fascism.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mosse

    • Steve #13
      Mar 24, 2016 at 10:57 am

      The majority of the victims of Islamic fascism, which happens not in primarily in Europe but in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria , Sudan,Kenya etc are in fact muslim and the majority of people fighting Islamic fascism are also muslim.

      ..

      Steve #17
      Mar 24, 2016 at 1:51 pm

      I just stated that fact and nothing else, so why you bothered to post all the irrelevent rest is beyond me.

      The point you are missing is that these mass inter-sect Muslim killings, are happening in majority Muslim countries, so it is attempts to pretend that Islam is irrelevant, which are mistaken.

      The large numbers of Islamic casualties are just as religious/ ideologically based, as majority Christian casualties in Irish Catholic/ Protestant conflicts, or majority Communist casualties in Stalin’s purges!

    • I did not say or imply Islam was irrelevent. I just stated a simple fact, all the “implications” you give of that simple fact are only in your mind, not mine

    • @stevet

      “What does the fact that Hitler was Austrian tell us about all Austrians?”

      It can tell us at the very least something about many Austrians – but not all Austrians. But I would rephrase that: what can Germanic culture, particularly with regard to the dynamics of the family, tell us about the rise of Hitler? Erik Erikson wrote about the role of the father in many German families during that time. This facet of German culture is enormously significant. Unfortunately, I can’t find the quote or remember the book title (so I’ll have to put it in my own paltry words): The father was the lord and master; when he came home from work the walls shook.

      The point is not simply that Hitler was born in Austrian, was Austrian; the point is that in Austria and Germany father-worship was the order of the day and provided the backdrop, was the soil from which Hitler’s power and influence and appeal grew. (Many other factors, of course: political, social, economic, etc.)

      Norman Mailer said that fascism has the potential to appeal to many people in general because it takes us back to a time when we were children and were told by our parents: yes, no, good, bad, do this, do that. The authority figure in the form of a charismatic dictator is a recreation of what we experienced as children and comforts us, in spite of whatever conscious feelings of opposition we might have experienced as children. (So this is not only a German thing; nor is it only about the father.)

      Your original point (if I am not mistaken) was that the monsters that perpetrate these crimes are Muslim, but that should not lead to erroneous conclusions about all Muslims. I said something similar (Comment 18). But it can certainly tell us something about many Muslims – but not all Muslims. But I would rephrase that: what can the (complex and varied) culture of Islam, in addition our role in this and all of the other elements too numerous to mention, tell us about the rise of terrorists such as these? Nothing?

      This is not an anti-Muslim question.

      Steve, I loved your “light-bulb” comment on the Why We Believe thread, and the others too.

    • I think their religion plays a role. How much, I don’t know. Other factors as well. I just don’t know precisely what the causes are, would take years of study. I refuse to say that this group or that is more vicious by nature; that would be irresponsible.
      (Religions don’t progress much, do they?)

    • Ms Pearson should have known that the only acceptable thing to do after a suicide bomber detonates beside the European Commission is to acclaim the Commission as one of the few entities able to keep us safe.

      The sarcasm is unwarranted. Safety isn’t all-or-nothing; one must view things statistically. In the Western world, there are few causes of death remotely as rare as terrorism.

      Soon we will move to the next phase, during which broadcast media will ask questions that address no major points.

      The ensuing discussion is of rights-quashing security measures such as TPIMs. It would be more prudent to consider these ideas as dangerous rather than nothing major. Unfortunately, Murray doesn’t have human rights as his top priority:

      Everything barely worth saying will be said endlessly. And the only things that are worth saying won’t be said. What are those things? Among other things the fact that we are living with the consequences of an immigration and ‘integration’ fantasy which should have been abandoned years ago.

      What specifically does Murray think should be done differently? Should we ban immigration from certain countries to others because of occasional terrorists? Until Islamists get a dirty bomb, they will remain no more serious a security issue than, say, the IRA was to the UK. We didn’t need to sacrifice liberties over that. But I think Murray thinks we need to now, because he says:

      Nobody cites Sweden anymore. In fact nobody looks to anyone else’s model anymore. Because all of the ‘models’ failed.

      His definition of immigration failing is one terrorist attack per nation by one of countless groups that were able to immigrate on a large scale. Is he aware there have been almost 30,000 post-911 Islamist terrorist attacks worldwide, almost all of them Muslims attacking each other in non-Western nations? Our existing immigration legislation may have imperfections, but its response to occasional terrorism is far too proportionate to warrant Murray’s assessment of it, or any of the alternatives to it I hope he isn’t really advocating. Because if he is, I can only compare such policies to the most extreme anti-Africa flight measures proposed to limit the spread of Ebola in 2015.