Fascism returns to Europe

[guyser]

In any event it really doesn't matter what the party platform is...and I admit I'm not familiar with it; what matters is that it IS a party, duly registered and perfectly legal, and it was at a demonstration that got shut down with police brutality. It's not clear why so many people are determined to ignore the issue and ad hominem it to death.

So, this was a Party, duly registered and perfectly legal.

Very good scotty.

Um, but from start it was not a legal protest or march. They were turned down for the permit.

This is were you , to quote, "ignore the issue" LOL But nice try!

Oh police brutality. There wasnt any brutality in the video you posted. Somebody got handcuffed and his shirt came out of his pantwaist? The whole 3 who were arrested?

Scottsa , you are the one ignoring the issue and flogging a dead horse.

Still not sleeping? What is with righties and their paranoia ?

[ScottSA]

So, this was a Party, duly registered and perfectly legal.

Very good scotty.

Um, but from start it was not a legal protest or march. They were turned down for the permit.

This is were you , to quote, "ignore the issue" LOL But nice try!

Oh police brutality. There wasnt any brutality in the video you posted. Somebody got handcuffed and his shirt came out of his pantwaist? The whole 3 who were arrested?

Scottsa , you are the one ignoring the issue and flogging a dead horse.

Still not sleeping? What is with righties and their paranoia ?

We've already gone through this with even smarter folks than you. You'll have to read back over the thread I guess and see if you can catch up. Toodles.

[jbg]

In fact I can't think of a single case in the democratic west since 1945 where a peaceful demonstration was broken up by baton wielding thugs for simply standing there.

Chicago 1968 Democratic Convention? There were some provocateurs hurling trash from rooftops, but the police violence thereafter was pretty much random. But I agree with your point that such organized governmental violence in an advanced democracy is rare.

I also believe that Central Europe has little historical memory of real democracy. Most of its experience is with varying forms of relatively absolute monarchy or dictatorship, with a few exceptions such as the Netherlands, Britain, Switzerland and certain Scandinavian countries. It is true that since 1945 Europe has known unparelleled degrees of democracy, under the watchful gaze of NATO troops, which in practice are mostly UK and US troops. Given Europe's perpetual attempts to centralize under a "European Constitution" which would remove the rulers one further step from the (now) voting public, I am very skeptical of the concept of stable, continuous European democracy.

Adding Islam to the mix doesn't help much either, since it creates a true existential threat to Europe that would seem to necessitate a strong crackdown.

[M.Dancer]

Well as fate would have it I walked inadvertantly into a demo in Paris in 1979 or so. It seemed peaceful reight to the point where the riot police disgourged off the bus and waded with batons into the crowd.

But I didn't get that impression from the vid of the flemish fascist party demo.....

Ah culture.....

[Canadian Blue]

What that means, for the lesser witted among us, is that some of its elements are shooting off at the mouth, unsanctioned by the party. Like some elements of the reeform party in canada did. What that has to do with the platform is rather beyond me.

May I remind you that the member who made the comments about the Holocaust and the Anne Frank diaries is still very active within the party. What that means for those us who aren't as naive is that the party still largely holds views which could be considered fascist, the support of Israel it seems is more of a facade than anything else.

May I ask what other far right wing parties would you support, does it extend to The German National Democratic Party, The National Front, The British National Party, etc.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[ScottSA]

May I remind you that the member who made the comments about the Holocaust and the Anne Frank diaries is still very active within the party. What that means for those us who aren't as naive is that the party still largely holds views which could be considered fascist, the support of Israel it seems is more of a facade than anything else.

May I ask what other far right wing parties would you support, does it extend to The German National Democratic Party, The National Front, The British National Party, etc.

You can ask, but since this thread is about a peaceful demostration being broken up by police, and not about the nature of Vlaam Belang or any other party, I won't bother answering. Ask instead whether I believe if freedom of assembly, and I'll be glad to answer.

What I will say is this: the allegedly "rightwing" parties you mention are outlets to the tension building in Europe. What you will find is that as this pressure builds is that the native population, in fits and starts, will begin gravitating towards them. It is evident that the EU leadership is using immigration to atomize European society by destroying nationalism and in the process indigenous culture, and unless it is stopped, things will get far worse; on both sides. But naturally you'll blame the nasty xenophobes who commit the mortal sin of wanting to keep 2000 years of their own history safe from 7th century barbarians...not some "oral history" made up on the fly by a stoneage society, but a history that drove the world for half a millenium and gave humanity the greatest social and technological leaps and bounds in history

[Canadian Blue]

What I will say is this: the allegedly "rightwing" parties you mention are outlets to the tension building in Europe. What you will find is that as this pressure builds is that the native population, in fits and starts, will begin gravitating towards them.

As has happened before, and as we've seen neo-Nazis have been elected in parts of Germany where the unemployment rate is 20%. Unfortunately immigrants are often the scapegoats for politician's who are only fuelled by intolerant bigotry and nothing else.

It is evident that the EU leadership is using immigration to atomize European society by destroying nationalism and in the process indigenous culture, and unless it is stopped, things will get far worse;

The same argument is often used that the majority population is under attack from a small minority population. However it's more evident that parties which are far right and fascist in nature are more powerful than the Muslims.

But naturally you'll blame the nasty xenophobes who commit the mortal sin of wanting to keep 2000 years of their own history safe from 7th century barbarians

So you think that ultranationalism will save us from the foreign horde invading the West?

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

[ScottSA]

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

I wish you would realize that this nonsense you spout, using a writer like Eco as a source, is as politically motivated as anything that ever issued from Hitler's mouth. Yes, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't care about their history and/or their genes, and just sat back and watched things fade away. How nice. How Lennonesque. The trouble is that it doesn't happen...never has and isn't about to start now. And there's a difference between some hapless minority and a strong growing and ghettoized minority flexing its social muscles. A difference that anyone should be able to see. People will and always have rebelled, and you can namecall till the cows come home, but that won't change.

[Rue]

Beam me up Scotty here are my responses to you;

"1 However Enoch Powell may have misphrased his speech, I agree wholeheartedly not only with his sentiment, but his apparent prescience as well. "

I find Enoch Powell to be a racist hate monger and deliberate and open about that fact. He's never denied it.

"2 Vlaam Belang is a seperatist party which attended the demonstration as invited participants. To my knowledge it is in no way anti-Semetic...."

Oy Vay Scotty! Trust me they are. Read up on them.Trust me they don't want me playing golf with them. Its not made up Scotty. Just go find it out for yourself. In fact from what I know of you from what I read in all seriousness, you would have problems with some of their platform.

"3 "Racist agenda". If by that you mean..."

I find it racist when an entire people is tarred with the same general negative descriptions. When the political opinion being expressed portrays all Muslims in a negative way, yes I call that racist or prejudice or what ever ist or ism it should be called.. Do I think is an ism or ist to criticize certain concepts no-all I ask is the person criticizing them not use that as a platform to assign negative characteristics to an entire people.

"8- they want to stop the Islamification of Belgium"

Actually what we have is a debate to get rid of Muslims as citizens. Its not simply about intolerant fundamentalist beliefs. The debate as to fundamentalism belongs in courts and in schools being debated by educated and calm people, not on the streets with people who can't differentiate their opinions from hatred for others they think have opinions different then theirs-at least in my opinion.

"4 Rue, you argue the same points against my alleged "racism" as your opponents argue against you in regard to Israel. Would you want hordes of Muslims to become citizens of Israel? "

That is the irony Scott. I may be a sympathizer of Israel but I also believe in democracy and if in fact the democratic majority vote it out of existence, irony of ironies, as a believer in democracy I would not resist it.

I sympathize with Israel yes most certainly but don't mistake that. Even we Zionists can be principled people you know! Lol.

Now you ask me is Zionism racism, no but it certainly can be used by Jews incorrectly in a racist manner just as any human can use their nationalism that way. We all must guard against that.

[ScottSA]

That is the irony Scott. I may be a sympathizer of Israel but I also believe in democracy and if in fact the democratic majority vote it out of existence, irony of ironies, as a believer in democracy I would not resist it.

Forgive me if I don't believe you. Your statements hereabouts make it very plain that you treat Israel as a case apart from the rest of the world. I must say, though, that I notice your post above is very emotive, but a bit short on substance.

[jbg]

Beam me up Scotty here are my responses to you;

"1 However Enoch Powell may have misphrased his speech, I agree wholeheartedly not only with his sentiment, but his apparent prescience as well. "

I find Enoch Powell to be a racist hate monger and deliberate and open about that fact. He's never denied it.

Unfortunately there has to be a balance between allowing Western society to be wrecked and total exclusion. I don't have all the answers, but neither do the hate mongers or the multiculturalists.

[Rue]

Forgive me if I don't believe you. Your statements hereabouts make it very plain that you treat Israel as a case apart from the rest of the world. I must say, though, that I notice your post above is very emotive, but a bit short on substance.

What you believe about me is of course your prerogative.

I would suggest though if you actually read anything I have written, you would see the arguements I made as to the need for a state of Israel was never based on the notion of wanting to hate others and keep them seperate and apart.

Zionism is not about racism and never was. Its concept that Jews express self-determination through a state apperatus is based on the belief it needed to do this to survive constant hatred and mass extermination and a constant hatred that continues to this day.

It was never based on an ideology of superiority, or of stating one creates a Jewish identity by negating the right of another to have a Muslim or Christian one.

I have never once varied on that point. I have never in my support of Israel ever suggested I was against democracy, hated Muslims as people, and feel the need for Jews to create a nation to protect and assure their existence should be based on a doctrine that hates Muslims or considers them inferior.

Zionism is about Jews wanting to be self-determined, no more, no less.

I have raised and willl continue to raise a spirited defence of Zionism, precisely because it has never suggested Jews are superior to Muslims and it is precisely why in Israel's constitutional laws and legal system it affords the exact same legal rights to Muslims in Israel as it does Jews.

My problem is with terrorists who refuse to allow both Israelis and Palestinians the right to self-determination of their respective identities, peacefully.

Let me spell it out. Israel is a democratic nation. If the majority of its citizens vote to dismantle it because they are not Jewish that is the irony and there is no point denying it.

The fact I support Israel does not mean I do not understand that or would deny that.

I am not so naive as to think self-determination through a state organ is a guarantee against assimilation.

So no please don't suggest because I support Israel I have to phrase political ideology using the framework you do.

I respect Muslims as human beings first and foremost. If there are Muslism who are terrorists or who use their religion to support fundamentalism or intolerance I will fight that as I would that tendency in any human of any group.

My problem Scott is the line has been blurred between criticizing intolerant tendencies within Muslim society with Muslims as a people.

I personally believe the demonstrations in Europe blur that line.

Do I want to be forced to be a Muslim fundamentalist, of course not. But I believe the way to resist such tendencies is to sit with moderate Muslims and form a coalition not alienate them by failing to distinguish them from terrorists or fundamentalists.

I think the blurring of the lines fuels terrorists and alienates moderates, no more no less.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

Unfortunately there has to be a balance between allowing Western society to be wrecked and total exclusion. I don't have all the answers, but neither do the hate mongers or the multiculturalists.

That JBG is exactly the point. Balance. Now whether humans will stay calm enough to use reason and logic not anger to find that balance remains the question.

There is one Joker or wild card left as to how this ends up and the Joker in this deck I think is called God or the creator or mother nature or something beyond it all and despite it all. I believe atheists would calll it an irrational belief in the concept that things will turn out o.k. in spite of humans.

But that's the thing. Being irrational can at times be quite rational. Its just confusing.

So in this case it might mean for example, that terrorist Scotty is convinced will end up on his door step on the way to blowing up his carcass might be distracted as he sees Paris Hilton on the street and in that brief moment he looks over to see her bumb get exposed from the wind blowing up her dress with no underwear, presto bango a car drives over him and kills him preventing him from completing his destiny.

[ScottSA]

My problem Scott is the line has been blurred between criticizing intolerant tendencies within Muslim society with Muslims as a people.

I personally believe the demonstrations in Europe blur that line.

Do I want to be forced to be a Muslim fundamentalist, of course not. But I believe the way to resist such tendencies is to sit with moderate Muslims and form a coalition not alienate them by failing to distinguish them from terrorists or fundamentalists.

I think the blurring of the lines fuels terrorists and alienates moderates, no more no less.

I think you must misunderstand the point of the protest. Have you taken the time to actually find out what it was about? Let me help. But first let me clarify my position on this, since it seems to have eluded you:

I have nothing against individual Muslims except for their association with Islam. Islam is in my view evil at its root. I don't know if you've taken the time to read the Koran, and do so with the concept of abrogation in mind, at the source, not through apologia and rhetoric coming from the soothing salesmen of Islam. If you have, you'll note that Islam is, at its very core, fundamentally different from, and more barbaric than, Christianity. I can't speak to its similarities or differences to Judeaism, but I put a fair bit of stock in the observation that for two millenia Jews have resisted the temptation to intentionally blow up innocents, so I treat any similarities there as moot.

Moderate Muslims exist, to be sure. How many of them are moderate, and what exactly moderate means is not quite clear to anyone. Is a moderate Muslim a Muslim who doesn't blow up the infidel first hand? Is that enough to categorize a Muslim as moderate? Is a moderate Muslim one who quietly cheers on each suicide bombing? Is a moderate Muslim a Muslim who is more or less secular? Is a moderate Muslim one who rejects all attempts to instal Sharia as a political entity? If the latter, are we even still talking about Muslims at all? I suggest not.

So yes, I lump all Muslims together as believers in a death cult. Does that mean I "hate" all the individuals who are Muslim? Of course not, and to suggest it shows a lack of comprehension. Does that mean I hate Islam? You bet.

Now, to the demonstrations: They are against the "Islamification of Europe." That is, as above, quite distinct from being against "Muslims," although they probably want a halt to Muslim immigration post haste as well. There is no line being "blurred" here at all. They want to keep their countries Judeo-Christian and exclude the incremental movements toward accomodating a tyrannical deathcult.

Let me ask you this, and I'll hope for an honest answer instead of Sophistry: If German Jews got together in 1933 and peacefully demonstrated against Nazis, claiming they didn't want Germany to fall prey to totalitarianism, would you mount the same defence for the Nazi SA when they broke up the demonstration, claiming that lumping fanatical Nazis and moderate Nazis together wasn't "fair?" Because really, you know, not all Nazis shared the radical anti-Semitism of the hard core. I bet even most of them were "moderates."

[Michael Hardner]

Scott:

Here's your error:

I can't speak to its similarities or differences to Judeaism, but I put a fair bit of stock in the observation that for two millenia Jews have resisted the temptation to intentionally blow up innocents, so I treat any similarities there as moot.

You're looking to explain reasons for violence in the religion by pointing to holy books as the cause. As you point out, other religions have holy books that contain violence too. So then where are you ?

Lots of cultures that had different religions, or no religion at all have fostered violence.

I suspect that what you really should be doing is starting with your own personal feelings of dislike for certain attributes, and working from there. If you state that you don't like ignorant people, people who blame others for their problems, what have you, then you will have a principle that, when applied, will snag people of all cultures in your net of dislike.

I'm glad to hear that you don't hate individuals, though.

[ScottSA]

Scott:

Here's your error:

You're looking to explain reasons for violence in the religion by pointing to holy books as the cause. As you point out, other religions have holy books that contain violence too. So then where are you ?

Where I am Mikey, is noting that other religions don't, in fact, diefy rape, pedophilia, genocide and a host of other niceties, and then exhort their followers to do the same. You can dig up a few tidbits in the old testament I suppose, even if you're not aware that the new testament is supposed to sit in its place, but I challenge you to point to a widespread Christian, multinational, multiethnic call for the heads of non-believers, along with an organized political movement aimed at taking over democratic countries in the name of a psychotic genocidal maniac. Sorry Mikey, the Koran is not the "Good News Bible". There is no equivalence. Take your silly milquetoastisms elsewhere.

[Michael Hardner]

Scott,

Where I am Mikey, is noting that other religions don't, in fact, diefy rape, pedophilia, genocide and a host of other niceties, and then exhort their followers to do the same. You can dig up a few tidbits in the old testament I suppose, even if you're not aware that the new testament is supposed to sit in its place, but I challenge you to point to a widespread Christian, multinational, multiethnic call for the heads of non-believers, along with an organized political movement aimed at taking over democratic countries in the name of a psychotic genocidal maniac. Sorry Mikey, the Koran is not the "Good News Bible". There is no equivalence. Take your silly milquetoastisms elsewhere.

Here's my question: where are you putting the blame - on the holy books or on the culture that follows Islam ?

It seems to me you're blaming the culture, but you can't accept the consequences of taking that path:

1) Muslims from another culture would be free and clear, and not subject to your scorn

2) Western culture should have a moderating effect on Islamists.

3) Bringing them into Canada is a good thing, at least in the long term.

[ScottSA]

Scott,

Here's my question: where are you putting the blame - on the holy books or on the culture that follows Islam ?

It seems to me you're blaming the culture, but you can't accept the consequences of taking that path:

1) Muslims from another culture would be free and clear, and not subject to your scorn

2) Western culture should have a moderating effect on Islamists.

3) Bringing them into Canada is a good thing, at least in the long term.

You're really having trouble today, eh? The book is at the root of the culture, and sustains it by deifying the culture. The culture is the immediate effect.

I don't know what your other three points are in aid of, but:

1 I don't begin to understand what this supposed to mean, but that's ok Mikey, because I don't care either.

2 It doesn't matter what Western culture "should" do; what matters is that if even 1% of them are not "moderated", we have a serious problem. Why bring Nazis here in hopes of being a moderating influence on them? Why bother? That makes no sense.

3 no, bringing them to Canada is not a good thing, in either the long or the short term.

[Rue]

Responses to Scotty:

"I think you must misunderstand the point of the protest."

No I actually took the time to look at the political agenda of the people who organized it and what they stand for,

"I have nothing against individual Muslims except for their association with Islam. Islam is in my view evil at its root. "

On the one hand you say you have nothing against individual Muslims then you state Islam is evil and you hold it against individual Muslims if they associate with Islam. So your comment you have nothing against individual Muslims is silly. You just said you do.

"I don't know if you've taken the time to read the Koran, and do so with the concept of abrogation in mind, at the source, not through apologia and rhetoric coming from the soothing salesmen of Islam. "

Lol. I am far from a salesman of Islam. However when I read the Koran or any book written by humans, particularly books that are based on edited heresay, I criticize them all using the same critical standards of objectivity.

You are mistaking the fact that because I keep my intellectual opinions of the Islamic religion seperate from my human relations with Muslims, that somehow this means I support Islam.

I repeat again. It is possible to criticize Islam without hating Muslims or assigning them all negative characteristics because I have problems with certain precepts in their religion. To me the two are seperate and distinct issues.

For that matter my problems with Islam are the exact same problems I have with ALL human religions.

" If you have, you'll note that Islam is, at its very core, fundamentally different from, and more barbaric than, Christianity."

This is where I strongly disagree with you. In my critical analysis of organized religions, I find Christianity and for that matter all organized religions have been barbaric. I do not think it is particular to Islam. Its kind of ironic saying to a Jew whose people have been subject to Christian barbarism for over 2000 years that Christianity is less barbaric then Islam.

Its laughable in one sense because as a Jew I am tempted to say, its like comparing two chronic diseases that will both kill me and asking me to define which one is worse.

On a more serious note, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have passages that have been used by fundamentalists to engage in terror and violence. I make no qualms in saying the Old Testament is a barbaric piece of work with an angry God engaging in mass murder and having temper tantrums.

Judaism over the thousands of years has had time to evolve and develop critical thought and with age has come the evolution of thought which no longer sees things as black and white. That said, within our community we still have fundamentalists. They may not engage in terror, true, but thousands of years ago they did in the name of God. If you ask me to say my people are more civilized then Muslims I won't. I have no desire to claim religious superiority. All religions to me are necessarily equally as fucked since they are made by humans. Never met a human whose religion eventually didn't turn sexually perverted and violent.

"Is a moderate Muslim..."

In my personal opinion a moderate human would be one who believes violence is never acceptable, and that humans must exist peeacefully in co-existence and respect each other's differences. To me a moderate is someone who believes in the rule of law and reason over irational impulse. To me a moderate is someone who can see more then one side of an arguement and can flex and seek compromise. To me a moderate human is simply one who tries to find harmony from balancing conflicting views.

"So yes, I lump all Muslims together as believers in a death cult. Does that mean I "hate" all the individuals who are Muslim? Of course not...."

Now how does one lump all Muslims in a death cult, and then in the next comment tell me he does not hate all Muslims/ if you think they are ALL in a death cult, do you really expect me to believe you then do not hate them? Puhleeze.

" Does that mean I hate Islam? You bet."

So you don't hate Muslims. But you hate their religion. You don't hate Muslims but you are against them associating with Islam and if they associate with Islam you have a problem because the religion is a death cult and evil and barbaric. But you don't hate Muslims.

Hmm that's not inconsistent at all. It makes perfect sense to me someone who feels people who associate with an evil death cult, would not be people he would hate. Uh yah.

"Now, to the demonstrations: They are against the "Islamification of Europe." "

If that makes it sound antiseptic and politically appropriate for you, bully for you. See some of us Scott don't couch what it is. The marchs were about Muslims being Muslim and how Europeans want Europeans to be Christian. Don't couch it. We know what it is. The agenda is out in the open. Assimilate and become Christian or get the fuck out of Belgium.

"That is, as above, quite distinct from being against "Muslims," "

Right you again make logical sense. People March telling Muslims to assimilate or get the fuck out and its not against Muslims.

Sure.

Here is the point. These marches were all about blurring the line between criticizing fundamentalist aspects of Islam with the people as a people and you know it. The line was deliberately blurred.

"although they probably want a halt to Muslim immigration post haste as well."

That is precisely the point. The line was crossed when immigration was raised. The issue of immigration based on "desireable" characteristics is necessarily subjective and not limited to simply saying if you are Muslim, if you come to Europe don't be fundamentalist-it went way past that-its about not wanting Muslims because they have beards and have tans and don't look like white people. It is not just religion -its physical characteristics and assumed negative characteristics about Muslims that have nothing to do with fundamentalism

"They want to keep their countries Judeo-Christian"....

Please do not put the word Judeo in this. It has nothing to do with Jewish culture at all. Europe made it clear for centuries it will never ever allow any Jewish concepts in its society. The holocaust was simply the culmination of that fact. Please do not ever say Europeans want to preserve Jewish culture. That is a joke.

The people who march want nothing to do with Jews the same reason they want nothing to do with Muslims.

" and exclude the incremental movements toward accomodating a tyrannical deathcult."

Sounds like a couched way of simply saying -Muslims bad get rid of them. I hate people who beat around the bush and try use baffle gab to couch what they say.

"Let me ask you this, and I'll hope for an honest answer instead of Sophistry: If German Jews got together in 1933 and peacefully demonstrated against Nazis, claiming they didn't want Germany to fall prey to totalitarianism, would you mount the same defence for the Nazi SA when they broke up the demonstration, claiming that lumping fanatical Nazis and moderate Nazis together wasn't "fair?" Because really, you know, not all Nazis shared the radical anti-Semitism of the hard core. I bet even most of them were "moderates."

For starters for a guy who accuses me of sophistry you not I are the one who engages in it when discussing his animosity towards Muslims.

More to the point your question above is ludicrous. You are equating Muslims with Nazis. Muslims are not Nazis. Muslims are simply Muslims. Nazis were Germans who chose deliberately, a political belief system that said many things. For you to simplify Islam as being Nazism shows why you and I disagree. For me your decision to equate the two as being the same shows a complete lack of understanding as to what Islam is and what Nazism was and remains.

You refer to the Nazi SA as analogous to the Belgian police. Teh Nazi SA were a political unit of the Nazi Party. They were in fact a vigilante force. They were not a police force. In fact when the SA operated they did so in blatant violation of the German constitution. They were an illegal vigilante force that engaged in crimes, i.e., property damage, assault, battery, rape, homicide, theft.

For you to compare them to the Belgian police is absurd.

The Belgian police do nto wear their uniforms as the SA did. They did not put on those uniforms because it was their express political beliefs that they needed to go out and kill anti-Muslim protesters. The Belgian police were and are not part of a political movement that operates outside the laws of its country and whose purpose is to round up and kill anti-Muslims.

The Belgian police are assigned the task of assuring no citizen, Muslim or anti-Muslim engages in crimes such as assault, battery, property damage.

Did they use excessive force to break up the demonstrations? I do not know. Were you there? Do you know what caused them to do what they did? Were you on the ground? Its easy for you to refer to the Belgian police as Nazi SA but to me that is odious. It also reveals you have a problem with the rule of law when it does not suit you and will refer to police as facists. That to me is extremist and precisely why I challenge you. if you have no respect for police and think they are Nazi SA because they enforce peace and you see no difference between them and vigilante groups formed to violate the constitutions these same police try defend, then of course I have a problem.

I also have a real problem with you engaging in holocaust inversion to try turn racial intolerance into Jewish victimization. That Sir is pathetic.

It is precisely the same reasoning that is now being used on Muslims in Europe which was used for centuries on Jews in Europe and culminated in the holocaust and the creation of the NAzis and groups such as the Nazi SA.

It is precisely the exercise of protecting their culture and heritage that saw such groups form and be able to exterminate. In the name of protecting their culture, they first demonized Jews. Once they were demonized as sub-human it was easy to kill them.

When you lump all Muslims as followers of an evil religion and death cult, you do nothing new. Christians did that for centuries with Jews and many still do.

You want to typecast Muslims as Nazis and Belgian police as Nazis, don't take the name of the victims of holocaust in vain to do so.

Jews died precisely because of the same reasoning process you are now trying to justify. The only thing that's changed is there are no jews left to burn. The scapegoat has simply changed.

To try suggest these anti-Muslim marchers are the moral equivalent of Jews in Nazi Germany

is absurd.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Rue

[ScottSA]

Allow me to condense your post into a manageable soundbyte. In effect you are claiming that one ought not try to select the characteristics of a potential immigrant. To be sure, you adorn it with all sorts of invective and even a few entirely conjured up imputations, but for the most part you're claiming that it's 'racist' to want to decide who comes into one's country. That's just silly Rue. You of all people should know that.

[Michael Hardner]

Why bring Nazis here in hopes of being a moderating influence on them? Why bother? That makes no sense.

S,

But we did bring them here after WW2. Are you saying that it was a bad idea ? We also brought Czech, Austrian, Ukranian, Hungarians who collaborated with the Germans in ww2.

Don't tell me you're against European immigration too ?

[GostHacked]

Allow me to condense your post into a manageable soundbyte. In effect you are claiming that one ought not try to select the characteristics of a potential immigrant. To be sure, you adorn it with all sorts of invective and even a few entirely conjured up imputations, but for the most part you're claiming that it's 'racist' to want to decide who comes into one's country. That's just silly Rue. You of all people should know that.

Nice twisting on the words. Try to keep up. Rue made some very good points, and can.... and has, shown you how strage your train of thought is. She even points it out in great detail. Cannot see the forest for the trees I guess. I do not agree with Rue on many things, but she has clearly pointed out how you constantly jumble and twist stuff up and then try to pin it on us when we can easily and clearly show you how you are wrong in your thoughts. Or how wrong and contradicting and hypocritical your posting has become. How does one trip over themselves so often?

If you are talking about immigration then fine, but you are also slandering an entire culture and people at the same time. You are the Ann Coulter of this board. "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim." Just another great line in many from that crackerhead.

Let me sum up your posts in a manageable soundbyte, .... actually it would just be white noise.

Immigration is not the problem. Muslim immigration is not the problem.

[ScottSA]

Immigration is not the problem. Muslim immigration is not the problem.

Do tell. What is the problem?

[Canadian Blue]

ScottSA aren't you also opposed to Chinese and Mexican immigrants as well? So it doesn't seem to be isolated to one particular group.

[ScottSA]

ScottSA aren't you also opposed to Chinese and Mexican immigrants as well? So it doesn't seem to be isolated to one particular group.

I'm not "opposed" to Chinese and Mexican immigrants, I'm "opposed" to...listen carefully to each word..."multi-ethnic floodgate immigration." I think any society can bear a small number of "visible minorities" and keep its culture intact, or intact to the extent that it will evolve within the paradigm of its own historism. It's quite obvious that it won't be allowed to occur when the country is being flooded by ethnic immigrants.