Thursday, March 16, 2006
Crackdown on domestic terrorists
From the Washington Times:
"But the Amsterdam trial has an importance that goes well beyond the sphere of counterterrorism. This verdict is the culmination of a new trend that has been growing in Holland since the van Gogh assassination, as the country has gone through a severe self-examination. The Hofstad group is just the most dramatic and evident manifestation of a much larger problem. Most of the members of the group, in fact, were born in the Netherlands, sons or grandsons of North African immigrants who had grown up immersed in Dutch culture, yet had embraced radical Islam and decided to "wage a holy war against their own country," as Dutch prosecutors defined it. Bouyeri, who had described Holland as a "democratic torture chamber," talked about overthrowing the Dutch parliament and replacing it with an Islamic court. While receiving generous benefits from its social security, the men planned to kill the country's leaders and start a civil war that would have pitted Muslims against Christians."- Discovered at Vox Popoli
The protests and riots in European cities including the London bombings have shown that an increasing proportion of the muslim community have adopted extremist ideals, waging holy war on their own countries. Widespread fundamentalism is becoming an increasing problem and it's my guess that some of the violent sentiments expressed on cardboard reflect the opinions of many who participated in protests, and who do not value western democracy and freedoms. Yet they exercise their right to take to the streets and shout their anti-west slogans, in a twisted sense of irony.
The problem of discompassionate muslims can be found deeply rooted in racial segregation, and the failure of a generally diasporic community to assimilate in their resident European countries. European born-and-bred 'Jihadists' have no loyalty towards their own nation. Few journalists (including Melanie "Mad Cow" Phillips) I have come across have also noted the errosion of western values due to religious appeasement. I haven't read her latest publication Londonistan (a mockery on Britain's failure to tackle home-grown extremists and the transformation of London into today's European HQ for terrorist recruitment), but I figured it has to do with the errosion of civil liberties as an influx of immigrants bring along with them anti-western values which eventually affect a democratic society where people of every creed are allowed to vote.
It looks like the Dutch are the first to step up to get to the root of the problem, by getting immigrants to assimilate to their culture and values, e.g. learning the Dutch language for starters. Government intervention seems to be an inevitable solution if you don't wish your national identity erroded. The whole issue also begs another question. As anti-voting libertarian Vox Day once pointed out, the voting aspect of democracy has now seen Iraq under the threat of the Sharia law being imposed by nominated parties and deeply suspects a wasted war effort. Is this evidence that voting is not always for the better of a free society? Perhaps the leech can shed some positive light on this.
Comments:
<< Home
well, i'll have a go. although i'm swamped with work and i find it hard to post, i am still a reader [a leech, if you will, sucking on your posts].
well, first things first, Melanie Phillips, who has long struggled with the contradiction between defending what she calls western values and indulging in her extreme segregationist religious beliefs, is not the ideal candidate to label others as fundamentalist. the other day she claimed that gay marriage was the first step on the slippery slope to a wash of necrophilia and paedophilia in the UK. makes me wish that burning witches was still a western value. her schitzo reasoning will not produce any answers. she slams immigration and the entry of more foreigners, yet then wonders why they don't feel integrated. she bashes the church for extending its hand to single parent families, apparently decaying our society by putting them on an equal footing with two parent families [if you are single what choice do you have?] her explantions for Britain's woes are tedious and prehistoric. she also doesn't give a damn about civil liberties, supporting 90 day detention measures because she knows that she will never have to face the situation where the police accidentally lock her up in a case of mistaken identity or wrong-place-wrong-time. she says the cartoons were free speech but then supports David Irving being locked up in Austria for apparently denying the Holocaust [and says that it is sick to "compare" the two. always on about the "comparing"...]
i struggle with this muslim alienation idea. if you go and live in another country you don't have to be muslim to feel like an outsider. there will always be cultural and linguistic barriers to grapple with. so there must be something that works alongside this alienation. my brain is a little frosty today.
as for unseemly types having a negative impact in a democratic society: that is why you need a strong constitution that will preclude any extremists changing fundamental laws and freedoms. in most democracies there is a threshold level,a certain number or percentage of votes required for parliamentary representation, to prevent small extremist groups being represented in parliament. there are also hundreds of international laws and conventions against torture, restriction of the right to freedom of speech,etc, that every country should sign, forcing the government to adhere.
Vox Day, as ever, isolates the part of the argument that suits him and conveniently ignores the rest. Iraq is not just another democracy. it is only a democracy in name because it has shed a dictator and the useful propaganda term is "democracy".no power lies with the Iraqi electorate or the Iraqi government because the state of war and flux prevents the people's will being carried out. most of the western democracies have developed strong constitutions over time, whereas in Iraq it is being hurried along and compromised by various factions that cannot agree on what form it should take. in other words, Iraq is developing backwards. in most democracies a party with extreme views and a disregard for decent values would be locked out by the constitution. in Iraq, the parties are locking out the constitution. i don't know what a good solution would look like, but I do know that Iraq is not a good representative of democarcy in action.
well, first things first, Melanie Phillips, who has long struggled with the contradiction between defending what she calls western values and indulging in her extreme segregationist religious beliefs, is not the ideal candidate to label others as fundamentalist. the other day she claimed that gay marriage was the first step on the slippery slope to a wash of necrophilia and paedophilia in the UK. makes me wish that burning witches was still a western value. her schitzo reasoning will not produce any answers. she slams immigration and the entry of more foreigners, yet then wonders why they don't feel integrated. she bashes the church for extending its hand to single parent families, apparently decaying our society by putting them on an equal footing with two parent families [if you are single what choice do you have?] her explantions for Britain's woes are tedious and prehistoric. she also doesn't give a damn about civil liberties, supporting 90 day detention measures because she knows that she will never have to face the situation where the police accidentally lock her up in a case of mistaken identity or wrong-place-wrong-time. she says the cartoons were free speech but then supports David Irving being locked up in Austria for apparently denying the Holocaust [and says that it is sick to "compare" the two. always on about the "comparing"...]
i struggle with this muslim alienation idea. if you go and live in another country you don't have to be muslim to feel like an outsider. there will always be cultural and linguistic barriers to grapple with. so there must be something that works alongside this alienation. my brain is a little frosty today.
as for unseemly types having a negative impact in a democratic society: that is why you need a strong constitution that will preclude any extremists changing fundamental laws and freedoms. in most democracies there is a threshold level,a certain number or percentage of votes required for parliamentary representation, to prevent small extremist groups being represented in parliament. there are also hundreds of international laws and conventions against torture, restriction of the right to freedom of speech,etc, that every country should sign, forcing the government to adhere.
Vox Day, as ever, isolates the part of the argument that suits him and conveniently ignores the rest. Iraq is not just another democracy. it is only a democracy in name because it has shed a dictator and the useful propaganda term is "democracy".no power lies with the Iraqi electorate or the Iraqi government because the state of war and flux prevents the people's will being carried out. most of the western democracies have developed strong constitutions over time, whereas in Iraq it is being hurried along and compromised by various factions that cannot agree on what form it should take. in other words, Iraq is developing backwards. in most democracies a party with extreme views and a disregard for decent values would be locked out by the constitution. in Iraq, the parties are locking out the constitution. i don't know what a good solution would look like, but I do know that Iraq is not a good representative of democarcy in action.
True, that diaspora and racial segregation are not exclusive to the muslim community. But it's nonetheless a factor in creating an environment which nutures a people who lack any sort of bonding with their national identity. And this makes for a more fertile landscape for the seeds of fundamentalist and extremist ideals to be sown. I believe mutliculturalism and diversity can only be celebrated hand in hand with unity under one flag in order to have any real meaning. Just as it is important that governments promote a diverse and integrated society, it is also equally responsible for immigrants who choose to make a living, raise a family etc in their respective countries, to accept their core values.
While Britain and other EU countries may take hardline actions against potential 'threats' such as expelling british terrorists and their families from the country or locking up those who preach violence, solving the root of the problem should be the frontline combat against home-bred Jihadists.
Post a Comment
While Britain and other EU countries may take hardline actions against potential 'threats' such as expelling british terrorists and their families from the country or locking up those who preach violence, solving the root of the problem should be the frontline combat against home-bred Jihadists.
<< Home
