View Full Version : Fanatics!
frugal-one
11-23-15, 7:28pm
Not sure if this is the right place to post this?
Someone sent this to me and am passing it on..... Read to the end before making a judgment.
And here we are, almost 10 years later!
A Canadian's View
This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Canadian Paul Marek who published it on 2/21/2006 on his blog Celestial Junk.
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said,'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.’
‘My family lost everything. I ended up in a
concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
‘We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.’
‘The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.
It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or
tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking
over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the
fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the
fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the
fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of
rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach
their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.’
‘The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.’
‘The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
‘History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims
have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving
Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up,
because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one
day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of
their world will have begun.’
‘Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese,Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.’
‘Now Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public schools in Ontario , and, yes, in Ottawa , too, while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.’
‘In Australia, and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items
have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some
of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items
in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal
emblem just to appease the privileged minority who are now
rapidly expanding within the nation's shores.’
‘In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.’
‘As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.’
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
Extend yourself a bit and send this on. Let us hope that thousands world-wide read this, think about it, and send it on before it's too late, and we are silenced because we were silent!!!
I'm not precisely sure what Marek is trying to say here. He seems to waiver between saying the neutral Islamists are irrelevant, the neutral Islamists need to speak up against the extremists (how, exactly? This is a terrorist movement, not a country-contained political party), and implying that the neutral Islamists are to blame for the extremist acts somehow because they haven't thrown over their entire culture. Can someone explain his point to me please? I'm not sure I agree with him or not!
One Canadian back in 2006....Not all Canadians
and I agree with Kib not sure what he is trying to say here.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp
I would also question the reliability of anyone pushing the claim that there are muslim "no go zones" in any western cities.
I think there's a lot of weird stuff and complicated baggage getting unloaded right now around peoples' reaction to terrorism. There's a bit of bigotry and xenophobia in it's traditional form sure, but that's the least interesting part. These are the people who insist the "good Muslims" condemn the bad ones, or who actually act out in various stupid and destructive ways.
There is also a strain of American politics which considers any argument won the instant an accusation of racism is made against the opposing party. This is why the democratic candidates twisted and squirmed around the proposition that "we are at war with radical Islam". This is why the President scolded us about "getting on our high horse" about Islamic terrorism when "we" were doing similarly dreadful things during the Crusades.
Then there are the various theorists of the "it's all about oil" school, the "it's all because of Israel" school or the somewhat circular thinking of the "We create terrorists when we retaliate against terrorism" school.
Me, I'm a simple guy. When people crucify, bury alive, rape, behead or otherwise look to hurt innocents all the while saying they are doing so to further their faith, I'm willing to take them at their word. When they say their world view is different from mine and they plan to rectify the situation by destroying whoever disagrees with them, I'm willing to take them at their word.
Me, I'm a simple guy. When people crucify, bury alive, rape, behead or otherwise look to hurt innocents all the while saying they are doing so to further their faith, I'm willing to take them at their word. When they say their world view is different from mine and they plan to rectify the situation by destroying whoever disagrees with them, I'm willing to take them at their word.
True enough. However, if they hadn't been given/sold massive quantities of weapons over the past however many decades there wouldn't be any more concern of them bringing things to western countries than any other genocide in recent memory. Without oil, Israel, and the Cold War the actions of fanatics in the Middle East would barely be making the news today.
‘As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.’
This part I agree with - but the crux of this seems to be pointing blame at Muslims and not the fanatics.
‘As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.’
This part I agree with - but the crux of this seems to be pointing blame at Muslims and not the fanatics.Yes, I think that's correct, but only in the context that those who do nothing to stop the fanatics bear a portion of the blame. The examples make that clear.
True enough. However, if they hadn't been given/sold massive quantities of weapons over the past however many decades there wouldn't be any more concern of them bringing things to western countries than any other genocide in recent memory. Without oil, Israel, and the Cold War the actions of fanatics in the Middle East would barely be making the news today.
I will grant you that there are equivalent levels of barbarism practiced in places like Darfur or the Central African Republic that the West finds easier to ignore. I will also grant you that some elites within the Muslim world are using oil money as one way to finance terror. But I think that insisting the West has somehow brought this on itself ignores the deeper currents of history. Islam as a civilization has in many ways been in retreat since being driven out of the Iberian peninsula in the late 15th century, and out of the Western Mediterranean over the course of the 16th century at places like Malta and Lepanto. I think that there are minority elements within Islam that reconcile the difference between the sense of superiority of their culture with centuries of humiliation at the hands of infidels with an ideology of violent hatred. And I also think that that ideology can be attractive to otherwise directionless nihilists that can be found in any culture.
I think some of the grievances we hear cited, whether the Crusades, the Sykes-Picot Treaty or the Six Day War, are less important than a sort of rage generated by an inability to triumph over the god-hated West.
frugal-one
11-27-15, 5:55pm
Yes, I think that's correct, but only in the context that those who do nothing to stop the fanatics bear a portion of the blame. The examples make that clear.
This is the way I interpreted the article too.
Yes, I think that's correct, but only in the context that those who do nothing to stop the fanatics bear a portion of the blame. The examples make that clear.
That's the part I never understood - so these people have ownership of dealing with the fanatics because the fanatics chose to act under a banner of Islam? Or do all of us who do nothing (I have to honestly say I have done nothing to stop these fanatics) share the blame?
As a side to that issue, if the media doesn't report if someone is doing something, does that mean they are doing nothing?
That's the part I never understood - so these people have ownership of dealing with the fanatics because the fanatics chose to act under a banner of Islam? Or do all of us who do nothing (I have honestly I have done nothing to stop these fanatics) share the blame?
I'm an American. I pay taxes, though I arrange things to pay as little as possible. I hate how my country spends more on its military than the rest of the planet combined. I hate how we use those forces to kill innocents around the world. I campaign politically against our ruling regime as best I can, but I can't stop them from killing, nor do any actions I might reasonably take have any chance of really influencing things.
So am I responsible for the actions of our government simply because I share citizenship with military fanatics?
I mean, I suppose I could pack up and move, but I'm not sure that would have any impact at all either. If there are nutjobs living in your country, are they your fault?
ApatheticNoMore
11-27-15, 10:15pm
That's the part I never understood - so these people have ownership of dealing with the fanatics because the fanatics chose to act under a banner of Islam? Or do all of us who do nothing (I have to honestly say I have done nothing to stop these fanatics) share the blame?
As a side to that issue, if the media doesn't report if someone is doing something, does that mean they are doing nothing?
in set theory the definition of a set is arbitrary ... umm ... this is the junk that comes to mind if you read database books in your spare time. But yes it's precisely the problem. Why are Muslim's responsible for calling them out? Because an arbitrary set has been drawn around Muslims, that is an arbitrary grouping has been made of them (and people wonder why it rubs the wrong way - when it's so close to the very definition of bigotry). Who was responsible for calling out German Nazi's, just the Germans, why not say all white people (an arbitrary grouping), what about everyone of German ancestry living in the U.S. etc.? Are we all responsible for calling out ISIS as they are human beings and guess what so are we. Then I condemn them! They really are worthy of condemnation of course. Now if one was a Muslim AND their friends are joining ISIS or their brother or son etc.. then there is a direct link and one could try to prevent it (try at best really, as people do their own thing as everyone knows) but anyone anywhere in the world who is Muslim? Really?
I don't even arrange to pay as little taxes as possible, the tax breaks available to a middle class nobody who can't even afford a house, aren't worth driving yourself completely crazy trying to figure out or find an accountant who can figure them out, it's to drive yourself completely raving bonkers for what amounts to pennies on the dollar. Peace is our only tax shelter.
IshbelRobertson
11-28-15, 6:45am
The so-called no-go areas was publicised by a blow-hard US tv personality (can't really upgrade him to journalist) who ended up giving a grovelling apology for the rubbish he spouted, as has previously been posted on this thread.
I have puzzled on the actual influences on the Mid-East situation and what the long-term consequences might be. The John Mauldin Report comes out twice-weekly and had this personal historical view of the situation. It ties in with the OP and some of the comments so far.
What do you think of it?Lament for a Vanished Middle East
By Charles Gave
It is desperately saddening to see the terrified population of the Middle East fleeing for refuge towards a Europe that has utterly forgotten what the region looked like just a few decades ago. Yet nobody can hope to understand the disaster that is unfolding if he knows nothing of the events that shaped the modern Middle East.
Through an accident of family history, I was born in the Syrian city of Aleppo 72 years ago, my father having been one of the few French army officers stationed in Syria at the time – 12 out of 500 – to have sided with the Free French forces of Charles de Gaulle, rather than with the Vichy regime of Philippe Pétain.
How can I possibly describe the Syria of my birth? It was a marvel of diversity, a true kaleidoscope of races and religions. All the great empires of the past – from the Mesopotamians to the Ottomans – had passed through, and all had left their traces. Clustered around the citadel of Aleppo, the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, one found the Armenian quarter, next to the Jewish district, itself next to the Greek settlement. All were surrounded by Muslim areas, variously inhabited by Druze, Kurds, Alawites, Sunni, and Shia. And for the most part all these various peoples lived peaceably together, doing business with each other in good faith. Education was provided by the religious orders. Boys attended schools run by the Jesuits, and the girls were taught by Christian nuns – regardless of denomination.
Before the Conquest
Really “Most of the Christian sects had lived in the region since long before the Moslem conquest, and felt a perfect moral right to live in what was, after all, their home. In the Iraqi capital Baghdad, for example, half the 18th century population was Christian. The Assyrians of Northern Iraq claimed to have been converted to Christianity in the 1st century by Saint Thomas. In the mid-20th century they were a strong community – a true nation. Today there are almost none left. The survivors are in Sweden. In Egypt, the minority Copts, descendants of the original Egyptian population, held important positions in trade, the universities and in politics, with more than a few appointed ministers.
Throughout the region, the Jews were absolutely essential to society and commerce. Of course, Jews had lived in Iraq since the time of Nebuchadnezzar II. But they had also made up much of the population of Alexandria in Egypt ever since it was founded by Alexander the Great – it was in Alexandria that the Old Testament was first translated from Hebrew to Greek. Elsewhere, in all the great historic cities of the region – Cairo, Istanbul, Damascus, Aleppo – Jewish communities made up the network through which different peoples traded with each other.
Each community was an intrinsic part of the social system, and the result was a diverse and resilient society. Of course, once in a while there were problems, such as the Damascus pogroms at the end of the 19th century. But the authorities had little patience with trouble-makers, and quickly restored order.
Today, however, for the first time in history, there are no longer any Jews on the southern shores of the Mediterranean and, outside Israel, few in the Levant. Christians of all denominations have either disappeared, or are under severe pressure, with the Egyptian Copts facing daily attacks. The old social order has broken down completely. The question is: Why?
Family History
To answer, it will be necessary to highlight two historical missteps that have been slowly destroying the Middle East since at least the middle of the 20th century. The first concerns my family history. My grandfather, Ernest Schoeffler, was governor of the predominately Alawite province of Latakia during the French mandate. The Alawites, who are concentrated in north western Syria, are an offshoot of the Shia branch of Islam. Today, they control the political power in Syria, or whatever is left of it.
Conscious of the extreme diversity of the local population, my grandfather promised the Alawites that when the mandate ended they would have their own independent, or at least autonomous, state. Indeed, he lobbied hard in Paris for each Middle Eastern population to have its own “state” as far as possible. He envisaged a Kurdish state, a Christian state centered on Beirut, a Jewish state around Jerusalem, a Druze state, an Armenian state and so on. The idea was that none of these mini-states would be powerful enough to dominate the others. And if there was trouble, the regional policemen – France, Britain, or even Turkey – would step in to re-establish order.
However, in 1936, the leftist Front Populaire was elected in France. My grandfather was summoned to Paris by the Minister of the Colonies, who informed him that thenceforth French policy would be to create a “Greater Syria”. And of course this Greater Syria would be a secular state, because the French left had one overriding obsession: to destroy religion. In response, my grandfather did something few people do today: he stuck to his principles and resigned.
Disastrous Policy
The French government proceeded with its plan to create a unitary state in Syria, with centralized institutions for the army, police, civil administration, justice, education, and health. The consequences of this policy were all too foreseeable. The main goal of each and every different community became to seize control of the apparatus of the state in order to protect its own community. In Syria, by far the largest community, at 60% of the population, was Sunni. To prevent the Sunnis, with their strength of numbers, establishing total dominance over the country, the Alawites, with the tacit approval of the other minority groups, established their own control over the state, which they have ruled ever since.
I have no doubt at all that the refugees fleeing Syria today are minorities terrified that the Alawites will lose power, which up until the Russian intervention looked highly likely. They know full well that if the Alawites were to fall, the Sunni reprisals would fall on all Syria’s minority communities, not just on the Alawites.
The fundamental historical error here was the attempt by the French and the British to create centralized states in the Middle East, states which both the Quai d’Orsay and the Foreign Office believed would, with a little diplomatic maneuvering, do their bidding. This was a total break with the Ottoman tradition. The Turks generally took a hands-off approach to running their empire, intervening only when someone did something especially silly. When that happened, the Janissaries were quickly sent in, and the old order promptly restored. By imposing centralized structures on communities with little in common, the European powers ensured that every local lunatic would attempt to take control of these structures and use them to impose their vision on the other minorities, all too often through “ethnic purification”. It was a recipe for chaos and civil war if ever there was one.
The balance is in the Part 2 as the article was too long for the word limit on posts.
Part two:A Wahhabi Project
This brings me to the second historical misstep. For most of their history the Sunnis of Syria and Egypt were peaceful, tolerant people, who lived in tribal groups under the authority of elders who did a reasonable job of maintaining order. This tradition crumbled in no time in the face of the pan-Arab socialism propounded by Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Syria’s Baath Party. As a result, the Sunnis were easy prey for the puritan Wahhabism exported by Saudi Arabia in reaction to the rise of pan–Arab Socialism. Wahhabism is by far the most retrograde of all the different sects of Islam. When Ibn Saud created Saudi Arabia by federating the tribes of the Nejd and Hijaz, he did so with help of the Wahhabi clergy. Now, for the last 50 years, money has flowed in a torrent from Saudi Arabia to the rest of the Middle East, Africa, South East Asia, and Europe to build Wahhabi mosques: “schools” where the only things taught – and o nly to boys – are the Koran and religious extremism.
The goal of this project is to “purify” the Middle East, returning the region, and eventually the rest of the world, to an “original” form of Islam unpolluted by non-Wahhabi religion, or indeed by any influences from the last 1,400 years. Isis is nothing but a Wahhabi project.
Extraordinarily, this project has enjoyed the unstinting support of French diplomacy under the guidance of Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy, and now François Hollande. I cannot imagine that this support for the most regressive of Sunni religious movements is due to the fact that close to 10% of the French electorate is Sunni, and that 90% of those vote for the left. That may explain French policy under Hollande, but it cannot account for the policy stance under Sarkozy and Chirac. There can only be two explanations: sheer stupidity, or that French presidents, both of the right and left, have been “captured” by France’s arms exporters.
At the end of this little historical survey – very much influenced by the family history of the writer – the reader must ask what can be done to stop the rot. The answer is simple. First, the West must clearly identify the enemy, which is not the Muslim religion, but the Wahhabi sect. And it must immediately break off all relationships with the states, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are exporting this virulent form of extremism.
That means closing western embassies in those countries and expelling their citizens from ours. Of course we will have to stop accepting donations from these countries to finance our electoral campaigns, which require ever-increasing amounts of money to win votes for candidates of ever-decreasing legitimacy. That would be very bad news for our media industry, so it may never happen. And needless to say, we must also stop selling these countries warplanes, helicopters, missiles, radars, tanks and other weaponry. That might be sad for our defense industries, but one does not prosper by selling weapons to one’s enemies. As Lenin said: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them”. Plus ça change…
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.