< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: From Brash to Bush


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

From Brash to Bush

No longer able to gain any mileage from lying about Dr Brash, the Herald turns to President Bush with the most outrageously false headline for an anti US propoganda piece from the Independent and the BBC, the latter already under investigation for bias. A headline calculated to denigrate the Allies' efforts to defeat the Islamic Terrorists in Iraq.
Bush: God told me to invade Iraq and attack Afghanistan
The piece goes on to reveal the lack of evidence for the headline and confirm one of those 'it sounds plausible so it must be true' stories of which pro Islamists are so fond..

But the BBC account is anything but implausible, given that throughout his presidency Mr Bush, a born-again Christian, has never hidden the importance of his faith.
The lie is asserted as fact in the first para and not until the end of the second para do we find that it is a concoction by the BBC.

Funny thing is, I can't recall anywhere reading of the head hackers and plane crashers and child bombers being directed by Allah. Oh, well that's different. They are the Good Guys.
ยท Linked Article

Posted by Adolf Fiinkensein | 10/08/2005 07:37:00 am


Anonymous dim said...

'Funny thing is, I can't recall anywhere reading of the head hackers and plane crashers and child bombers being directed by Allah.'

Yes - the role of Islam in the worlds recent rash of terrorist attacks has been covered up by the muslim loving media. With the exception of dozens of films, thousands of editorials, tens of thousands of feature articles, magazine stories, documentaries and books, the link between Islam and terror has been totally buried.

Honestly Adolf - do you walk into things a lot? I don't see how anyone as unconnected with reality as you seem to be can even make it out of the house.

10/08/2005 08:28:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so adolf..interesting you equate the fundamentalist/apocolyptic wingnut bush with the fundamentalist nutjob bombers...they are very much alike aren't they..and they both need each other also..each justifies the others' existance..


10/08/2005 08:32:00 am  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

phil, no I don't but the media are having a damned good do at painting him as a wing nut, that was the whole point of the post. Of course you swallow it all because it sits well with your greenguage view of the world.

dim, tell me where there has been any admission by the left or their media friends that we face a world-wide crisis comprisiing Islamofascism? It's currently acceptable to denegrate Bush for his Christian faith but one must try to 'understand' Islam and accede to its every whim. Well maybe the left might do well to try and understand Christianity first. Perhaps the left could read some history and find out why the Islamos were chased out of Spain so many centuries ago. Perhaps they might then just begin to see the threat which faces decent civilisation today. That's the point. The left and the media consistently snuggle up to the Islamos and denigrate the only outfit capable of standing up to them and doing something constructive. Tell me where I can read any serious editorial opinion in a New Zealand newspaper in which anyone offers any practical answers to the subtle march of Islam into Europe and Great Britain? All I have seen is bleating about the need to preserve the civil rights of the infiltrators who have no intention of honouring anyone else's civil rights once they have gained control. What answers do you have for Holland, Denmark and England where in some regions, one is reliably informed by those on the spot, civil law has been replaced by sharia law and its cult of killing anyone who is not a 'true believer'? Why do so many members of the left openly support such a disgusting regime? The answer is because America opposes it. Dim, please tell me, why are the left so abjectly dim?

10/08/2005 09:01:00 am  
Anonymous dim said...

I can't claim to speak 'for the left' Adolf, but I find Islam even more absurd, repulsive and loathsome than Christianity.

I'd argue that there is no grave threat facing western civilisation. The chances of Islam 'taking over' any western countries is zero. Nil. It will not happen. They're dangerous people (obviously) but I have every confidence in the superiority of western democracy to defeat their absurd little cult WITHOUT ABANDONING THE PRINCIPLES THAT MAKE OUR SYSTEM PREFERABLE.

As for the 'march' of Islam into Europe - what of it? People will assimilate, same as they always have all over the world. Have the huge influx of Asians into Auckland and Sydney seen the cities convert to Confucism? Of course not - and none of my arabic workmates in Paris were remotely interested in Islam or religious politics. Your suggestions that sections of England have been abandoned to Sharia law is utter nonsense.

And my final comment is that 'the left' have been railing against Islam and it's dictatorships in the Middle East for decades. 'The right' has been supporting and arming them.

10/08/2005 09:43:00 am  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

The left would exclude Russia of course.

10/08/2005 11:04:00 am  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Dim, sadly I don't share your confidence, mainly because it is more than a 'little cult.' And yes, I know I fizz at the bung from time to time but I think you are ignoring the evidence if you think what is happening in Europe and the UK is 'assimilation.' The cancer will continue to invade until the media desists from being it's willing precursor. I hope you note the BBC has backed off the original story.

10/08/2005 11:05:00 am  
Anonymous James Doherty said...

Why not write a letter to the editor about it?

10/08/2005 12:04:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

adolf.."What answers do you have for Holland, Denmark and England where in some regions, one is reliably informed by those on the spot, civil law has been replaced by sharia law and its cult of killing anyone who is not a 'true believer'.."

where on earth did you get that little doozy from..?


10/08/2005 01:24:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

phil, you must broaden you outlook and read a little further than Greens Party press releases.

10/08/2005 01:28:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no seriously adolf..links please..

duck and weave and attack won't cut it....we would like some evidence of these executions oj 'non-believers' in england and europe..cor..!..you'd think we'd have heard..eh..?


10/08/2005 02:38:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Do you own research Phil. Have you heard of this thing called 'google'. It's quite handy.

10/08/2005 02:57:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

um adolf..adolf is the one making the case..you would think he has done his research..and has the links to hand..:)


10/08/2005 03:23:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that should be um al..


10/08/2005 03:24:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

phil, go fly a kite. There are oodles of references in the media and on blogs. If you can't be bothered finding them I'm not going to oblige you.

10/08/2005 05:11:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Phil, I can't believe Whoar hasn't covered this before, given the wide ranging news blurbs you post.

The problem is very real. Here's one link to get you started:

Theo Van Gogh

10/08/2005 05:38:00 pm  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

Dim is right - you guys seem to underestimate our strength and overestimate theirs. On a global scale, this crisis is about as serious as the crisis of a fly buzzing around your face - it's annoying, but that's about it. Of course, we could avoid feeding the Islamist monster (ie, invading and occupying moslem countries), that might help it stop growing. But it's a bit late for that now.

10/08/2005 06:10:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

PM usually you make good sense. Pray tell which moslem country was invaded prior to 9/11 and BaliI? You seem to confuse cause and effect.

10/08/2005 06:18:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

I have a very interesting article about immigration of large numbers of Muslims have created major shifts for France, Holland and Denmark.

It might change your perspective a little, PM. That is, if I can find it. I had a couple of NY Times articles but the links have gone stale and their search engine cannot locate them in the archives...very frustrating.

10/08/2005 06:33:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

"Pray tell which moslem country was invaded prior to 9/11 and BaliI"

Not sure where that last place is but I think I know what you mean. As to the answer, well, Libya was bombed in the 80s, the Muslims hate the ongoing support of Israel by the USA, Clinton blew up an aspirin factory or some such in the Sudan, there was the first Gulf War, the West supported the Shah of Iran who was a secular and violent dictator, the West (read: US) has supported the royal family of Saudi Arabia for some time (I think that al-Qaeda types don't like that regime). There a few reasons they have to dislike the West/USA etc.

10/08/2005 07:35:00 pm  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

Adolf, I don't dispute that there's a core of loonies in the moslem world that will attack us no matter what, just because they're fascists and we're not. But every interference we make in the Middle East (and the residents tend to lump even stuff like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in with us, whether we like it or not), increases local support for those loonies, ie feeds the monster. The sight of a "Christian" boot on a moslem's head plays big in this part of the world. I agree that these kind of pictures are a bullet we've got to bite in Iraq, but also think it would have made sense not to provide such photo ops in the first place.

Zen: if people in other countries allow their freedoms to be undermined by third-world immigrants, they didn't deserve to have them. If the Europeans turn out to be stupid enough to fill their countries with people who hate them, that's their business. I don't think it's a situation that'll continue for long - if it does, there'll be a dramatic rise in "send the blacks back" parties in their respective govts.

10/08/2005 08:21:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

PM: When I look at how Poland was treated during, and in the aftermath of World War II; and how even little old NZ lost lives to WWII - the Europeans turning out to be stupid is still of concern.

The fact that people are allowing their freedoms to be undermined by third world immigrants is one of these "seems obvious in hindsight" kind of problems, but is hard to grapple with as it happens, as it is the result of 20-30 years of small changes.

I see the problem here in NZ in a similar light - over 20 or 30 years we allow our freedoms to be undermined by a series of small changes: A weak constitution, bad legislation, no real checks on legislative process, the changes to the natural rights of parents and so on. Each step is small, and the "immediate and obvious" reasons for making the change always outweigh the more subtle and complex reasons. The social engineering side of socialism and left wing ideology is just the marketing version of a series of shifts that will undo every significant idea we have fought and died for.

The Magna Carta said "No more confiscation of property without compensation" to stop Lords taking a farmers horse on a whim.

Now, the law can take Dad's car if his son is caught speeding. A rich Dad may have two cars. A poor Dad may only have the one car that is required for his job. Tough on the son. Tough on the Dad. Tough on the family. Maybe property ought to be enshrined in our Bill of Rights, and protected from the communistic approach to treatment of a person's property? Nope, the Greens blocked that.

Bit by bit. Step by step.

It's not the strength of the Islamic Fascists that concerns me - you are right, we can crush them like only our kind of society can. What concerns me is the weakness growing within. When the time comes to crush or suffer, we will instead be paying out compensation to the Human Rights Court after Osama successfully sues for complicit harassment.

10/08/2005 09:41:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roger, none of the events you mention, bar the Gulf War, in any way could be described as an invasion. The Gulf War threw out an invader from Kuwait. The Current invasion is finishing the job which should have been done then. Your bleating about US foreign policy completely ignores soviet foreign policy at the time. Yours is a classic example of exactly the sort of gormless tacit support for the enemy I have been talking about. You just can't bring yourself to recognise an enemy when you see one because you are blinded by your 'set in concrete' anti Americanism. Worse still, you and the BBC perpetuate and foster the sorts of lies with which you have just been caught out.

10/09/2005 12:23:00 am  
Anonymous dim said...

"Pray tell which moslem country was invaded prior to 9/11 and BaliI"

Well, Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets before 911; the Chechens still consider themselves under occupation by the US. Israel invaded Lebanon in the early 80's - they were involved in the massacre of civilians in South Lebanon during their occupation.

France, the UK and Israel invaded Egypt during the Suez crisis.

You didn't see fit to put a cut-off date on your question, Adolf. That means I get to cite the British invasion of Iraq in the early 1940s, the incredibly brutal French colonialisatoin of Algeria, as well as their occupations of Syria and Lebanon. Then there's the British occupation of Egypt, and Napoleons invasion (during which he stripped the marble off the pyramids).

I almost forgot Mussolinis invasion of Ethiopia, the Palestinians consider the Israelis an invading and occupying force, Indias made several attempts to invade Pakistan, the UK - using ANZUS troops - tried to invade Turkey during WWI, but that was part of a broader conflict. And we shouldn't forget the crusades, because the Muslims sure as hell don't.

10/09/2005 08:42:00 am  
Anonymous dim said...

Errata - the Chechens consider themselves under Russian occupation.

10/09/2005 08:47:00 am  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Dim, why not extend yourself a little. Take your argument to its logical conclusion. Some Maori regard themselves as under uccupation by the British so does that somehow mean we all indulge in self flagelation and agree that it's alright for them to beat up a few whites and break a few laws and steal anything they think they might like? I'm surprised you seem to have such a one sided view of world affairs. Do you not recall that some of your innocent moslem countries were collaborating with the Nazis? How do you blame the slaughter of 10,000 christians by islamo fascists in Indonesia? Why don't you face the fact that we (and that includes you) you are dealing with a hard headed large group of extremists who are intent on domination of a good part if not all of the world. Your description of them as a 'little cult' is the most telling remark you have made. You are plain wrong.

10/09/2005 09:04:00 am  
Blogger Chris said...

adolf, that's the biggest load of bullshit I have read in a long time. You seem to be wearing some sort of blinkers that make you talk crap as soon as someone says something you don't like. You trot out the old "anti-american blah blah blah" - all of which is irrelevant, and in this case, completely innacurate. I laid out several historical facts to support the case that different groups in the Middle East have a number of reasons to dislike/hate the West/USA. None of the points I made were untrue, yet all you can do is label me something I'm not. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan is irrelevant - al-Qaeda is not at war with Russia - although the Chechen wars are becoming increasingly Islamified. I'm not anti-American and I don't watch the BBC. Get over it.

10/09/2005 09:20:00 am  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Roger, if you started again, you'd get less tangled up.

1. Adolf asks PM about invasions.
2. Roger answers Adolf about reasons Muslim countries would dislike the US.
3. Adolf tells Roger those were not invasions.
4. Roger tells Adolf he is speaking crap.

Invasions, Roger. Think invasions. That was the question.

10/09/2005 11:34:00 am  
Anonymous dim said...

You challenged anyone to give you an example of a muslim country that had been invaded before 9/11. I provided you with a large (though not exhaustive) list. A wiser man would have realised they were out of their depth and conceded the point - instead you've gone off on some other tangent. So let's follow that and see where it goes . . .

Adolf wrote: 'Some Maori regard themselves as under uccupation by the
British so does that somehow mean we all indulge in self flagelation
and agree that it's alright for them to beat up a few whites and break
a few laws and steal anything they think they might like?'

In answer to this (frankly moronic) question, if Maori were indeed under occupation, in the sense that they were not able to vote, unable to form political parties, subject to a different standard of justice, rounded up into forced Labour camps and killed with impunity, as happened in the examples I listed above then they would be morally right in taking up armed resistance. As it is they live in a democracy with well established institutions to address their grievances.

Most eleven year olds are able to grasp these fairly basic ideas - you might want to ask yourself why you cannot.

The collaboration of moslems with the Nazis is a meaningless distraction - Ford, IBM and the Catholic Church also collaborated. And I fail to understand how the murder of Indonesian Christians somehow justifies the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the French occupation of Algeria.

10/09/2005 11:45:00 am  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Dim, you ought to get your facts straight. The Catholic Church did not collaborate with Nazis.

10/09/2005 12:09:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Dim, even an eleven year old understands that in pre invasion Iraq and Afgahnistan, people were not able to vote, unable to form political parties, were subject to a different standard of justice (at the end of an AK47 in a soccer ground)and were killed with impunity. You are an apparently well educated dim wit.

10/09/2005 12:20:00 pm  
Anonymous dim said...

Lucyna - I'm very confident of my facts. The Catholic Church in Croatia collaborated extensively with the Nazi occupation force. Pope Pius XII hedged his bets during the rise of the Nazis and the first few years of the war. Certainly the Catholics have more to answer for than, say, the Mufti of Jerusalem (who I presume Adolf has in mind when he accuses the muslims of collaboration with the Nazis).

Speaking of Adolf, he seems to have changed the subject of the argument yet again! Someone get that man some ritalin!

10/09/2005 12:35:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Adolf, Dim (and Roger) most likely did not understand the relevance of the invasion question. Going too far back in time where the geopolitical map was very different makes no sense.

As for current affairs, the Chechen wars are about Russia trying to keep control of one of it's satellites. It's not a justification for 9/11 or Bali.

Abu Bakar Bashir, the cleric regarded as the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah terror network, has praised those who attack Western targets and urged jihadists to embrace nuclear weapons "if necessary".

In a recent interview from prison he also defended suicide bombings as noble, and predicted that Muslims would fight the West till it agreed to be ruled by Islam.

Wonder what the West did to put itself in the firing line to be subjugated to Islam by force? My guess is our mere existance.

10/09/2005 12:37:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Dim, when you say the Catholic Church, you mean Rome and the Pope. The Pope of that time did not collaborate with Nazis. He did what he could in a very, very, very dangerous time. I did an internet search to see why people think that the Church did collaborate, and all I could find was that various Nazi leaders were Catholic and that the Pope did not do enough to stop the Holocaust. Well, on that basis, Britain and America also collaborated with Nazis.

I mean, really ...

This is one of the articles I found that goes into it in a little more detail than what I have written here.

The Catholic Church and the Holocaust.

10/09/2005 12:42:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

Lucyna, I concede the point, withdraw and apologise. It's still no reason for him to call me an anti-American. The next time I read that phrase my head will explode.

10/09/2005 12:58:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I've done a search on Croatia and collaboration with Nazis and found this : How the Catholic Church united with local Nazis to run Croatia during World War II

The Case of Archbishop Stepinac

10/09/2005 03:53:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also Dim, Ethiopia is a largely Christian (Coptic) country...Mussolini's invasion of it should not be seen to have any bearing on anti-westernism bu muslims in Africa.

10/09/2005 10:38:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

In case it wasn't obvious from my previous post, the Catholic Church's involved with the Nazis ended with Stepinac. He had minions and that was it. Ergo, a lone wolf within the Church, not the Church itself.

Now I'm going to bed.

10/09/2005 11:19:00 pm  
Anonymous dim said...

Try and keep up, Lucyna. I bought the Catholics (and Ford, and IBM - who I used to work for) in as examples to ridicule Adolfs tortured logic, that because some muslims supported the Nazis it was okay for Russia to invade Afghanistan. (At least, I think that's what he was trying to say.)

The Mufti of Jerusalem was virulently pro-Nazi - he helped set up SS units in the Balkans. But he doesn't come close to being a spiritual leader for all muslims, and since the Catholics had an Arch-Bishop helping the SS round up Gypsies and Jews, I maintain they're at least as complicit as the Muslims.

Anonymous - Ethiopia is about 50% Muslim (the ruling classes are mostly Copts). The percentage of Muslims was even higher during the early years of Haile Seilassies reign (when Italy invaded).

Back to Lucyna, who wrote: 'Wonder what the West did to put itself in the firing line to be subjugated to Islam by force? My guess is our mere existance.'

Good news! Al Quaida aren't remotely interested in subjugating the west by force. As they've stated, time and time again, their goal is to unite muslim states from Morocco to Algeria into a pan-Islamic Caliphate. They consider all off the current governments of all those states to be Pharonic, or pre-Muslim (with the exception of Israel, which they consider to be plain Satanic).

So why are they attacking the west? Basically because most of those states are military dictatorships which the west supports.

Obviously 'the west' isn't going to let the region with the worlds largest energy reserves become a 14th Century theocracy, so this is a pretty unlikely goal. The big disagreement in the west is on the best way this can be prevented.

I think it's by winning the hearts and minds of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the region who want to live in progressive democratic states, and by promoting democracy, human rights and free trade in the region. I'm not really sure what the current US Administrations plan is. Actually, I'm not sure they have a plan.

10/10/2005 08:10:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Several points Dim:

1) When pulling a patronising tone, you should try using the correct words. Brought and bought have different meanings.

2) Either we did a post in the early days on al-Husseini and the Muslims of the SS Sword division, or I was explaining it to various anti-semitic lefties in a thread at DPF's many months ago. I believe you were one of the participants back then, but you sure as hell weren't on the side I was arguing for.

3) Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

The goal of Al Qaeda before the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions was to create a Caliphate from Western Africa through parts of southern Europe, the Middle East, eastern Africa, southern Asia through to Indonesia, Malaysia and the Phillipines. And by Caliphate they meant a Muslim state based on the Islamic law of Mohammed and his early followers. Again we have done multiple posts on this.

Before the Afghan invasion, Al Qaeda was happily training tens of thousands of Jihadists in little mountain camps, launching a few terror attacks on the US and their mates in the Taleban were executing gays.

Before the Iraq invasion Al Qaeda thought they still had a chance, despite losing a friendly state to call home. Now they're reduced to massacring people of their own religion in Iraq simply because they can't allow a democracy to grow in the centre of the Islamic world.

Of late Bin Laden's communications have begun to sound alot like Mike Moore - full of windy conspiracies which appeal to western socialists but won't gain him a larger following amongst the people that count.

As for your last couple of paragraphs. Your mates in the Labour Party support an organisation in Palestine which descends directly from Nassers re-imagination of Nazism. A muslim Labour Party Minister remains unpunished for making several intolerably illiberal statements on TV. You, Dim, would have preferred the military effort expended to remove a murderous tyrant from power and replace him with a democratic government didn't happen. You would prefer it if Iraq was still controlled by Saddam Hussein.

If 'The West' stares down the Islamist threat it will be despite you and your lot, yet you dare to associate yourself with the people standing up to the menace. I don't think so Dim.

10/10/2005 09:18:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Correction: MP, not Minister.

10/10/2005 09:43:00 am  
Anonymous dim said...

Hello AL.

1. You spelt 'Philippines wrong.' When lack of imagination and rhetorical skill reduces you to correcting peoples posts you should at least make an attempt to avoid any mistakes of your own.

2. I don't believe I've ever debated you on the subject of the Muslim SS divisions. I'm aware that they're a favourite subject amoung apologists for Israel. If you go to Yad Vashem there's a huge picture of al-Husseini flanked by SS guards. Curiously, there's no picture of Pius XII surrounded by Nazi soldiers at the Jerusalem memorial, even though many such photographs exist . . .

3. Al Quaida: Most of the leaders of pre-911 AQ are either dead, in prison or hiding out in remote villages in Pakistan and West China. Most analysts agree that their presence in Iraq is negligable, accounting for less than 2% of the attacks. It's a good old civil war over there, with the US as an increasingly irrelevent participant.

4. Your miscellaneous rants.

I don't have any mates in the Labour party. Your comment about Nassar and the Nazis a meaningless generalisation worthy of invoking Godwins Law. The Palastinians have a right to self-determination, the Labour party supports their elected government. I don't think Goff should have met with Arafat since he was a corrupt tyrant with blood on his hands, but most world leaders fall into that category.

I would prefer an Iraq governed by Saddam Hussein to the current situation. It's an abject disaster likely to cost hundreds of thousands of lives for decades. I'd prefer a free, SAFE and democratic Iraq to either of those options, but everything the US has done since they've invaded have precluded that as a realistic outcome.

If 'the west' stares down the Islamic threat it will be because of the superiority of our civil and economic institutions, not through dismantling all the aspects of our society and culture - like respect for international law and human rights - that make our system preferable to theirs in the first place.

10/10/2005 10:01:00 am  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Game set and match to Dim.

10/10/2005 10:35:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree with you there Ackers1.

- Wind up

10/10/2005 11:38:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

1. I am not joining you in your patronising schoolteacher tone, I am pointing out why you should not assume one.


3. That was my point.

4. A rant is to write in a violent manner.

"Your comment about Nassar and the Nazis a meaningless generalisation"

Yasser Arafat and the various groupings he rolled into the PLO were part of the Arab nationalist movement, based in large part on Nazi ideas. Nassers brother translated Mein Kampf into Arabic in the 1940's. I assume you realise its a top seller in certain Muslim countries today.

"The Palastinians have a right to self-determination, the Labour party supports their elected government. "

Arafat was elected President in 1996 for a term of six years. He was still President when he died in 2004.

The Palestinian people indeed have a right to self-determination - free from terrorist thugs like Hamas who want to drive the Jews into the Med. Hamas gained 26% of the vote in the recent palestinian local elections.

"I would prefer an Iraq governed by Saddam Hussein to the current situation."

That speaks for itself doesn't it. I'll keep that one for the 'stuck on stupid' archives.

"If 'the west' stares down the Islamic threat it will be because of the superiority of our civil and economic institutions,"

Enemies aren't bested by professing faith in "institutions", by which I assume you mean the long tradition of liberal Government in this country going back to 1984 rather than the illiberal tradition of the preceeding 500 years or so. They are bested by killing them or by ensuring the risk of failure is so high they never attack. In the meantime, as always, it behooves us to maintain and indeed strengthen the integrity of our domestic government, which is why I started blogging.

10/10/2005 12:08:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...


Try and keep up, Lucyna. I bought the Catholics (and Ford, and IBM - who I used to work for) in as examples to ridicule Adolfs tortured logic, that because some muslims supported the Nazis it was okay for Russia to invade Afghanistan. (At least, I think that's what he was trying to say.)

I've just read through everything Adolf has said on this thread and cannot see anything that remotely comes close to him saying it was ok for Russia to invade Afganistan for any reason.

I took issue with your non-specific use of the Catholic Church "collaborating" with Nazis. It was one Archbishop and minions in one country. If you are non-specific, then you make it sound like a world-wide Catholic conspiracy, which it was not.

As for winning hearts of minds of Muslims ... would be nice if it was possible. Maybe it is possible. Yet what we are seeing in Europe is an increasing radical Islam emerging within the countries that have large Muslim populations. France has deported several dozen Muslim leaders since 2001 as a way to deal with it. One of the major problems for them is that lack of training internally (takes a long time too) for leaders - they tend to come from outside of the country where their views are very different from the Muslims they are brought in to be leaders to.

You think that: "The chances of Islam 'taking over' any western countries is zero. Nil. It will not happen."

As long as we have people like you arguing that there is no problem, then the chances are far greater than you realise. One of the most important things in any war, is intelligence. If you don't know what is going on, then you have zero, nil etc chance of actually being able to do anything about it. Pull your head out, Dim.

Oh and Ackers1 and Windup make terrible score keepers. They're either not even watching most of the time or are getting too distracted by irrelevancies.

10/10/2005 12:39:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Lucyna, when I saw that I realised what a waste of time it is talking with these people.

10/10/2005 01:14:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would prefer an Iraq governed by Saddam Hussein to the current situation. It's an abject disaster likely to cost hundreds of thousands of lives for decades."

Noone can foresee the future, dim, but we can atleast see the past. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The mere fact that he did this means noone should give him the benefit of the doubt that he would not do it again. it is maccabre to reduce this debate to statistics but I believe the most reliable running death toll for the Iraq invasion is around 25,000, I am not sure if this includes the insurgents as well.

"If 'the west' stares down the Islamic threat it will be because of the superiority of our civil and economic institutions"

Unfortunately, no. If 'the west' falls to the Islamic threat it will be BECAUSE of our civil and economi institutions. Democracy, economic liberalism, open immigration, the social saftey net, cultural and religious tolerance (of everyone except christians) are all open to abuse by those wanting to destroy the west.

Countries in Europe are slowly becoming Islamic simply though open immigration and out-breeding. Never forget, the most powerful tool any ideology has is the growth of its membership.

Open immigration led a great number of Muslims immigrating. Cultural tolerance give tacit approval to non-assimilation. Economic liberalism increases the wealth of participants and increasing wealth correlates with decreasing a birth-rates. This phenomenom can be countered with personal belief, in this case the subjugation [spelling?] of muslim women and the self-perceived superiority and undeniable dominance of muslim men which would tend to push up birthrates.

The social safety net also helps to lessen the economic incentive to assimilate. At generous levels it creates an entitlement and poverty trap. A feeling of entitlement and envy of others wealth, are the starting points for intrasocietal conflicts and have been used many times in the past to create irrational fears and hatreds of specific races, classes and religions.

Religious tolerance and the right to free speech (both peculiar to the west I hasten to add) requires the turning of a blind eye to racism, bigotry and even incremental incitement to violence if it is conducted in a religious setting, which it often is.

I am not saying that any of these social and economic institutions are bad, in fact, I agree with each and every one of them. What I am saying is that these are the tools of our own destruction. Simply because Islamism wont invade our country and society, this does not mean that it will not take over ever. It may take decades, or more likely centuries, but it can happen.

There is a reason why great cultures tend towards the lowest common denominator after such promising starts. It is often the very factors which led to the promising start the also lead to the eventual decline.

If we think that our culture is worth saving, if we think our culture and our institutions are worth protecting for the long term, then we are going to be forced into a perverse form of self defense. We will have to abandon, or at least curb the expansion of, one or many of the institutions we are trying to save.


10/10/2005 01:30:00 pm  
Anonymous dim said...

Lucyna - I still don't think you quite get it. Your argument that the actions of the Church in Croatia fails to implicate the entire institution is entirely correct. It aptly illustrates my point that the collaboration of the Mufti of Jerusalem fails to implicate the rest of the Muslim faith. I suspect your beef is with Adolf and AL, not with me.


1. Heh heh.

2. You didn't think I'd just take your word for it and fail to read the thread did you? Try again.

3. Great.

4. Funnily enough, I don't really link the 1984 Lange government with the War on Terror. (What an odd thing to say.) The institutions I referred to are the ones that distinguish the West from the various dictatorships and theocracies across the Middle East - human rights, freedom of speech, free trade, respect for international law - it amuses me that you don't seem to be familiar with them.

I also have to laugh at people like Kimble who seem to have forgotten that it was the cultural and economic superiority of the west that bought about the collapse of the Soviet Empire - a much greater threat than a handful of bearded lunatics hiding in caves fondling their guns.

Lucyna points towards muslim immigration as a threat - why do you think these people are fleeing their home countries and - literally - dying to get into western Europe and the US? Because they hate living in theocratic dictatorships. They're not going to turn their new homes into the places they've risked their lives to flee.

10/10/2005 02:02:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"cultural and economic superiority of the west that bought about the collapse of the Soviet Empire"

I have to laugh at people who admit that the Soviet Empire has a lot in common with the threat of Islamism. But refuse to see that the defeat of such was often due to the abandonment of those very institutions. Free trade? Respect for International Law? A threat the likes of the Soviets or even the Chinese can be over come because the threat is easily identifiable. However, what I am talking about is not a few bearded lunatics in caves, but the slow and inevitable change in who WE are. Our institutions can be the very means of our downfall, if we fail to identify the threat.

"Because they hate living in theocratic dictatorships."

Perhaps, but consider that theoratic dictatorships make living in those contries pretty shitty, even for the people that agree with the theocracy. They have just as much personal incentive to leave.

"They're not going to turn their new homes into the places they've risked their lives to flee." But we do have immams preaching how the west should surrender to sharia law, and they have supporters, in the west.


10/10/2005 02:28:00 pm  
Anonymous dim said...

It seems to me that whenever the West abandoned it's principles during the Cold War - Cuba, Vietnam, pretty much all of South and Central America - the result was a victory for the Communists.

10/10/2005 03:05:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vietnam (arguably a military victory, see AL about this I am sure he has all the stats) was in part scuttled by unpopularity at home. Communists used the wests freedom of speech and infiltrated union and academic forums to stir up domestic resentment.

During the Cuban missile crisis an illegal blokade brought the world the to brink of a nuclear war, BUT it also lead to the removal of surface nuclear missiles from Americas naval border.

Nobody wins a war by fighting fair.


10/10/2005 03:54:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Dim, I certainly understand that you are trying to make some sort of a point. The problem is you are getting a little tangled up.

You say that: It aptly illustrates my point that the collaboration of the Mufti of Jerusalem fails to implicate the rest of the Muslim faith.

But, you mentioned three collaborators: IBM, Ford and The Catholic Church. Which one of those three is not like the others when you consider the Catholic Church really means an Archbishop in Croatia?

Were you just being lazy?

I'll concede that I didn't know about Croatia, if that helps.

10/10/2005 06:40:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home