DVD Talk
The Dangers of Islamophobia [Archive] - Page 4 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The Dangers of Islamophobia


Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

eXcentris
04-17-08, 07:24 PM
There is obviously no coherent, logical, legal framework for prosecuting hate crimes in Europe---it's up to the whims of those in power. And what do they use it for? They use it like every totalitarian group uses state censorship---to challenge any ideas that seriously threaten the ideological underpinnnings of the state. And the ideological underpinnings of the European elites say that Muslim immigration is good for the country, Islam is in no way incompatible with Western values, and it will not significantly change their societies. And the people that challenge that view are the ones who are overwhelmingly going to be charged with hate crimes. Certainly, the European states understand that printing cartoons of Jesus isn't going to result in worldwide riots and nationwide civil unrest, but printing cartoons of Muhammed will. Do you really think the states don't enforce hate crimes with that knowledge in mind? If they truly want to prevent widescale ethnic violence, they objectively HAVE to come down harder on those who criticize Islam, since Muslims are much more likely to react violently. That's the rub, the states know that, and that's exactly what they're doing. Does anyone really disagree with that?

Do you have any idea how LITTLE these laws are even used? Do not confuse some group or organization accusing someone of hate crimes with cases that actually go thru the judicial system. You're just blowing this out of proportion so you can rant. :)

bhk
04-18-08, 01:44 PM
Do you have any idea how LITTLE these laws are even used?
Canadian Muslims have the same Korans and same type of DVDs as the European muslims. Furthermore, I know of at least 2 cases of people hauled in front of the Political Correctness Worship Committee in Canada. How many muslims have been brought up in front for distributing the Koran?

eXcentris
04-18-08, 03:13 PM
Wow, 2 people is A LOT!

How many muslims have been brought up in front for distributing the Koran?

That's just silly...

bhk
04-19-08, 02:38 AM
Wow, 2 people is A LOT!

Just the beginning.



That's just silly...

And yet people would be called up for hearings for quoting the Koran and showing what believers in the Koran do on video. Better get life insurance if you're calling the Koran silly.

Ky-Fi
04-19-08, 08:49 AM
Better get life insurance if you're calling the Koran silly.

Or what you might need more often, which is a huge legal fund. The more 'civilized' proponents of political Islam and Multiculturalism won't resort to anything so crude as actually comitting violence---that's only a last resort for the thugs. The hate crime commissions know that they don't have the resources to prosecute hundreds or thousands of cases like this, and they don't need to. So they, (and in the Canadian case, the Islamists who file the charges), just need to prosecute a few high profile cases---and that will send the message out that if you want to write that Islam is dangerous, you better be prepared for protracted, expensive legal proceedings, your name and reputation sullied as a "racist", and you'll possibly get heavy fines or even jail time. This is a much more effective way for the state to censor and intimidate writers, filmmakers and artists. I would suggest that if Brigitte Bardot's book had instead been authored by Brigitte Richet, and wasn't likely to sell many copies, then that author would not be brought up on charges.

Ky-Fi
04-19-08, 11:10 AM
Who says there are no moderate Muslim groups that eschew the concept of jihad as violent conflict mandated by the Quran?

The Ahmadiyya sect has some very moderate views.

As Wikipedia describes, their view of jihad contrast with that of mainstream Islam. For mainstream Islam, the view of jihad is:

"Some groups believe aggressive armed struggle to be the most valid interpretation of Jihad and consider it permissible and legal. Some mainstream Muslims hold the view that there are two different types of Jihad: Jihad Al-Akbar, (considered the greater Jihad) is the personal struggle with one's own soul and Jihad Al-Asghar (considered the lesser Jihad) is the external, physical effort, often implying fighting."


But for this Ahmadiyya sect, they interpret jihad as:

[they] "Claim that as per prophecy, the messiah rendered the concept of violent Jihad unnecessary in modern times. They believe that the answer of hate should be given by love. As their khalifas said that 'if anyone attacks us we must not attack him and should love him' this is called "Jihaad-e-Akbar" (The Greater Jihad)."

Oh yeah, and they're considered heretics who are going to be banned in Indonesia:

Indonesia to ban Ahmadiyya Muslim sect


Indonesia is drafting a decree that will ban a Muslim sect that has been branded heretical by most Muslims.

The Ahmadiyya sect views itself as Muslim but it has been branded a heretical group by the Indonesian Ulema Council, the secular country's highest Muslim authority, which has issued a fatwa against it.

A team with officials from two government ministries and the attorney general's office has recommended the government ban the sect because its teachings deviate from the central tenets of Islam.

The team's deputy head Wisnu Subroto says the religious affairs ministry, the home affairs ministry and the attorney general's office are drafting a joint decree that will require Ahmadiyya followers to return to mainstream Islam.

He says the draft is expected to be completed later this month.

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/200804/s2221418.htm?tab=latest

bhk
04-19-08, 12:50 PM
Oh yeah, and they're considered heretics who are going to be banned in Indonesia:

Banning, then finding and killing members. The Islamists have said again and again what they're going to do and how they're going to do it but the guilty liberal mindset of so many in the west just refuses to believe the evidence.

DVD Polizei
04-19-08, 02:13 PM
I think the reason why the Indonesian Ulema Council has banned this particular Islamic group, has more to do with Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (the founder) being regarded as a prophet versus a teacher, than the message of peace the group brings. From my limited knowledge of this group, he was regarded as a Prophet, which to anyone familiar with Islam would be indicative of calling Mohammed The Prophet, insignificant.

But regardless, issuing a fatwa against your brothers and sisters is rather indicative of an intolerant religious practice. Apparently stating Ahmadiyya is not "offcially recognized" is not enough for these people.

eXcentris
04-19-08, 02:17 PM
I would suggest that if Brigitte Bardot's book had instead been authored by Brigitte Richet, and wasn't likely to sell many copies, then that author would not be brought up on charges.

And I would suggest that if Dieudonné had been an unknown comic he wouldn't have been prosecuted. So you're point is?

I can only think of 3 high profile cases where these laws were used in France. One is Bardot (Muslims AND gays), one is Dieudonné (jews) and the other was Christian Vanneste (gays), an MP in Chirac's UMP party. The later was rather ironic since it was Chirac who expanded hate crime laws in 2004 to include homophobic speech.

And the highest profile case in Canada was Ernst Zundel, a holocaust denier.

I know exactly what you guys are trying to do. You're trying to use the Bardot case to somehow prove that the evil leftists/multiculturalists are using hate crime laws overwhelmingly to "appease" Muslims and shut down criticism of Islam. So far, you have failed miserably.

Ky-Fi
04-19-08, 03:11 PM
I know exactly what you guys are trying to do. You're trying to use the Bardot case to somehow prove that the evil leftists/multiculturalists are using hate crime laws overwhelmingly to "appease" Muslims and shut down criticism of Islam. .

Well, that's certainly part of it....I'm really suggesting that the leftists/multiculturalists are using hate crime laws as social engineering, to selectively supress all kinds of opinions that don't support their utopian leftist worldview, and to protect certain classes of people, and to leave others as open targets. And these hate crime laws can and will supercede an individual's right to free expression in the name of propping up this utopian fantasy. For a while, at least.

And that's part of the genius of the founding fathers of the US. They understood that free speech wasn't just some lofty notion, it was an important part of the checks and balances in a society composed of flawed, untrustworthy humans----and you supress it at your peril.

Britons fear race violence - poll


Almost two-thirds of people in Britain fear race relations are so poor tensions are likely to spill over into violence, a BBC poll has suggested.

Of the 1,000 people asked, 60% said the UK had too many immigrants and half wanted foreigners encouraged to leave.

But the proportion of people describing themselves as "racially prejudiced" was down to 20%, compared with 24% in 2005.

Equality and Human Rights Commission head Trevor Phillips said the findings were "alarming".

Britain's last serious race riots - when violent clashes erupted between white and Asian youths in northern England - happened seven years ago.

Despite this, the poll, carried out by Mori, found three out of four people thought there was now a great deal or a fair amount of tension between races and nationalities.

And almost two in three feared tension was certain or likely to lead to violence, although it is not clear whether people are imagining full-blown street riots or minor scuffles.

Mr Phillips told BBC News: "What worries me is if that friction starts to catch fire - if people do genuinely believe it's going to catch fire then we're in trouble.




"This finding may reflect not what is happening today but the story that's been told of the last 40 years - that if you get people of different kinds together then eventually there's going to be trouble."

The survey was commissioned to mark the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell's infamous "rivers of blood" speech, in which he described the indigenous population's "sense of alarm and resentment" over immigration.

Speaking of his foreboding, he said: "Like the Roman, I seem to see the river Tiber foaming with blood."

BBC home editor Mark Easton says Powell's words, spoken to a small gathering in Birmingham's Midland hotel, still echo down the decades.

He says the effect of Powell's speech was in fact to force the issue of immigration off the political agenda, with any politician who ventured to broach the subject risking being accused of playing the race card.

This situation still exists 40 years later, our correspondent says.

Five months ago, a Tory candidate in Birmingham, Nigel Hastilow, was forced to step down by David Cameron for saying Powell was right that uncontrolled immigration would change Britain irrevocably.

However, the BBC poll finds many people share that view.

Asked if they thought immigration meant their local area didn't feel like Britain any more, a quarter of the sample agreed - double the amount who felt this three years ago.

Six out of 10 said immigration had made parts of Britain feel like a foreign country.

When Tory leader Michael Howard suggested communities couldn't cope with the pace of immigration during the 2005 general election campaign, he was accused of racism.

However, our correspondent says immigration is now back on the political agenda.

He says: "One reason politicians can debate it again, perhaps, is that the latest wave of immigration is different.

"The million Eastern Europeans who've come to the UK in the last three or four years are not looking to settle for good. Their motives are economic. And perhaps most importantly they are white.

"Forty years after Enoch Powell, the issues of race and immigration have been separated once more."

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said the government knew immigration was a top concern among voters.

He said: "That is why 2008 sees the biggest shake-up to immigration and border security in 45 years, with a points system like the one in Australia and new rules to make people earn their stay in the UK, including speaking English and abiding by our rules.

"That is what is going to make our immigration system fit for the future."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7352125.stm

eXcentris
04-19-08, 04:39 PM
Well, that's certainly part of it....I'm really suggesting that the leftists/multiculturalists are using hate crime laws as social engineering, to selectively supress all kinds of opinions that don't support their utopian leftist worldview, and to protect certain classes of people, and to leave others as open targets. And these hate crime laws can and will supercede an individual's right to free expression in the name of propping up this utopian fantasy. For a while, at least.


You can certainly suggest it, bus as far as proving it, you're failing badly.


And that's part of the genius of the founding fathers of the US. They understood that free speech wasn't just some lofty notion, it was an important part of the checks and balances in a society composed of flawed, untrustworthy humans----and you supress it at your peril.


Do you realize that is typically an American point of view and that your argument about a society composed of flawed, untrustworthy humans can be used in reverse, in favor of hate crime laws? Furthermore, I'd like, one more time, for you to attempt to prove to me that societies who have adopted hate crime laws are now "in peril" because of said laws which, again, are hardly used...


Britons fear race violence - poll


What does this have to do with hate crime laws?

And it isn't like the US doesn't have a history of race violence, despite the so-called genius of your founding fathers, which were more concerned with individual rights, than with social cohesion and equality. This is really the crux of the matter, it's an ideological issue.

Ky-Fi
04-19-08, 05:03 PM
You can certainly suggest it, bus as far as proving it, you're failing badly.



Well, let's see. By your logic, hate crime laws are applied objectively, without preference given to any group. Thus, if Brigitte Bardot had written a book condemning Mormonism, she would likely be facing the same charges?

Ky-Fi
04-19-08, 05:08 PM
Furthermore, I'd like, one more time, for you to attempt to prove to me that societies who have adopted hate crime laws are now "in peril" because of said laws which, again, are hardly used...
.

I don't believe I ever said any countries are in peril specifically because of hate crime laws. What I'm arguing is that hate crime laws are simply a manifestation of the leftist/multiculturalist ideology which brands criticism of any non-western, non-christian peoples as "racism". And the poll from the UK that I posted (by the lefty BBC, no less! ) is quite solid evidence of a country being put in peril by said ideology.

Ky-Fi
04-19-08, 05:53 PM
Another coincidental indictment and non-indictment:


The Austrian authorities have indicted politician Susanne Winter on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation. This offence carries a maximum sentence of two years. Last January, Ms Winter said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.”

The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, an anti-immigration party which is in opposition, added that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean.” She also warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” saying that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.

Following her remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Susanne Winter and she was placed under police protection. Today, the Justice Department in Vienna announced that Ms Winter will be charged with “incitement and degradation of religious symbols” (Verhetzung und Herabwürdigung religiöser Symbole). If convicted she may have to serve up to two years in jail for her opinions.

However, Alfred Hrdlicka, the Austrian “artist” who depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted. Nor will he be. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is “incitement to racial hatred.”

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3145

eXcentris
04-19-08, 06:00 PM
Well, let's see. By your logic, hate crime laws are applied objectively, without preference given to any group.


I've given you the 3 high profile examples of hate crime laws usage in France that I know of. Do you detect any "preference towards any given group"? I don't.


Thus, if Brigitte Bardot had written a book condemning Mormonism, she would likely be facing the same charges?

I don't know do you? And again, prove to me that this "preference towards any given group" exists outside of your own mind.

Ky-Fi
04-19-08, 06:24 PM
I've given you the 3 high profile examples of hate crime laws usage in France that I know of. Do you detect any "preference towards any given group"? I don't.



I don't know do you? And again, prove to me that this "preference towards any given group" exists outside of your own mind.


I don't know about France, but in Canada it's right in the criminal code that Muslims (or Christians, for that matter) can express racial hatred if it's religiously motivated, but if you attack a religion from a secular standpoint, it's a hate crime:

"Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means. The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion. "


http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/


edit:

And as further proof of my point that hate crimes are largely manifestations of leftist/mulitulturalist ideology rather than objective criminal codes, here's the exact language from one of the Canadian statutes (from the same link) :

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

eXcentris
04-19-08, 06:44 PM
What I'm arguing is that hate crime laws are simply a manifestation of the leftist/multiculturalist ideology which brands criticism of any non-western, non-christian peoples as "racism".


And I believe that your distorsion of the meaning and purpose of hate crime laws is a manifestation of your obsessive compulsive hatred of the evil multiculturalist left. Hate crimes laws were not enacted to prevent "criticism", they were enacted to deal with crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation. Hate crimes are much more destructive in nature towards the fabric of society than other crimes. The key word being "society".

I'll say this again. This is an ideological issue which is based on the core values/beliefs of a society. And Americans are generally against hate crime laws because they tend to value individual liberties and freedoms over societal concerns.

Here, let's do a France vs US comparison. Americans are against hate crime laws but also get all upset about "The Patriot Act". Why? Because both impact on individual liberties and freedoms which they are not willing to sacrifice. France has both hate crime laws and anti-terrorism laws that make the Patriot Act read like "My Pet Goat" (pun intended). Why? Because they value societal rights/concerns over individual ones. Now let's replace your hispanic population with a Muslim one. I think you'd be in far deeper shit than France is now.

That said, go Habs! :D

eXcentris
04-19-08, 06:53 PM
And as further proof of my point that hate crimes are largely manifestations of leftist/mulitulturalist ideology rather than objective criminal codes, here's the exact language from one of the Canadian statutes (from the same link) :



You've proven squat. Prove to me that all countries that currently possess hate crime laws are "leftist/multiculturalist" in nature. Heck France, just to name one, doesn't even practice multiculturalism. Canada had a number of conservative governments, why haven't they repelled those laws? All you're doing is distorting and generalizing to fit your own views. As I stated above, the belief in hate crime laws goes far deeper than mere left/right of multiculturalism/non-multuculturalism leanings.

Ky-Fi
04-19-08, 06:59 PM
And I believe that your distorsion of the meaning and purpose of hate crime laws is a manifestation of your obsessive compulsive hatred of the evil multiculturalist left.

I cannot, in good conscience, deny that. :lol:

But really, I'm not so much criticizing the PURPOSE of hate crime laws, or the motivations of the well-meaning lefties who came up with them. I don't think there's very many on the multicultural left who really want to see Islamic fundamentalism, the destruction of civil liberties, or large scale racial violence. What I'm saying is that those things are going to be the result of their misguided policies.

Hate crimes laws were not enacted to prevent "criticism", they were enacted to deal with crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation.

And again, I understand that there were/are legitimate humanitarian principles that underscore support for hate crime laws.


Now let's replace your hispanic population with a Muslim one. I think you'd be in far deeper shit than France is now.


I completely agree.


That said, go Habs! :D

This has been a great series so far. Bruins have some confidence, momentum and home ice, Koivu back in the lineup tonight---should be a good one!

Ky-Fi
05-02-08, 07:03 PM
As the goal of the leftists/multiculturalists is to destroy the old Christian/ capitalist/nation-state civilization of the West and to transform Western society into something culturally, socially, spiritually and ethnically very different, here's the early fruits of their labor:

Modern Britain: No Laughing Matter

From the desk of A. Millar on Thu, 2008-05-01 09:03

Earlier generations of Britons believed that certain things simply could not happen in Britain. Even in the country’s darkest moments of war or depression, this conviction differentiated the then proud nation from the U.S.S.R., third world countries, and unstable regimes that might fall to dictatorship any moment. News blackouts, and the banning of a book or film of course occurred here or there, but these never seemed very serious events.

When the Thatcher government banned the sale of the novel, Spycatcher, in Britain, it was smuggled into the country from abroad, and reported in the press despite legal challenges. Humor was the public’s usual way of dealing with such things, and the banning of a book that most people could get ahold of, turned politics into a laughing stock. And not for the first or last time either. Before the outbreak of the Second World War, when Oswald Moseley’s “black shirt” fascists were parading through London, Lady Astor commented that if they should ever gain power the British people would die laughing. How prophetic this was. A few years later Charlie Chaplin denounced and mocked the Nazis in his film, The Great Dictator, even as prime minister Neville Chamberlain sort to win “peace for our time” by appeasing Hitler.

In the 1980s and early 1990s the satirical puppet show, Spitting Image, which mocked the politicians of the time, became a staple of television viewing, even for those who generally did not like television that much. The puppets were grotesque, but politics at that time – and before that time – was raw, unscripted. Thatcher, like other leaders, spoke from the gut as well as the brain, and the picture was not always pretty, but it was human, and it represented the British people. In an excellent op-ed piece for The Daily Mail recently, Lord Tebbit – Thatcher’s once right-hand man – spoke of his love for his puppet-portrayal as a “leather-clad bovver boy,” his dismay at the banal, politically correct, mainstream parties who seem indistinguishable from one another, and constant political failings that are, “so ridiculous that it is beyond satire.”

Political correctness has cowed society and politics, and trodden down common sense and humor. Unlike the defiant, bawdy Brit of the past, today he thinks before he speaks, running through the list of forbidden words, and making sure not to let one slip. And so much now is taboo. The English Democrats Party is under investigation for racism, for using the term, “tartan tax,” a student was arrested for calling a police horse “gay,” and, if you need to see the proof of such extreme “politically correct” intolerance, a Youtube video showing a young man being arrested for singing, “I’d rather wear a turban” (deemed racist by the arresting officer), can be seen here.

A common language is one of the traditional, defining marks of a nation, and the criminalization of words will have a very profound consequence for the British. Though rarely acknowledged as such, humor is another defining mark, and one that makes use of the nation’s language in particular ways that relies on the audience having a good general knowledge of culture, history, and politics. Notably, Voltaire once commented that tragedies could be translated from one tongue to another, but that comedies could not. Anyone wishing to grasp the English comedy would need to, “spend three years in London, to make yourself master of the English tongue, and to frequent the playhouse every night,” he suggested.

Political correctness has changed British politics and society, the latter of which has been famed for its ability to laugh at itself – an ability that has certainly helped to keep it free and democratic. Extremists – whether of the fascist, politically correct, or Islamic type – are united in their suspicion – even rejection – of humor. Humor shows them for what they really are. When the “Mohammed cartoons” provoked riots and death threats by Islamic radicals, Jack Straw could only remark,

"I said at the time that the cartoons were reprinted in Europe – though not here in the United Kingdom – that doing so was needlessly insensitive and disrespectful. The right to freedom of expression is a broad one and something which this country has long held dear. […] But the existence of such a right does not mean that it is right – morally right, politically right, socially right – to exercise that freedom without regard to the feelings of others. "

With those words Straw beheads the figure of humor before our eyes, in order to appease those who might be offended. Not every Muslim is humorless, of course, and in the U.S., for example, there is a comedy show called “Allah made me funny,” with Muslim comedians who are able to poke fun at themselves. The show was the initiative of Preacher Moss, who wanted to bridge the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims after 9/11. Yet in Britain we see that appeasement has become de facto policy of the “liberal” media, with various controversial words or subjects banned. Ben Elton – a comedian and author once noted for his staunchly Left-wing politics – recently accused the B.B.C. of being too “scared” to poke fun at radical Islam, noting that he was even told not to use the entirely innocuous phrase, “Mohammed came to the mountain” apparently for fear of the consequences.

A few days ago, it emerged that the B.B.C. and rival television broadcaster I.T.V. insisted that the Christian Choice political party make changes to the language of its electoral broadcast concerning their opposition to the building of Europe’s largest mosque in London. The party had described Tablighi Jamaat, the group behind its planning, as “separatist,” and noted that some “moderate Muslims” were against the mega-mosque. But the B.B.C. was worried, and insisted the group be described as “controversial” instead. And, it disallowed the term “moderate Muslims” as it implied that Tablighi Jamaat was not moderate. I.T.V. would not even allow the group to be described as “controversial,” although this would certainly appear to be an appropriate – if mild – term. Tablighi Jamaat is opposed to Muslims mixing with non-Muslims, and wants to separate their flock from Jews and Christians by – according to one of their advocates in Britain – creating, “such hatred for their ways as human beings have for urine and excreta.”

Ten years ago, we would have laughed at a comedy sketch in which people were banned from describing hate mongers as “controversial.” We would have laughed at a sketch of a student being arrested for calling a horse “gay.” The lunacy of it all seems so Monty Python or Spitting Image, yet this is the reality of modern Britain.

But I wonder if bawdy, rowdy humor is not now being confined to the past, and along with it an entire way of thinking, and an effective weapon that has proved the best defense of common sense and ordinary people. Gone, it seems, is the type of politician that was feisty and unapologetic in the pursuit of liberty. Contrast Churchill – drinker, cigar smoker, and a man with a quick wit and sharp tongue – with those who embody modern politics – Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, Ken Livingstone, Tony Blair, or David Cameron – and one cannot help but feel that the future of Britain may be no laughing matter.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fh97Rf_u1K0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fh97Rf_u1K0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

bhk
05-03-08, 01:24 PM
Unfortunately, many of the elites that are responsible for emasculating Europe will have long emigrated to somewhere else before they get their comeuppance at the hands of the islamofascists. It will be the regular people that will suffer.

Ky-Fi
05-03-08, 02:18 PM
That's exactly right. I saw a stat the other day that the emigration rate of native Swedes is now at levels on par with the mid 19th century, and the ones that are leaving are generally younger, wealthier and better educated.

bhk
05-04-08, 11:37 AM
I suspect part of the blip against the left in recent elections in Italy and England is that leftists grab their ankles and bend over to the Islamofasicsts and the people seem to be tired of it. We'll see if the trend continues.

nemein
05-05-08, 07:17 PM
Closed for length... someone please feel free to start another one.