1
   

Fundamentally, we're useful idiots

 
 
rayban1
 
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:35 am
This article is written by a Brit, who is deeply concerned about the British penchant for being sypathetic and appologetic for the forces which seek to destroy the west. He does not inflame nor alienate but merely attempts to educate with very useful comparisons between Hitler's brand of fascism and the Islamo fascism of today.

He talks of the European trend to deport Immams who preach hate and violence while the Brits have given lip service to the idea but no action.

All in all a very timely, educational piece.

Times online wrote:
Fundamentally, we're useful idiots
Anthony Browne
As the rest of Europe acts, extreme Islamists take advantage of British naivety
ELEMENTS WITHIN the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West's apologists for the Soviet Union ?- useful idiots.

Islamic radicals, like Hitler, cultivate support by nurturing grievances against others. Islamists, like Hitler, scapegoat Jews for their problems and want to destroy them. Islamists, like Hitler, decree that the punishment for homosexuality is death. Hitler divided the world into Aryans and subhuman non-Aryans, while Islamists divide the world into Muslims and sub-human infidels. Nazis aimed for their Thousand-Year Reich, while Islamists aim for their eternal Caliphate. The Nazi party used terror to achieve power, and from London to Amsterdam, Bali to New York, Egypt to Turkey, Islamists are trying to do the same.

*
Click here to find out more!
The two fascisms, one racial and one religious, one beaten and the other resurgent, are evil in both their ideology and their methodology, in their supremacism, intolerance, belief in violence and threat to democracy.

The London bombings revealed only to those in denial the extent to which Islamic fascism has taken root. But we have a long way to go until we reach the level of understanding in mainland Europe. With one of the smallest Muslim populations in Western Europe, just 3 per cent of the total, Britain has been able to afford a joyful multicultural optimism. Other countries, with far bigger Islamic populations, from France to Germany to the Netherlands, have had to become far more hard-headed.

The support of Islamic fascism spans Britain's Left. The wacko Socialist Workers Party joined forces with the Muslim Association of Britain, the democracy-despising, Shariah-law-wanting group, to form the Stop the War Coalition. The former Labour MP George Galloway created the Respect Party with the support of the MAB, and won a seat in Parliament by cultivating Muslim resentment.

When I revealed on these pages last year both the fascist views of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the fact that he was being welcomed to Britain by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, it caused a storm that has still to abate. Mr Livingtone claims that Sheikh al-Qaradawi is a moderate ?- which he is, in the same way that Mussolini was.

The BBC and The Guardian regularly give space to MAB to promote sanitised versions of its Islamist views. John Ware, one of the BBC's most-respected reporters, spent years trying to make a programme on Islamic fundamentalism in Britain, but was repeatedly blocked by senior editors who feared it was too sensitive. Last month it emerged that The Guardian employed a journalist, Dilpazier Aslam, who is a member of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist group that wants a global theocracy, and is described by the Home Office as "anti-Semitic, anti-Western and homophobic". The Guardian used Dilpazier Aslam to report not just on the London bombings, but on Shabina Begum, the Luton schoolgirl who, advised by Hizb ut-Tahrir, won a court case allowing her to wear head-to-toe fundamentalist Islamic clothes.

The tale illustrates Britain's naivety in many ways. Hizb ut-Tahrir is still legal, despite being banned in many European and Muslim countries, and despite President Musharraf of Pakistan pleading with Britain to ban it after it plotted to assassinate him. The useful idiots of the Left insisted that Ms Begum's victory was a victory over Islamophobia, but even the Muslim Parliament of Britain gave warning that it was a "victory for fundamentalism", bringing Shariah law one step closer.

In France, by contrast, the government ban on wearing the hijab, or Islamic veil, in schools was widely supported by the Left. It is impossible in France for radical Islamists to dupe useful idiots into supporting a pro-hijab campaign presenting it as pro-choice, as they did in Britain ?- because in France, the Left knows that the Islamists believe Muslim women should be compelled to wear the hijab.

Here the Government talks about deporting extremist imams, but does nothing. In contrast, France has deported ten radical imams in the past two years, with another one deported to Algeria last week, and ten more are under police surveillance. In France, no mosque is off limits to the police. While Britain welcomes Sheikh al-Qaradawi, Germany last week deported an imam who simply supported the Muslim Brotherhood. In Bavaria alone, 14 "hate preachers" have been deported since November 2004, and a further 20 have received notifications of deportation.

The Netherlands and Denmark, worried about the growth of ghettoised Muslim communities, have promoted integration, with the Netherlands insisting that those wanting to become immigrants take a test of Dutch language and the nation's values before they are even given a visa. Both countries have clamped down on inter-continental arranged marriages ?- which are thought to comprise 70 per cent of Muslim marriages there, as in Britain ?- on the ground that they promote the creation of separatist communities. Such measures are barely on the radar in Britain.

Even post-bombing, Britain has a long way to go in its understanding of Islamic fascism. The tragedy is that we start daring to understand it only when innocent lives are lost.


Anthony Browne is Europe Correspondent of The Times
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 700 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:46 am
I suppose it's better than being useless idiots.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:58 am
Ray -

I have no clue what to do - let me say that first.

However, it is no secret that large sects of Christianity believe that Homosexuals and thier acts are punishible by death (albiet a spiritual death). This has allowed, in America, the allows the segregation and discrimination of homosexuals to the point that Nebraska passed an unconstitutional measure banning homosexual marriage. This measure was supported and backed by many many Christian churches.

Also, there are large groups of christians that think that abortion is murder. This has been taken by some Christain groups as reason to bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who have perfomed abortions.

These too seem to be the roots of hatred and here is my point:

NOT to compare Apples to Oranges.

But to ask the question - when does free speech become hate speech and reason for deportation.

I think people that are simply lighting rods for hatred and bombing should be prosecuted (and if legal) deported. This has been done in America and will, I am sure, continue to be done.

What, do you Ray (or anyone for that matter) prescribe as criterion for criminal prosecution?

I think that our founding fathers sat in little groups, in little churches, and talked about overthrowing the status quo - and then plotted to do so - and we call them founding fathers for doing so. Where do we cross the line and prosecute freedom fighters, in the name of wiping out terrorists.

AGAIN - I am not here to call American's terrorists or Christian's Nazi's or any other thing. I am not trolling - I am simply wondering 'aloud' where you draw that line between free speech and hate speech.

TTF
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 12:11 pm
TTF
I thank you for voicing the question because it is of great fundamental importance to our current situation and a question that must be resolved to the satisfaction of all before we can move forward and defeat the fanatics.



Your view is consistent with the group here who I categorize as "ivory tower" idealists, who are infatuated with the ideals of freedom and free speech, but who are incapable of calculating the consequences of overindulgence. You can overeat, overspend your budget, under discipline your spoiled children,without creating a great consequence. But if you overindulge in, and become too tolerant of those who would abuse the right of free speech, then we risk losing our right of free speech that we cherish so much.

You ask what the line is where hate speech becomes intolerant and should be punished. The simple answer is.......anyone who, during the use of hate speech, is likely to incite or cause violence by anyone of his listeners, anytime in the future, is guilty of abusing free speech and should be deported or detained. In determining the intent of the speaker with this simple answer one must only make a quick and common sense evaluation of the speakers intent by judging the emotional response of those being spoken to. If anyone in the group of listeners voices......his intent to harm anyone after hearing the hate speech......that to me is adequate evidence of intent. Is there anyone here who will testify that the incitment to violence is not readily apparent at one of these hate speech gatherings. I state again that this is my simple answer and I don't consider it simplistic because this answer would/will allow law enforcement officers to at least temporarily remove anyone from society who would incite violence. The final judgement would be determined at a legal proceeding as per below.

The complex answer would take into consideration many other factors such as the potential power of those who are targeted by the speaker as his tools.........the intended victims......the legal or religious authority of the speaker and the most important consideration of all........the legal method by which we judge the INTENT of the speaker. I will leave that definition to the legal experts among the participants. These factors listed are not implied to be a complete list and should not be referenced as such.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fundamentally, we're useful idiots
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2026 at 02:25:21