(Headline: “Al Qaeda: Bulgaria”)
Our Bulgarian correspondent RR has translated a pair of articles from the Bulgarian media about the migration of Islamic terror from Lebanon and Turkey into Bulgaria, Greece, and points west — and this is before Turkish membership in the EU.
RR includes this introduction:
According to recent news articles, Bulgaria is a legitimate target by Islamic terrorists because it sent soldiers in support of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan [see story #1]. Linked in “Related news” was the brief news about the captured Turkish terrorist [see story #2], which made me think how many of them travel across Europe without restrictions.
“Europe without borders” was an idyll featuring free, happy and friendly people, maybe flower-girdled and high on freedom (and pot), moving around and exchanging ideas, diversity, and sex, without any border checks from Lisbon to Umea or from Limerick to… to say Diarbekir in Asia Minor, why not? The liberal oligarchs are keen to admit the 75-million-strong Muslim Turkey into the EU.
Somehow, this hippie visionary dream of Europe without the nasty border cops became a reality.
But it seems that borders still matter.
From 24 Chasa:
Islamists from the refugee camp Ain al Helwe in South Lebanon have penetrated into Bulgaria and Greece on false passports. This was disclosed in an investigation by the Lebanese journalist Hassan Aliq published in the newspaper “Al Ahbar” and the site orientbg.info.
The camp Ain al Helwe is the base of the Asbat-al-Ansar jihadist formation, whose speaker announced recently in an interview for 24 Hours that Bulgaria is a legitimate target for al-Qaeda because of the presence of a Bulgarian military contingent in Afghanistan.
The member of the Central Committee of the Fattah Movement, Sultan Aynen, is cited as disclosing: “Over the last three months some persons persecuted by the Lebanese courts made the effort to escape from the refugee camp. To this date more than 20 men managed to leave the camp and have arrived in Europe. Some of them reached Greece and are staying in Athens. Others reside in Bulgaria. Some of those persons were arrested in those two countries, but freed from custody afterwards”.
Aynen suggested that the illegals were supporters of the “ultra-extremist” fraction “Jund ash Sham” — fighters, who left the “moderate” Asbat-al-Ansar.
Middle East specialist Prof. V. Chukov commented on the news: “The original material from the Lebanese source is controversial on some points. What surfaces clearly is the fact that this country (Bulgaria) has arrested some mujahideen, who possibly took part in the bloody battles with Lebanese government forces two years ago and are now actively persecuted by the Lebanese state. Now that this has happened, it is quite logical that their militant faction voices threats against Bulgaria”…
As an introduction to the second article, RR notes:
This cross-border promenade seems never to stop in Eurabia. Below is a recent example from Greece and Bulgaria, a European backyard normally ignored when Paris or Rome are burning — at least in the suburbs for now. But the backyards may hide some really dangerous and alien creatures:12-foot Burmese pythons in Florida, say, or Palestinian “Jund-ash-Shams” Islamist fighters in Bulgaria and Greece.
From DNES:
Sofia, Bulgaria. — Early yesterday morning the Border Control Police in Vidin detained a dangerous terrorist wanted by Interpol, the Interior Ministry announced. The Turkish citizen has crossed uneventfully several Schengen area countries, although an international detaining order was issued against him two years ago.
M.E., 36 years of age, was detained upon his entry in Bulgaria on the ferryboat Kalafat-Vidin, coming from Germany via Hungary, Romania, and heading through Bulgaria to Turkey. He was using a travel permit issued by Germany on January 13, 2006, giving him the right of free movement within EU territory…
He is wanted by the Turkish authorities on a detaining order from July 24, 2007, after an effective sentence in absentia by the Supreme Court in Ankara to seven years in prison for membership in and funding of the terrorist organization THKP/Dev Sol, and participation in terrorist activities.
RR adds:
THKP/Dev Sol is a small Marxist terrorist faction; I wonder if a Muslim terrorist supported by the Muslim Brotherhood would be so eagerly sought after by the Turkish authorities…
And just how many terrorists crisscross at any given point the already non-existent borders within this, our Europe of Dreams?
30 comments:
Jihad Without Borders
One day, Islam's glorification and advocacy of Jihad Without Borders will receive its ultimate comeuppance.
REPRISAL WITHOUT BORDERS.
Stateless actors inflicting collective punishment through asymmetrical warfare will invite the very worst sort of retribution.
There is only so much provocation and incessant antagonism that any opponent can withstand before all hesitation or compunction is swept away by an overwhelming need for simple and effective retaliation.
The more that spineless Western politicians restrain this natural response to continuous predation, the more they up the final butcher's bill for Islam and us as well.
While there can be no doubt that Islam is wholly responsible for necessitating this eventual mass carnage, its scope and dimension have only been enhanced by its appeasers.
It is my deep hope that, one day, all of these Islamic enablers will face the modern equivalent of Nuremberg Trials for their complicity in escalating the death toll and misery that is a direct result of their adamant refusal to act.
Zenster, I wouldn't consider the Nuremberg Trials as an example of justice. It's one of the biggest travesties on justice ever conceived and it degraded jurisprudence back to the days of the cave men when might made right.
Trying people under post facto laws concocted especially to convict them, with the Article 6 of the Charter that created the tribunal allowing the court to declare anything it wanted a war crime, but what the victors did, with torturing, subterfuge and false promises to witnesses to extract testimonies, with partial judges and with the accusers acting as them and also as prosecutors, juries and executioners.
Let's not forget that Russia was one of the judges, the same country who raped millions of German women, didn't mind producing witnesses that said the Germans did the Katyn massacre. What about the rule against ex post facto legislation, a rule that any justice system adheres to. The trial was nothing, but a political act and to quote the American commander in chief of the United States navy in the Pacific the trials were just a "reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors."
Zenster, I wouldn't consider the Nuremberg Trials as an example of justice.
Since you have such a preference for finely minced words, try this:
I didn't say the Nuremberg Trials were "an example of justice". That event was summoned forth in my writing explicitly for the purpose of eliciting an image of court trials for crimes against humanity without going into minutiae regarding their ostensible efficacy or political correctness.
It's one of the biggest travesties on justice ever conceived and it degraded jurisprudence back to the days of the cave men when might made right.
And exactly how would not holding them have served the ends of "justice"?
Let's not forget that Russia was one of the judges, the same country who raped millions of German women, didn't mind producing witnesses that said the Germans did the Katyn massacre.
Precisely how were Western powers − from whose relative perspective I write − supposed to anticipate the Soviet hall of mirrors that Russian Communism was in the process of inflicting upon our world for decades to come? American and European commanders were not as yet disabused of their delusions about Stalin and any hope of genuine cooperation in fighting fascism. Better to have duplicitous Communism shoulder this blame than tar Western leadership for its abject naïveté
.
The trial was nothing, but a political act and to quote the American commander in chief of the United States navy in the Pacific the trials were just a "reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors."
While such an outcome is nothing which I particularly hope for, it seems patently clear that the West’s current conflict with Islam is on a trajectory that may well point towards an eventual "reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders.” This is something I have been predicting for some time now even as I have ardently urged all and sundry to push for extermination of Islam's political, clerical, financial and scholastic leadership.
I will not say that Allied counsel obtained perfect justice at Nuremberg. Nowhere do I maintain that, nor was it at all my point. My sole intent was to rally popular support for modern Liberal political leadership in the West being made to answer in open court for their blatant malfeasance. It is their unprecedented spinelessness and appeasement that has opened the door for a new age of terrorist atrocities and, eventual, nuclear conflict that will quite possibly see hundreds of millions perish needlessly.
You may feel free to dither on about long-past historic errors as Western Human Rights are shredded by Islam and our leaders alike. My preference is for initiating a groundswell of support that could one day see Islam’s prime movers and all of the crocodile feeders punished for their crimes.
Zenster, I don't see how people allowing Muslims into the West are guilty of crimes against humanity. The way you put it sounds like you'd use the Nuremberg trial analogy to be exactly what the Nuremberg trials were - a political extermination of the vanquished by the victors.
I'd like to point out that what I say is the politically incorrect thing, not what you do. Any person who knows history would see the Nuremberg trials as the kangaroo court that it was.
And it's not about not having trials, it's about having a proper court system. There is no difference in between the Nuremberg trials and how the kuffr is treated in a Sharia court. None. But again, a proper court not only wouldn't have been able to convict quite a lot of people that got convicted, but the Allies would have quite a record of war crimes and crimes against humanity too.
By the way, there were journalists writing about genocides perpetrated by the Russians against their own people since before WW2. All it would have took is read the newspapers. It's hilarious how all Westerners had an epiphany about the Soviets en-mass after the trials. There's quite a long list of people who said during the trials that they are a huge farce - some quite high in the US army. But the politicians answer to the masses and the masses wanted blood and executions - that's pretty much how those trials can be summed up.
I don't necessarily object to your desires related to the leaders of Islam, but I'd hardly consider it justice. Those actions have a certain name and I believe in using the proper terms - they're assassinations.
I hardly see how the people that encouraged immigration encouraged a nuclear conflict. You can easily ethnically cleanse Europe without committing genocide. If you want to put them on trial for something, TREASON is the thing to be on trial for. Not bogus political charges of crimes against humanity. They're actually guilty of treason too(if I was to be empress, they'd all stand trial with the death penalty on the table).
This isn't the point. Our language controls our thinking. What you did with the Nuremberg trials was an appeal to people's emotions in the same sense that Marxists destroyed the concept of justice, by putting social in front of it. If you're against social justice, you're against justice. How about a ton of other words like sustainability, fairness, human race, firefighter and the list goes on forever? Also, WW2 has been a pretty bad thing for Europeans, so I hardly see why we'd have it as a central focus in our moral framework in relations to anything.
Quote:
Zenster, I don't see how people allowing Muslims into the West are guilty of crimes against humanity.
end quote.
They're not guilty of crimes against humanity.
They are guilty of acting out of a gross and inforgivable ignorance of history.
They are also guilty of enabling a path of circumstances that are leading toward a cultural genocide.
rebelliousvanilla: … I don't see how people allowing Muslims into the West are guilty of crimes against humanity.
If that is truly the case, then this discussion could be stopped right here without much further loss. Sadly, I do not think you are joking.
Do you even realize that without mass immigration from the MME (Muslim Middle East), committing atrocities like 9-11, Madrid and London would have been much more difficult for the terrorists?
The way you put it sounds like you'd use the Nuremberg trial analogy to be exactly what the Nuremberg trials were - a political extermination of the vanquished by the victors.
What part of:
While such an outcome is nothing which I particularly hope for, it seems patently clear that the West’s current conflict with Islam is on a trajectory that may well point towards an eventual "reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders.”
… was unclear?
Is it not by now entirely obvious that Islam is nothing more or less than a "reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders"?
What makes you think the West will magically escape the ravages of Islamic barbarity without adopting, in some part, a degree of its own brutal tactics? You've never come forward with any arguments when I have repeatedly noted how "Islam must be repaid in its own bloody coin". How are the points I am making now any different?
The West is being sold down the river wholesale by a bunch of self-loathing Multiculturalists who would like nothing more than to see the system crashed by Muslim barbarians that these traitors have so cheerfully let within our gates. All the while thinking that, once the mayhem is finished, they magically will somehow yank the reins of power from the iron grip of these vicious Islamic cretins.
Aside from the Muslim perpetrators themselves, who else is responsible for the rape epidemics, crime waves and burgeoning child prostitution rings in Northern Europe save those who agreed − without popular consent or concensus − to flood their nations with these Third World savages?
Any person who knows history would see the Nuremberg trials as the kangaroo court that it was.
And it's not about not having trials, it's about having a proper court system.
And I say that the entire matter is so much water under the bridge. Communism − along with Nazism − is largely defeated and the West's resident traitors have adopted a new religion of Multiculturalism larded with “social justice” and “climate change”. Once again blinded with their rebranded dogma, they are back on course steering Western civilization towards the reef of demographic cancelation.
Within this milieu, the court systems have been rendered entirely ineffective. What use do the Dutch people have for a court like the one that attempted to try Geert Wilders? This same farce has already been played out all over Europe with Susanne Winter in Austria, Jussi Hallo-Aho in Finland and has even spread abroad with the trial of Ezra Levant in Canada.
What makes you think that there is any Western court able to provide competent legal jurisprudence for those who choose to defy the flooding of their countries with Muslim barbarians?
What’s more, in the absence of functional legal recourse, what is more predictable than the emergence − after the fact − of, as I have suggested, a “modern equivalent of Nuremberg Trials”?
Worst of all, the real crimes against humanity that will likely result from this abject farce HAVE YET TO COME.
Incineration of the entire MME is one of the most likely outcomes. It is entirely avoidable at present but looms larger on the horizon with each passing day.
I don't necessarily object to your desires related to the leaders of Islam, but I'd hardly consider it justice. Those actions have a certain name and I believe in using the proper terms - they're assassinations.
If you are incapable of equating “justice” with the elimination of Islamic prime movers like Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Amahdinejad, Karzai, al Maliki and others who are promoting jihad in our nations then, again, this discussion is of little use. All of the aforementioned individuals − plus those on my Top Forty List − are involved in perpetrating the most notorious injustices in their own countries and doing their best to export them abroad. Government liquidation of these terrorist advocates would go a long way toward obviating the need for what will otherwise be an essential follow-up in punishing Liberalism’s complicity with Islam.
What else would you call terrorism if not targeted “assassinations”. The ones I suggest are intended to decapitate Islamic jihad, whilst the others − equally targeted, mind you − merely seek to sow mindless fear while inspiring the most callow abdication of human liberty and national sovereignty. Terrorism is collective punishment and it beggars repayment in kind.
I hardly see how the people that encouraged immigration encouraged a nuclear conflict.
Then you clearly do not understand the immense probability that European enablement of Islam will likely result in the vaporization of one or several Western population centers. For nuclear retaliation not to follow would be unimaginable. Even if only Iran was targeted for reprisal, that is SEVENTY-ONE MILLION PEOPLE, right there. Once the nuclear horse is out of the barn, it is more than a little difficult to imagine that it’s path will not cut a much wider swath.
You can easily ethnically cleanse Europe without committing genocide.
Again, I believe that you are sadly misinformed. Read any of the superb analyses by El Inglés, starting with Surrender, Genocide… or What?, then come back and tell me that “You can easily ethnically cleanse Europe without committing genocide.” Nothing of the sort is true, even today much less in a few short years.
“If you want to put them on trial for something, TREASON is the thing to be on trial for. Not bogus political charges of crimes against humanity. They're actually guilty of treason too (if I was to be empress, they'd all stand trial with the death penalty on the table).”
What has been going on exceeds the boundaries of mere treason. It is rapidly becoming an ethnic cleansing of European lands by Muslim proxy that will not be able to be reversed without a hideous civil war that may well make World War II look like a picnic.
Were that none of this was so but nothing of the sort is true. The accusation of “crimes against humanity” is not one of “bogus political charges” but based on intentional moral and ethical breaches that now threaten to escalate far beyond what mere treason is capable of attaining.
The prospect of such eventual trials needs to be placed in the path of these Islamic appeasers so that − for once and all time − they clearly understand what awaits a successful reversal of their bloody goals.
I have proposed similar disincentives in Austria whereby those who continue to manipulate the legal system in pursuit of silencing Susanne Winter and, now, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, be made to understand that they will be brought up on charges once the local Freedom Party gains power.
There must be clear penalties for aiding and abetting the enemy. Those who act as accomplices for the very highest aims of Islam must be made to share in responsibility for the Islamic crimes against humanity that are ongoing and will be committed in ever increasing numbers as jihad spreads.
If you, rebelliousvanilla, are not willing to describe Islam’s intention of establishing a global caliphate as a crime against humanity, then please state so now. If not, then why is it that those who are so flagrantly assisting in such a process should have the least immunity to standing trial for the exact same thing?
Either you consistently oppose Islam and routinely call it for exactly what it is, or please consider excusing yourself from all further debate. Part of naming the enemy is making sure that those who serve its ends under political cover answer for their crimes as well.
The destruction sought by these Western cultural traitors embraces a scale of annihilation that simple charges of treason are unable to encompass with any degree of sufficiency. If you do not recognize this, then I doubt there is much use in continuing this discussion.
As a final note, if the Nuremberg Trials had one single useful outcome, it was to forever prohibit any further use of the shopworn excuse:
I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS.
To be sure others will attempt to pass off this lame duck of a rationale but sane minds will always be able to point towards an undeniable precedent. Soon enough we will be confronted with militaries whose armies are founded upon blind obedience. Those who follow without ever pausing to consider the moral consequences of their acts will have no excuse.
goethechosemercy: … I don't see how people allowing Muslims into the West are guilty of crimes against humanity.
Yet, at the same time you note about these same cultural traitors that:
They are also guilty of enabling a path of circumstances that are leading toward a cultural genocide.
How then, can you maintain that, “They're not guilty of crimes against humanity”?
By definition “genocide” is a crime against humanity. How is it possible that those who are “guilty of enabling a path of circumstances that are leading toward a cultural genocide" remain magically immune from standing trial for being accomplices to the crime that they are facilitating?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse and the mounting statistics with regard to Muslim terrorism, crime and general mayhem can no longer be ignored. Even if they were once unaware, modern Western leaders cannot anymore feign such ignorance.
They are knowingly facilitating the demographic annihilation of White culture and doing so with the direct intent of increasing their own power at any cost. This makes them no different from war criminals of the past and they deserve to be treated as such.
goethechosemercy, you usually are more consistent in your arguments. I’m curious as to how you managed to achieve this particular disconnect in your own logic. One cannot simultaneously admit that there are those who are “enabling a path of circumstances” that lead to “genocide” while not maintaining that they share an actionable degree of complicity in such a crime.
Zenster, no, it is high treason. This is what crimes against humanity are "particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority". What the current governments did so far doesn't fall under that definition so what they did isn't a crime against humanity(the whole crime against humanity thing is a bogus idiocy to begin with).
And I could deal with the Muslims in the West fairly easily, but not as an elected official. I'd start with stripping all of them of citizenship, banning the building of new mosques or the upkeep of the current ones, double their taxes, ban welfare for them, ban Muslim graveyards, have compulsory education for Muslim women along with non-Muslim men, while Muslim men would have separate classes and so on. And if they riot, I'd have the military open fire. After a few of these occurances, they'd leave or obey, especially since they'd be partially interned. You hardly need to commit genocide against them.
Your vision of what should happen in Austria shows how farcical your understanding of justice is. You can't try people under ex post facto legislation. You can't try someone for something they did before that something became a crime.
I'd also like to point out to you that an intention isn't a crime against humanity. Also, you again misinterpret what a crime against humanity is and what treason is. If I'm a soldier and I help the others, I commit treason, not a crime against humanity, even if the others will commit genocide against my people. Also, I'd like to point out that oppressing people based on their race or religion is considered a crime against humanity - another great invention of the USA. The whole concept of crimes against humanity, just like calling someone racist, is a farcical concept employed in rhetoric by politicians without the skill to comprehend or explain FACTS.
I would also like to point out that, like it or not, almost all Nazi officers were just following orders. War is a political decision and politicians should pay the full price of it, not soldiers and officers who obey orders. Do you have any military relatives? Because I do and this is common sense to every single one of them. I'd like to point out that most of the Allied officers should have been executed for the same reasons that the Nazi ones were. Or you can look for the opinions of the American generals regarding to the Nuremberg trials.
What does the Middle East have to do with what Muslims do in Europe? I don't really care what they do in the Middle East - the problem is that they're here and they need to be kicked out. It's that simple, actually. What, you think we should nuke our own cities? I'd also want to point out to you that the person who'd do the nuking would be the one committing the crimes against humanity, not the present day politicians.
And no, assassinations have nothing to do with justice. Justice is something that should be kept inside criminal courts of impartial judges and juries and so on or martial courts. Otherwise, you do the exact same thing that our Marxist friends do - take a word that has a positive connotation, like justice, and associate your own desires to it to spin like your desires are positive morally. Call assassinations what they are, not justice. I'd also want to point out to you that considering their countries are sovereign, they can do whatever they want in them.
Oh, and I'd like to point out to you that not those who encouraged immigration encouraged a nuclear conflict. Iran did. It's actually fairly logical and you'd see it as such if you'd refrain from fallacies.
The atrocities you listed aren't crimes against humanity, by the legal definition of that term. Also, what Westerners did is treason at worst, not crimes against humanity. And the politicians do have a mandate – they were elected by a majority of their country’s citizens. So the population consented. Maybe it’s just me, but I missed the revolts, voting for other parties than before and so on – so the politicians do have a mandate.
And yes, I doubt there is much use to have this discussion. It's obvious that you invent concepts along the way, change the definition of existing ones in order to be able to use their emotional charge in the way you want to. This is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. I’d also appreciate if you wouldn’t quote what I say out of context – you made the comparison to what we should do to the Nuremberg trials, not what Islam would do if it would prevail. Communism wasn’t defeated, by the way. I believe that communism actually won the Cold War, despite the Soviet system failing. Just look at the average young adults in America, who portrays herself as the bastion of capitalism.
Oh, and in case you didn’t notice, I’m not advocating the current joke of a court and political system that Europe has, but I don’t support an equally farcical one, which is what you support. A modern equivalent of the Nuremberg trials suggests that the modern equivalent will be as farcical as the Nuremberg trials were. If you can’t see this, you lack any understanding of how law and justice work. I dare you to do something – look up the legal definition of crimes against humanity and pick a single politician and make a case against him based on the definition of it.
Since you seem so inclined to argue this point in such detail, I invite you to continue this discussion in a more appropriate Gates of Vienna thread.
Quote:
By definition “genocide” is a crime against humanity.
end quote.
That was my point.
Made by implication.
Even if someone says it's not a crime against humanity, it turns out that it becomes one any way.
We are dealing with foxes here-- people who will try to make you think that the loss of Western culture is worth one day's peace.
But it's not.
That post was my "yeah right" message.
Culture is one of the greatest things humanity has ever created.
And in the history of the world, Western culture stands out for its individualism and security; its ability to reconcile the imperatives of the community with the needs of the individual.
It is the only culture in which there is a dialogue between rights and privilege, between one truth and another.
We have a perspective that is unusual in world history.
Well worth defending. Well worth a secure future.
We can point fingers all we will, but in the end, it is how we educate ourselves not to understand Islam, but to understand Islam in relation to our culture and the nature of the conflict we see so clearly here.
A conflict the multiculturalists don't see.
goethechosemercy: That post was my "yeah right" message.
Absent any inflection of tone − one of the Internet's major drawbacks − your effort at irony escaped me. I hope my concern for this was obvious with respect to the mystification shown about your apparent lapse in consistency.
What you have hit upon − the role of words and meaning − is central to this entire arguement.
Unfortunately, Rebellious Vanilla has seen fit to buy into how modern politics has weaponized the entire concept of crimes against humanity so as to condemn the West and only the West.
Only White Christian nations can possible commit such horrendous atrocities, even as one Third World mass slaughter after the other is allowed to slide beneath the MSM's radar. Darfur, Rwanda, Burma and so many others simple vanish as they cross the editor's desk.
One major effort that awaits any success by Conservatives is the restoration of actual meaning to terms like crimes against humanity, racism, fascism and so forth. In their currently twisted state they are at risk of losing all value due to both overuse and intentional abuse.
This is one of those odd but highly abrasive facets of Politically Correct speech that is proving rather difficult to overcome. However, truth has a way of winning out even against the most unseemly odds and win out it must do.
Please consider participating over in the Paul Weston speech thread that I linked to above. It is very important to make sure that Islam and its Liberal fellow travelers do not get away with neutering perceptions or penalties for the very same offenses that they are so busily engaged in.
PS: I agree with much of what you noted about Culture and other aspects about it in your follow-up comment.
Zenster, no, I don't really buy into how the modern West is. In case you don't know, I reject the notion of civic citizenship, for example, which is a modern Western construct(and I'd like to point out that every single civilization that did it failed miserably).
What I am against is distorting concepts in an intellectually dishonest way to fit our desires. For example, if Iran sponsors a terrorist organization to detonate a nuclear device in a major Western city, Iran is guilty of a 'crime against humanity'. The truth though is that I completely reject a politically constructed notion which is this type of crime, but if we are to talk about these type of crimes, we need to use the legal definition of them.
And real conservatives would reject outright any debate on racism as it is a concept invented by Trotsky and any person using it has been inebriated with Marxism to a certain extent. So all these emotionally charged words using ALL of their value is a GOOD thing. Any real conservative that rejects progressivism would be happy about this. Most Americans for some reason seem to consider these concepts to be conservative - it's amusing to me when they make MLK to be conservative or somehow a person that represents conservative values. Only people that are brainwashed in the universal human philosophy and egalitarianism would consider racism even something to be debated. Here's my philosophy: my people will always go first, regardless of context. I'm not looking forward to turning the clock back to 1980 or 1950. I want the clock to go back to the early 19th or late 18th century. That's when our disease started, it's hardly a modern thing.
goethechosemercy, the problem is social individualism. Actually, we could learn something from the Marxists on this one. Shaming and ostracism should be tools employed by any community whose individuals harm it. Hence there's a huge difference in between social and economic individualism.
Please do yourself a favor, RV, and take your arguments over into the other thread where they will get closer examination. This thread is stale.
If you didn't like my Nuremberg analogy, then you shouldn't like Paul Weston's either. Let hear what you have to say over there.
I'm not really in the mood to carry this harangue on in more than one place. If you want to continue it, fine. If not, fine again. I made my point.
rebelliousvanilla: I'm not really in the mood to carry this harangue on in more than one place.
That is more than clear, despite the opportunity to place your arguments in a far more appropriate venue. For the nonce, we'll ignore how significant your choice of the term, "harangue" might be.
If you want to continue it, fine. If not, fine again. I made my point.
You may think so but what you have to say is entirely lacking when given such a chance to address someone of far greater stature than I who maintains the exact same point.
I provided links such that those who were interested might follow through, yet you gave all of this to the argument:
Henrik, Islam does have a moral code. If they have a concept of right and wrong behaviour, then it is a moral system. Sure, I abhor it, but this doesn't change what it is.
Just like I reject the modern Western morality of universal equality, I reject Islam's.
That is but a few PERCENT of what you delivered forth against my own stance in this particular thread despite how Paul Weston made the exact same point.
How curious that your argument ran out of steam in the presence of someone who carries far greater weight than I do on the international scene.
I do believe that it indicates a reluctance upon your part to engage those of greater prestige when their arguments might be far more forceful against your own position.
Should you decline to bring forth your own arguments in a thread far more devoted to the topic of discussion, I will keep that in mind before expending further energy debating you about so much as a one round bar tab.
Zenster, I debated you. Is Paul Weston your father to who you run everytime you lose a debate? And if you want me to debate him, do the work of copy pasting what I said here on the other thread. I don't see why I should be bothered with it.
RV, your snide tone is as unwelcome as it is petty. You have been challenged to put forth your arguments in a more appropriate venue and have declined. That speaks volumes about you and certainly more than I need to hear.
Crimes against humanity DO exist, regardless of how Liberal organizations strive to twist them against America and the free world.
Islam is nothing but an ongoing crime against humanity and shari'a law is one gross violation of human rights.
Your willingness to allow Liberals the option of dictating the what, when, where and how crimes against humanity are defined empowers our foes far more than the selective opposition you fling about serves to defeat them.
Either you have the courage to argue the point with Paul Weston or you don't. I happen to agree with him so my position cannot be more clear. You do not, yet feel free to let him slide even as you lambaste me. So be it.
Zenster, the real thing here is that I debated you and you ran out of arguments. I challenge you to jump off the roof of a 100 feet building to win this debate. If you don't, you lost.
How about you tell Paul Weston to read what I wrote here? It's more reasonable than expecting me to copy/paste the whole comment section here on another blog OR rewrite it all over again. Since it's your challenge, I'm going to do it, provided you do the copy pasting. I do have a life and better things to do than this. I hardly see what this says about me besides that I have better things to do than repeat myself(you have no problem in doing that, considering all your posts are the same thing written over and over again). As I said, you can do the copy/pasting or you can ask Paul Weston to comment here, despite me thinking that it's silly to draw this debate on countless blog posts.
Also, I'd like to point out that Islam would have been fairly harmless provided Muslims wouldn't be citizens in our countries. So Americanism, with the idea of a different citizenship system, but the one based on blood is a crime against humanity since it causes all the crimes committed against us(you do the same thing with saying we should nuke the Middle East because of what Muslims do here and basically blame 3rd parties). This is how redefinitions of things go.
So it's really simple, to end all this charage - I accept to debate this with Paul Weston, provided you do the peasant work: copy paste the comments here on the other blog post. Since I outdebated you and you need backup, I don't see why I'd do it.
rebelliousvanilla: Zenster, the real thing here is that I debated you and you ran out of arguments.
Horseradish. You have elected to empower the Liberal Left's method of tarring America et al by declaring crimes against humanity a Leftist tool. You have not "outdebated" anyone but merely elected to ignore patent inadequacies in your own logic.
Why not admit that crimes against humanity DO exist and recognize that Islam is the most common historical perpetrator of them?
No amount of guile can conceal this simple fact. By denouncing the Nuremberg Trials, which were never central to this exchange, you totally derailed this discussion. Congratulations, that was a nice piece of obfuscation.
The point I have been trying to make is that those in the West who enable Islamic jihad and the spread of shari'a law are contributing to Islam's ongoing crime against humanity.
You have elected to neuter the term in a distortion of forensic effort instead of allowing for the importance of prosecuting genocides. Islam is hell bent on, if not already engaged in, enacting some of the most widespread genocides, ethnic and cultural, regardless of how you wish to define the term.
Has the entire concept of crimes against humanity been perverted by such one-world-government entities as the World Court? Absolutely.
Does this lessen the need to ensure that those who truly wish to facilitate or genuinely perpetrate actual crimes against humanity face proceedings? In no way.
Beyond specific levels, normal criminal law simply cannot encompass the correct prosecution of those who engage in mass slaughter. It does not matter if a utopia-besotted bunch of Liberal wankers choose to ignore such filthy events as Rwanda or Darfur. They still exist.
Nothing, not even the abject self-delusion of Liberalism, can possibly remove the stain of genocide from the fabric of our humanity. Those who perpetrate such immense crimes need to be made examples of before the global community.
The Rule of Law is so important that post facto summary execution is not an option, no matter how viscerally satisfying. Ergo, those who perpetrate crimes against humanity must be given due process.
The fact that Nuremberg represented equal parts of malfeasance and ham-fisted justice in no way deletes the need for a more adequate version to be employed once Islam has been defeated.
Personally, much of the need for such a device could be short-circuited by simply going out an killing all of the self-admitted and open proponents who currently advocating genocide, be it ethnic or cultural. I have already published a link to my list of leading actors in this Grand Guignol. Terminating their activities would go a long way towards reducing whatever scope of the trials that Paul Weston and I have proposed.
You have employed faulty logic in suggesting that supposedly more peaceful methods of internment or deportation can contain the situation in Europe. In rebuttal, I presented you with the work of El Inglés which you have felt free to ignore.
Europe is headed straight for a new holocaust. Even just another few short years will see the point of no return passed with breathtaking speed, if it has not been already. Once that point is behind us, the Liberal elite who have perpetrated the Eurabia Pact and all of its subsets will be guilty of far more than just treason. Get it?
These Liberal elite will have not just the blood of indigenous Europeans upon their hands but also that of the millions of Muslims who are most likely going to perish once Western civilization finally decides that it wishes to survive.
While I am glad to see that you will consider debating Paul Weston on this subject, I am not about to leave myself vulnerable by doing your heavy lifting.
You can make your own points. I am not about to be accused of editorial mischief or whatever if I do anything less than flood the Weston thread with a verbatim transcript of this thread, which I feel would be inappropriate.
If proof of your faulty reasoning is needed, I offer you this:
rebelliousvanilla: Also, I'd like to point out that Islam would have been fairly harmless provided Muslims wouldn't be citizens in our countries.
This is totally invalid. Even without demographic jihad, Muslim countries would still be constructing nuclear arsenals for future deployment.
I continue to maintain that once a certain unspecified number of nuclear warheads are possessed by Muslims, there emerges a non-zero probability that one or more of them will end up in terrorist hands for the purpose of waging conducting jihad.
Zenster, the security issue wouldn't be such a factor if we wouldn't have Muslims here to begin with since the way they'd deliver the nuke wouldn't be with an ICBM. Also, taking out ICBMs would be fairly easy - I'd like to point out that they need to be tested first, which would make it obvious when they got a working one.
And crimes against humanity are a leftist thing. It's the same as hate speech or hate crimes, actually. And the reason why they were invented was to punish things that weren't really illegal to begin with. And what I mind isn't even who invented the concept, but why it was invented and how it was applied. I don't admit that Islam is the greatest perp of crimes against humanity because the concept now has a definition and unlike you, I care about the legal tradition of Europe, which is the Roman legal tradition. I asked you to take the definition of the concept from the UN for crimes against humanity and show how you're right and yet you didn't.
And the Nuremberg trials were the center of this argument - this is what I called you on.
Oh, the concept of crimes against humanity was INVENTED by the world court. Also, I don't ignore actual crimes committed in other places, but I hardly see how Rwanda has anything to do with your misuse of crimes already defined in a specific way or how you appeal to the biggest travesty of justice in European history as something we should repeat.
Oh, and I never said interning them and deporting them would be peaceful. It would involve martial law and the military.
And stop doing the special pleading thing - if you do it or I do it, it would be the same editorial mischief, so by what you're saying, you want to encourage me to do editorial mischief?
"are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."
That's the definition of crimes against humanity. Prove how anyone committed that.
rebelliousvanilla: … I'd like to point out that they need to be tested first, which would make it obvious when they got a working one.
Please give it a rest, RV. ISLAM ALREADY HAS WORKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. They are in a place called Pakistan. All that remains to be seen is how many more the Islamic world needs to manufacture before some of these devices are slipped into terrorist hands.
And crimes against humanity are a leftist thing. It's the same as hate speech or hate crimes, actually.
If that is your central point, then please take it over to the Paul Weston thread and begin the process there. So far you have refused to do so and it has been a tremendous disservice to the entire Gates of Vienna community.
While you're at it, try to remember and then reconcile the fact that I DETEST laws about so-called "hate speech" and "hate crimes".
I asked you to take the definition of the concept from the UN for crimes against humanity and show how you're right and yet you didn't.
Unlike you, I refuse to play by the rules of one of this world's most corrupt pseudo-political bodies. If that concept is unclear to you, then so be it.
And the Nuremberg trials were the center of this argument - this is what I called you on.
I don't give a fig what you "called me on". The original Nuremberg Trials most definitely WERE NOT the "center of this argument". They have assumed that status only because you continually thrust them to the fore.
The actual "center of this argument" is the topic of this thread, and that would be "Jihad Without Borders". You are the one who chose to take a SINGLE SENTENCE of mine and make a mountain out of that molehill. What part of "modern equivalent of Nuremberg Trials" do you not understand?
I have no intention of reenacting that latter day pisspot of highly confused political goals. Goals, incidentally, that were hopelessly perverted by Communist duplicity and the need to recruit Nazi talent in fighting the looming Cold War with those selfsame Communists.
I hardly see how Rwanda has anything to do with your misuse of crimes already defined in a specific way or how you appeal to the biggest travesty of justice in European history as something we should repeat.
You just don't get it, do you?
Rwanda: as in Hutu and Tutsi. Can it be made any more clear?
Furthermore, you continue to beat a dead horse with your, "appeal to the biggest travesty of justice in European history as something we should repeat".
One last time, this is not about the original Nuremberg Trials, no matter how much you wish it to be. Let it go or be seen for the obscurant and disinformative person you are acting like.
Any modern version that I am suggesting would most certainly NOT be run by an anti-American organ like the World Court. Nor would theirs or the hyper-corrupt UN's definitions apply. So, please do us all a favor and drop that garbage like a live grenade.
Oh, and I never said interning them and deporting them would be peaceful. It would involve martial law and the military.
That's as may be, but the net result will be a civil war in Europe that could nigh well eclipse World War II, if not entail the mass slaughter of immigrant Muslims.
And stop doing the special pleading thing - if you do it or I do it, it would be the same editorial mischief, so by what you're saying, you want to encourage me to do editorial mischief?
Again, you are employing a fallacious argument. Something you appear to be quite good at.
It is YOUR statements that need to be crossposted to the Paul Weston thread. I'll be happy to provide responses wherever necessary. I'm not "pleading" for anything.
I'M SUGGESTING THAT YOU DEMONSTRATE THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS AND TAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS WHERE THEY ARE MOST PERTINENT.
Capiche?
That's the definition of crimes against humanity. Prove how anyone committed that.
When citing formal material, it is customary to provide a link. You appear to be using the definition provided in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the future, please refrain from making cites without supplying appropriate links.
It is only through the most egregious supposition by which you are able to presume that this anti-American body's definition would be adopted.
PLEASE STOP IT. You continually recalibrate this discussion to suit your own ends. That hardly qualifies as competent forensic debate. Now, do us all a favor and confront Paul Weston in the same way that you have done so with me and let's see how far you get. And please try to do so before his contribution fades from human memory.
rebelliousvanilla, here is another glorious chance for you to set the world straight. Michael Mannheimer has had the temerity to call for "a second Nuremberg trial" while speaking at that recent free speech rally in Amsterdam.
I trust you still retain the courage of your convictions in sufficient measure to make the same lengthy and vociferous arguments that you did in this thread. Why not demonstrate your brilliant logic for all of us once again so that others can share in the joy?
After all, it is the exact same point that I made here, so this is a grand opportunity for you to recycle every one of your same points in a far more appropriate venue.
"I'M SUGGESTING THAT YOU DEMONSTRATE THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS AND TAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS WHERE THEY ARE MOST PERTINENT."
This can be translated into I lost the argument so you should debate other people. You should realize that I'm debating you, not Paul Weston or someone else. If you need back up, you should do the stuff needed to get it. Also, who made a certain claim is irrelevant in relation to its truthfulness.
rebelliousvanilla: This can be translated into I lost the argument so you should debate other people.
Someone who is arbitrary can translate my points anyway they feel like. That has no bearing upon the substance of this matter.
Either you bring your points to bear where they will enjoy a larger degree of disinfecting sunlight or admit that you lack the courage of your convictions.
I've put forth my position numerous times in other threads without encountering a fraction of the opposition that you have fielded here.
You have yet to expose your views to the same degree of potential criticism. That alone says quite enough about whatever commitment you have to your own position.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.