Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Fjordman: Why Islam Must Be Expelled From The West

Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at Winds of Jihad, and also at Europe News. Some excerpts are below:

On the 11th of December 2010, the first-ever suicide bombing in Scandinavia occurred when Taimour Abdulwahab, an Iraqi-born Muslim and Swedish citizen with a wife and children in Luton, Britain, was carrying explosives and mistakenly set off an explosion near a busy Christmas shopping street in Stockholm just before he could murder dozens of people.

Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who is a passionate promoter of having Turkey as a full member of the European Union and Islam as an established part of European culture, stated that “We were extremely lucky… I mean minutes and just a couple of hundred metres from where it would have been very catastrophic.” Sweden’s intelligence agency and a news agency received an email with audio files in which a man called on “all hidden mujahedeen [Islamic holy warriors] in Europe, and especially in Sweden, it is now the time to fight back.” He criticized Sweden for its military presence in Afghanistan and its acceptance of the artist Lars Vilks, who had made some cartoons mocking Muhammad. The message warned that “now your children, daughters and sisters die like our brothers’ and sisters’ children die.”

We’ve been told for years that suicide bombers who blow themselves up in civilian areas in Israel are “freedom fighters struggling against Israeli occupation.” Does that mean that this Muslim blew himself up to protest against the Swedish occupation of Stockholm?

Sweden has no colonial history, at least not outside of northern Europe. It is a self-appointed champion of Third World countries and has virtually surrendered its third-largest city to immigrant mobs and substantial chunks of other cities, too. Swedish authorities are using the most extreme methods imaginable to suppress any dissent among the native people, who are being ethnically cleansed from their own land. The authorities always side with immigrants against the natives in the case of conflict. Muslims in Sweden can harass the natives as much as they want to and have access to all kinds of welfare goodies and a much higher standard of living than they would have in their own countries. In short, they have no imaginable, rational reason to complain, yet they still blow themselves up.

In Sweden, all the traditional excuses employed by Multiculturalists and Leftists throughout the Western world, fail. This leaves just one possible explanation, the only one never mentioned in Western mainstream media: That Muslims and their culture are fundamentally incompatible with our values and societies.

Read the rest at Europe News.

8 comments:

Gregory said...

This is good stuff. I saved it to a folder on my hard drive. Too bad the mainstream media doesn't get on this. They must be the kind of America-Haters that think that ANY system is better than democracy.I see a possibility of America going the way of Iran. And Iranian people initially welcomed the islamic takeover. They aren't so happy with it now.

Zenster said...

Gregory: They must be the kind of America-Haters that think that ANY system is better than democracy.

They will soon enough learn − most likely in the very hardest way − the truth of Winston Churchill's words:

Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

imnokuffar said...

Sometimes I come on this site tell people I am a BNP member. I have been subject to some abuse for this. However, on reading Fjordman, who I have the greatest respect for, his views are even more extreme than anything I have said and far more extreme than anything proposed by the BNP.

By the way, I agree with Fjordman and everything he has said.

Anonymous said...

Fjordman: "We’ve been told for years that suicide bombers who blow themselves up in civilian areas in Israel are “freedom fighters struggling against Israeli occupation.” Does that mean that this Muslim blew himself up to protest against the Swedish occupation of Stockholm?

If I remember my history, Britain chose the new Israeli homeland prior to WWII and without approval of whomever inhabited the land, with the official imprimatur of The U.N. coming after WWII. No matter what we think of Israel, from the point of view of the former inhabitants, it is a technical truth that the State of Israel is an occupation.

The unfortunate facts of post-WWII life are that there is a very long line of complainants around the world, with the Palestinians occupying--pardon the word--one spot in that line.

Siegetower said...

Always strikes me as odd that some people consider the Diaspora Nation of Israel as a stranger to its' own land. The British did not choose the new Israeli homeland. Israel has always been the Jewish homeland. Israel is Israel, it was always there, occupied by invader Arabs who ruled over the native Jews and itinerant Badouin, later occupied by the Ottoman Turks who themselves ruled over the immigrant Arabs, indigenous Jews and itinerant Bedouin.

Fast forward a few hundred years and the immigrant Arabs call themselves the natives at the exclusion of all other races. However Israel, Judea and Samaria have deeper national roots in Israel (named 'Palestine' by the Romans) than the Arabs ever will.

Back on topic, as usual, great work by Fjordman.

Anonymous said...

Siegetower: It strikes me as odd that you omitted the British Empire's possession of the subject land. Where I sit presently, a tribe of American Indians are strangers to their own land--the entire state being possessed by a multitude of tribes of this indigenous race. I consider your response to support the correctness of the choice of the British occupiers.

Anonymous said...

Should be: "...being possessed formerly by..."

OBloodyHell said...

> No matter what we think of Israel, from the point of view of the former inhabitants, it is a technical truth that the State of Israel is an occupation.

More disingenuousness from lefty apologists for Islamic barbarisms.

There was never a nation of Palestine in all of recorded history. The region there was designated as "Palestine" by the British Empire itself -- how can you "occupy" a nation that never existed in the first place?

And you either should know this, and are lying through your teeth, or you're ignorant of it, and thus should shut your mouth for failing to know squat about what you're blathering about.

And as far as "occupation", that land belonged to the Jews in the distant past.

If I come and steal your land, have my descendants live on it for several generations, and then, at last, The Law finally notices my transgression, and comes in and gives control over it back to your heirs, are they "occupying" "my" land all of a sudden? Your "logic" is a textbook example of GIGO.

If there IS anyone who has a specific right to that land, it's Israel and the Jews. They are far and away the oldest claimants to that territory, and there is ample historical data to back up that claim.

Despite this, they have taken a section of it which was moderately prosperous and contained a large proportion of the descendants of "Palestinians" (the most recent occupiers of Jewish territory prior to the formation of Israel) and granted them rule over it, effectively creating -- from their own land -- a state of Palestine.

Now, in the civilized world, the response to this clear generosity would be appreciation, gratitude, and respect.

Now, the obvious question:
Is Palestine -- and Islam -- a member of the civilized world?

Does Israel get, from Palestine, appreciation, gratitude, and respect...?

So, does Palestine -- and Islam -- belong to the civilized world?

Does the pope defecate in the woods...?