Monday, November 27, 2006

The End of Freedom of Speech

Previously this blog published a translation by Professor Hans Jansen of the letter the assassin of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh pinned to his body.

Hans Jansen’s analysis of the letter by Mohammed B., shows the incompatibility of the presence of Muslim communities in Western democratic societies. Not only is the liberal dream of Bush and his neo-conservative advisors of remaking Islamic societies as free and democratic an impossible one, simultaniously opening one’s own country to invasion by tens of thousands of Muslims will have the effect of rendering Freedom of Speech, essential to the working of democracy, difficult. And this while Freedom of Speech is essential for setting the political course of a democratic entity.

Assimilation is not a cure. Mohammed B. was born in The Netherlands and went to good schools here. He CHOSE the Wahhabist version of Islam which tells him that those who criticise and ridicule Islam have to be killed and that this is a duty of a Muslim and a key to Paradise.

Islam critics like Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer and others, who fail to expose the absurdity of G.W. Bush’ "war to democratize the Islamic world", while the Islamic offensive in Western Europe and the USA goes on unimpeded may eventually become victims of their own oversight. Either because attempts will be made on their lives for their criticism of Islam. Or because they will either have to change the subject when they realize their predicament through the examples that are made of others. There are now an estimated 3 to 6 million of Muslims in the USA. What if they are 10 percent of the population, say 30 million? Inbridled immigration will bring them in and the aforementioned Islam critics do nothing to criticise Islam.

Jihadists regard it as their God-given duty to fight un-Islamic governments and to silence dissenters. For Westerners it is an unusual feature of war. Failure to appreciate this will be dear as the Dutch have found out at their expense. Learn from the mistakes of others while you can. Tomorrow it may be too late and the capacity for learning, which is such a distinguishing feature of Western societies will not just be impaired by the Politically Correct powers in media and academia, but be reinforced by Islamic terror. Only the very brave will speak up and who can know in advance if there will be a sufficiency of bravery to turn back the tide?

5 comments:

Czech Infidel said...

"Robert Spencer and others, who fail to expose the absurdity of G.W. Bush’ "war to democratize the Islamic world""

That's surprising news to me. Exposing the absurdity of G.W. Bush’ "war to democratize the Islamic world" is one of the things Robert Spencer (and Hugh Fitzgerald, also from Jihad Watch) has been doing for years - consistently.

Snouck said...

well, Robert Spencer is supporting the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the purported goal of which is to democratize those societies.

Furthermore Spencer opposses stopping immigration from Muslims to the West, stating they should be assimilated. But if Muslims can't be democratized in the Middle East, can they be democratized in the USA?

Kindly point out an article in which Robert Spencer opposes the presence of Western troops in the Middle East. I am happy to be corrected and added you to my blogroll.

For the record, I think Hugh Fitgerald position makes more sense, he does oppose the presence of Muslims in Western societies.

Regards,

Snouck

Snouck said...

Czech Infidel,

here is a recent example of what I mean.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014092.php

Discredit the ideology of Al-Qaida. Spencer congratulates himself on receiving support for his position from RAND.

Islam as an ideology has been around for 1.400 years. It has not been discredited in that time, so it has proved itself.

Discrediting Islam or Jihadism is as far as I can see a variant on the strategy to democratize the Muslim world.

Regards,

Snouck

Czech Infidel said...

I think you are seeing too much in the article you linked. Spencer simply reports on something, that presents potential change in policy regarding "war on terror", which is generaly speaking good news (though far from being goog enough).

Your original argument was about "war to democratize the Islamic world", and Spencer opposses that. Democracy in majority muslim countries leads to sharia.

When searching Jihad Watch site for Spencer's opinion on stopping immigration, I found many articles from Frojdman on this theme and some others, but none advocating muslim immigration. Of course I may have missed it.

Discrediting Islam or Jihadism is as far as I can see a variant on the strategy to democratize the Muslim world.

Well, yes, but it is quite different from military "solution", isn't it? I mean, it's basicaly what Wafa Sultan and the likes do, and I think it should be part of the longterm strategy, because it creates dissent and demoralizes and ...

OK, I would realy like to discuss these things, but the problem is I am working about 16 hourse per day right now, so I probably should not have started this discussion, because I can not continue in it :)

BTW, if you added the blog you can see in my Blogger profile to your blogroll, you can remove it, because it's dead. It will be revived in the future as part of another project, but right now my blog is http://info.pravdaoislamu.cz (only in Czech).

Snouck said...

Czech infidel,

can you point me to a Czech English language blog about Islam, such as yours?

Regards,

Snouck