There is one word I don't understand in the video. What does the father tell his African son: You are not German, you are what ?

"Take the United Kingdom, where non-Whites identify as British, rather than Welsh, Scotch, Irish, and English."

We have the same problem in Brittany. In the 20th century, the Paris government decided to divide french territory in about 20 administrative regions. One of the new regions was called Bretagne (Brittany), but it does not include the whole of Brittany. Nantes, the Breton capital, was put in a newly created region which was named "countries of the Loire". The french government has been trying to erase Breton history in Nantes, by cutting administrative links with the rest of Brittany, by publishing bogus guides about "traditional recipes of the countries of the Loire river", by doing propaganda in schools and on TV, and so on. Since 1941, Breton activists have been asking for a reunion of the whole of Brittany in the same administrative unit. During one of the latest demonstrations organized to support that demand, a few Turks who watched the protesters go by were heard shouting: "Vive la france!"
Immigrants will always oppose Breton independance. The same thing happened in Quebec in the last independence referendum. The same thing will happen in Antwerp.

You may want to watch the video Mom, Dad, I'm German. It crudely demonstrates the stupidity of multiculturalism and the fact that it is only compatible with European nationalism if the visible minorities are not visible; once, they are, homogeneity is lost. Take the United Kingdom, where non-Whites identify as British, rather than Welsh, Scotch, Irish, and English. Britain will become a nation-state, rather than a multinational state when the last of its indigenous peoples is breeded out. Of course, there will be little need for the new Britons, Polynesian in appearance, to pay attention to Cromwell or Churchill, unless they are recast and re-painted as non-Whites themselves.
 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6251168310803139225

MarcFrans:
If you truly have little interest in responding to my opinions, then why the longwinded "nitpicking"? For someone more interested in ideas than words and sentences, you spend a great deal of time repeating yourself. Instead of resorting to simplification, labels and mud-slinging why don't you engage in academic debate for once. One should be able to argue both sides of an argument and choose the more convincing of the two rather than only spout rhetoric from one side.
 
MarcFrans: " 'Who would deny that people are "part of larger tribal, national, religious and civilisational communities.' Certainly not me."
 
Nevertheless your statements are more individualistic, which of course is your perogative.
 
MarcFrans: "But civilized people are able to apply general principles 'fairly' when judging individuals, whereas 'tribal' people often are not."
 
Fairness is an ambiguous and subjective concept, so too is "civilized." If, as you note above, every human being is part of these successively larger communities, how then, can one be "civilized" and another "tribal"?
 
MarcFrans: I presented 3 separate ideas: (1) I explained why your interpretation of anti-Americanism as "inherently" European was wrong. 
 
Actually I was arguing that you claimed anti-Americanism was European, when you attempted to incorrectly label statements I made in a previous post.
 
MarcFrans: "...I pointed to the moral need to take a clear side in a conflict or dilemma where there is no sensible moral equivalency between the sides."
 
You have failed to challenge my claim that one can choose sides and still remain a moral relativist, and by moral I am referring to objective universal standards of value, which differ among religions, philosophies and individuals. I have heard proponents of American foreign policy refer to the West as "good" and the Middle East as "evil," and that this struggle naturally warrants invasion, occupation and rendition. However, I am of the opinion, that there is no higher morality as such, that the universe as we know it is amoral and therefore without judgement, and that human values are merely agreements between two or more individuals, with religion providing a transcendental authority to make the agreements binding i.e. God says so, rather than we agree this is best, because the latter can be debated and disagreed with. There is no difference in practice between claiming that one's cause is in one's self-interest and that one's cause is morally good. But please refrain from using the term "moral" without explaining what exactly that means to someone who may not share your views.
 
MarcFrans: "And (3) I reiterated the 'racist' nature of your refusal to make a distinction between the concepts of "culture" and "race"." 
 
I have always made a distinction between race and culture. On the contrary I have claimed that race or physical characteristics is inseparable from ethnicity or nationality, which also includes culture. Racism generally means racial supremacism: not once have I advocated supremacism along these lines or suggested that European nationalisms be absorbed into White nationalism.

MarcFrans: "Your response, again, underscores the deep racist nature of your views on culture and ethnicity, and of course as a 'democrat' I do not contest your legal 'right' to hold such views.  But I definitely contest them on moral grounds."
 
You mean "liberal democrat." Secondly, you have yet to establish what those "moral grounds" are.
 
 

BD: "And it would be unthinkable that an Italian woman would be a leading politician in India"

I thought you would have said she was no longer Italian, after breathing Indian air for so many years.

Bob Doney

its not a Question of Italian women or men, indeed i had support her... because i belived that perhaps she would librate the womens... and thus the whole society. but Italian women is a bit selfish... neither christian nor hindu... Just a Dhimi...

Bob... can you belive that Gandhi and Dalai lama were those helping Nazis in indian subcontinent?
i dont know, what figure you have about india... but no 2 world are compareable..... radical hindus think christians support and invest in killing hindus. this is why tha faith misses between hindu and chrisian community. the west think they are radicals, ignoring the fact that these radicals were the peoples... who had forgiven british for all insane, and contributed in world peace by supporting British in WW2. they were doing this whan Gandhi was in jail for provoking voilence against British.

i will not give you any radical site for this, but a document from a brusselsjournels contributor...
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/fascism/savarkarnazi.html

it seems the problem is messing around tag of left and right... so here is some info

http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=2

I appolozize for radicalism, what is growing in hinduism.... but to solve the problem i also need to remove the root cause of the problem... that is lies existing in india against west. and leftist propoganda to demonize west.

KA: "South Asian Irish? Of course not."

And it would be unthinkable that an Italian woman would be a leading politician in India ...

@ Kapitein Andre

Two points.
 

1) Logic is indeed basic, or a basic requirement for sensible speech.  It can most easily be taught in "symbolic" or "mathematical" ways. It used to be taught in 'traditional' European philosophy faculties under titles such as "symbolic" logic, "formal" logic, or whatever.  Do not get hang up on individual words (like "symbolic"), which can have various meanings, but focus on the main ideas presented or on the 'big picture'. 

2) You truly are a parser of words and a nitpicker.  You focus on individual words and individual sentences, not on the ideas presented.  In so doing you continue to set up senseless strawmen. Take for example the one in your last sentence.  Who would deny that people are "part of larger tribal, national, religious and civilisational communities". Certainly not me.  But civilized people are able to apply general principles 'fairly' when judging individuals, whereas 'tribal' people often are not.  There is no need for us to engage in lengthy nitpicking on the meanings of a word like "tribalism", because it is totally irrelevant for the main point on the 'racist' nature of your views on ethnicity and culture. 

I presented 3 separate ideas: (1) I explained why your interpretation of anti-Americanism as "inherently" European was wrong.  (2) I pointed to the moral need to take a clear side in a conflict or dilemma where there is no sensible moral equivalency between the sides. And (3) I reiterated the 'racist' nature of your refusal to make a distinction between the concepts of "culture" and "race". 

You totally ignored the first two points or ideas, and commented on individual sentences and words, out of the broader context, without ever addressing the basic ideas.  You did, however, address the third point, for which I am grateful.  Your response, again, underscores the deep racist nature of your views on culture and ethnicity, and of course as a 'democrat' I do not contest your legal 'right' to hold such views.  But I definitely contest them on moral grounds. 

Finito.

MarcFrans: "Your refusal to make a proper distinction between culture and race, in short your 'racism', is obviously beyond improvement." Well I appreciate your attempts to improve me...are you Swedish? MarcFrans: "...there are very very few "white Chinese, Japanese, and African tribesmen." Can there truly be White Chinese, Japanese and African tribesmen, or will these simply be Whites living in East Asia and Africa? MarcFrans: "Iranians, however, come in 'all' or at least in many colors." Not really. Iran is dominated by Persians and Azeris, the latter being more Turkic; the remaining groups are almost indistinguishable from Persians except the Kurds who are found in Iraq, Turkiye and Syria also. MarcFrans: "We are now in the 21st century and more than a billion Chinese still do not have 'democracy' and self-determination." Firstly, the Han Chinese have national self-determination. Secondly, their civilisation has never been ethusiastic about democracy, as they are more communitarian than Western nations. MarcFrans: "...they live under 'rule of men' and not genuine 'rule of law'. By contrast, 'Chinese' in a number of other places of lesser racial purity do actualy [sic] have benefit of 'rule of law'." We all live under the "rule of men." Those Chinese living abroad are mainly from Hong Kong and moved only to protect their wealth from the Chinese government after the handover. Hong Kong never chose liberal democracy, it was simply a prosperous colony under British dominion. MarcFrans: "Ultimately, you must recognise that principles (in the sense of moral values) are more important than 'looks'." Principles change; they are not linear as you are suggesting. Societies alter their principles to match their current level of prosperity and peace and in times of crisis. "Looks" stand the test of time, although for how much longer we can avoid all looking the same I know not. If "looks" were unimportant, people would not try to save rare animals, and they would not have borders and immigration controls. In case you have not noticed, "looks" continue to have a remarkable correlation with culture, in case you were under the delusion that the entire human race wants to create a united global superstate along American lines, the only difference being skin color. Furthermore, even in societies not affected by European aesthetics, paleness in females makes them higher on the marriage-eligibility pecking order. I am sure that even if each and every last blond was exterminated and every race mixed that people would continue to dye their hair and fight over who is "whiter" or "blonder." MarcFrans: "...only principles in the end can ensure inidvidual [sic] freedom in any society, not physically-based attributes which will perpetuate tribalism, cronyism, and arbitrary power." The entire human race is composed of tribes. Nor do most humans perceive themselves merely as individuals, rather they are part of larger tribal, national, religious and civilisational communities.

MarcFrans: "European (which is what you are)."
 
How do you figure that?
 
MarcFrans: "...smart Europeans are not anti-American, only dumb ones and ideologically-blinded ones are."
 
I am assuming that you have the necessary evidence to prove this correlation between intelligence and political view on American foreign policy? I am also assuming that you are using the term "dumb" to mean stupid, rather than the condition of muteness.
 
MarcFrans: "...you need a refresher course in 'symbolic logic'."
 
Logic is basic, not symbolic.
 
MarcFrans: "...there is no room for moral relativism implying that both sides have a reasonable case or comparable objectives.  They do not."
 
Au contraire. Short of backing up one's claims by appealing to a transcendental authority, as Muslims have done, moral relativism reigns. While a Westerner may feel compelled to kill and even die for his or her civilisation and a Muslim may be equally passionate about theirs, this does not suggest moral superiority on either side, for both claim it and both cannot be right. While one may justify their own self-interest, this does not mean that it is morally superior than anyone else's self-interest.
 
MarcFrans: "...a civilisational struggle which will likely continue until Islam itself can be reformed or reform itself."
 
Islam will never "reform" precisely because of the temporal issues that impact its followers, namely geopolitics and economics.
 
MarcFrans: "For example, the wide media mis-characterisation of 'Abu Ghraib' illustrates this perfectly.   People allow their petty resentments to override common sense and become unable to make contextual and proportional judgements."
 
I fail to see how the Abu Ghraib incidents were "mis-characterised" by Western media. While Muslim soldiers and paramilitaries have done far worse, this fact does not lessen the actions committed by those American soldiers, and it did nothing more than soil American arms, which were not considered very "pure" at the time anyways.
 

@ Kapitein Andre
 

1) You must really make an effort to remain honest. 

Indeed, I accused you - based on a lot of empirical observation - of "longstanding and shortsighted European anti-Americanism".  That states simply what it states. Firstly, it states that you are expressing "European" anti-Americanism, i.e. either as a European (which is what you are), or 'anti-Americanism that is very common in Europe.  Both interpretations would be reasonable for the adjective "European" in that sentence.  Secondly, it states that such anti-Americanism is "shortsighted" and "longstanding".  The first adjective is an opinion and the second is a factual observation.

You canNOT logically deduce from that sentence that I was saying that "anti-Americanism" is INHERENTLY European.  It certainly is not.  As you yourself like to point out with your reference to "approval rating" in much of the world, anti-Americanism is quite common in non-European resentful cultures as well.  Moreover, smart Europeans are not anti-American, only dumb ones and ideologically-blinded ones are.

If you still persist in your nonsensical interpretation of that short sentence, you need a refresher course in 'symbolic logic'.  It is an unacceptable 'leap' or projection to read that statement as implying that anti-Americanism would be "inherently" European.  The statement did not say that, and did not reasonably imply it either!
 

2) I repeat, in the matter of radical islam's assault on the west you are "either with us or against us".  You must clearly determine for yourself on which side you are on, and there is no room for moral relativism implying that both sides have a reasonable case or comparable objectives.  They do not. 

Some of your observations and speculations about geopolitical developments, 'interests', and actions or inaction, are certainly interesting. Some are, in my opinion, clearly misguided. But all of that is secondary.  You must clearly know on which side you are in the 'long war' with radical Islam, which is a civilisational struggle which will likely continue until Islam itself can be reformed or reforms itself.  And, I am sure in your more lucid moments, you will be able to recognise that many Europeans (and some Americans) do not even recognise the struggle as such.  And sometimes they even 'root' for the islamist side.  For example, the wide media mis-characterisation of 'Abu Ghraib' illustrates this perfectly.   People allow their petty resentments to override common sense and become unable to make contextual and proportional judgements.  If you cannot see that many Europeans and some Americans are rooting for the 'other side' in America's battles with radical islam in many parts of the world today, then you got your head in the sand.   

3)  Your refusal to make a proper distinction between culture and race, in short your 'racism', is obviously beyond improvement.   Indeed, there are very very few "white Chinese, Japanese, and African tribesmen" (Iranians, however, come in 'all' or at least in many colors).  So what?  You think that speaks well for these cultures?  We are now in the 21st century and more than a billion Chinese still do not have 'democracy' and selfdetermination.  They have no access to free and diverse information, and they are subject to very arbitrary 'justice'. In short they live under 'rule of men' and not genuine 'rule of law'. By contrast, 'Chinese' in a number of other places of lesser racial purity do actualy have benefit of 'rule of law'.   The case of Japan is more complex and subtle and deserves a long treatise of its own. And I am sure you do not want to hold "the African tribesman" up as an example. 

Ultimately, you must recognise that principles (in the sense of moral values) are more important than 'looks'.  Indeed, only principles in the end can ensure inidvidual freedom in any society, not physically-based attributes which will perpetuate tribalism, cronyism, and arbitrary power. 

>> Yes, the ongoing conflcts in the muslim world do "increase" Europe's demographic problems.

the problem is not that it has increse the European demographic problems...Remember it only had bring the hidden problems to the surface, a cult which was continuing from its own from WW2 onwards (check my post from below about the problem we are facing).......

this is what i was locating... and i found the data right here under my nose from a Brussel journels contributor and analyser "Koenraad Elst, Brussels".....
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/negaind/index.htm

and also consider this, worth to read...
http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=2

but still there are two good things...
1) it still not too late, there are still chance to stop the islamofacist scumm...
2) thousand of life can still be saved... at last we are still democratic and free
3) we need to bring the whole things in political lobby, and that too in other way..
because the basic of democracy itself is to fight with mouth, instead of breaking each others mouth and teeth. i say that because, if the fight is inside political lobbies then it does not cost life of innocent... but when politicians dont fight, then world has to pay millions of lives

As a indian, i see that same shit is repeating.... the left has gone beyond

MarcFrans: "I did not state that anti-Americanism is "inherently" European. I said that it is "shortsighted" and "longstanding".  Very different!"
 
Actually you accused me of harboring "longstanding and shortsighted European anti-Americanism [italics added]." Are you now backtracking and lending more weight to the "longstanding" and "shortsighted" portions?
MarcFrans: "In the matter of radical islam's assault on the West, you are indeed either "with us or against us"."
 
Washington used that phrase to denote those states that were included in its "coalition of the willing" and those that refused to join, even though the latter were against Islamism. Many regard radical Islam to be a product of socio-economics (e.g. poverty, low education, low skills and unemployment) and geopolitics (e.g. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the American military presence in the Gulf and Western interest in Middle Eastern natural resources). Are they suddenly collaborators because they did not support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? It is not as though Europe sits idly by as the United States brings peace, prosperity and liberal democracy to the world through force of arms; regimes and political groups even worse than the Taliban flourish around the globe and India, Pakistan and North Korea were able to amass weapons of mass destruction without fear of American intervention a'la Iraq. The United States is not combating "terrorism" in the world and its root causes, it is protecting its interests. If the United States economy was addicted to spicy cabbage rather than oil and gas, American soldiers would be occupying Pyongyang today. This is not to say that Islam is not on a collision course with the West, rather it is to say that European states and the United States are acting in their own short-term so-called national interests. The EU believes that international pacifism and appeasement and domestic law and order will ensure its safety; equally erroneously, the United States believes that its armed forces can keep Islamists' "over there."
 
MarcFrans: "A repetition of Vichy-type behavior will not save anyone, certainly not Europeans."
 
As far as illegal immigration is concerned, the United States is eagerly awaiting annexation by Latin America, particularly Mexico. I can mud-sling too.
MarcFrans: "I am neither an American, nor a "neo-conservative".  Ergo, I am definitely not an "American neo-conservative"."
 
You wrongly claim that I am Belgian, so I am returning the favor. If you are not American, than refrain from extolling a society of which you are not even part; it is far easier to glorify the ideal of the United States than it is to examine your homeland's policies. Perhaps I am an American disgruntled with American foreign policy and the colonisation and Islamisation of Europe, in which case you have no business arguing with me about the former. Secondly, neo-conservatism is the combination of traditional conservative social values with classical liberal economic ones. After all of your posts, you're claiming that this label doesn't fit you? You are certainly not a reform or classical liberal, nor do your statements suggest fascism or socialism. 
MarcFrans: "At the same time, it is definitely "racist" on your part to limit "ethnicity" purely in terms of some misbegotten concept of racial 'purity'.  It is not only "racist", but worse, it is stupid and ultimately destructive for that ethnicity."
 
So there can be White Chinese, Japanese, Iranians and African tribesmen? There can be Black Poles, Chinese Italians, Japanese Norwegians, and South Asian Irish? Of course not. If everyone looked the same, there would be no need of separate states for their would not be nations; in this case, the only cultural diversity would come from differences in climate, geography, etc. The ends of multiculturalism are in fact cultural homogeneity along Western liberal and social democratic lines; unfortunately, one billion Indians, one billion Chinese, and one billion Muslims have a different idea of global culture than the Anglo-American Western one that prevails today. 
MarcFrans: "Yes, the ongoing conflcts in the muslim world do "increase" Europe's demographic problems."
 
I appreciate your agreement. 'Nuff said.

@ Flanders Fields

The terms "Left" and "right" describe different sides of the political spectrum in both Europe and America.  Obviously, different people can and will use different criteria to classify or place people on that spectrum.  

As you know, in America the term "liberal" generally overlaps with 'left' and "conservative" with 'right'.  In Europe the term "liberal" (in a political classification sense) does not mean very much any more. Traditionally, in some countries (like the Benelux for instance) it used to stand for the third alternative (besides Christian Democrats and socialists) in an economic sense, and in that sense they were considered 'right'.  However, culturally (in terms of personal 'values' and foreign policy for instance) most European 'liberals' have moved sharply left, and 'traditional values liberals' in Europe seemed to have moved on to other (often 'nationalist') parties on the 'right'.

Your statement that you do not consider "liberals as leftist" must be very confusing for North Americans.  certainly for US citizens, and also for Canadians for whom the "liberal party" is definitely considered on the 'left' (even though they have an even more leftist party in the NDP).  For Europeans your statement may make sense in an economic policy sense, perhaps, but not really in a broader cultural sense.  European 'liberals' have been infected by the moral relativism and the  post-modernism of academia just as much as most other Europeans.

Armor, I think all of us tend to have traits you describe and those are natural.  I refer more to an obsessive type of focus where nationalist expression is tangentially related, if at all, to discussions about other matters.  I have not observed that focus with you in the least, and really have only noticed it as a problem with a few, some gone, which derail rational discussions of issues of importance or throws them into argumentive pits which prevent further rational discourse.  I hate to lose those people who are persuasive and articulate and who could add a lot to our thinking and discussion, but who cannot control their personal indignation, and it seems that they choose to go when they tire of being defensive when called on the problem.
 
Marc, I use the term left too loosely, but I haven't found a way to classify who I mean in more concrete ways.  I do agree with you on the libertarians and business interests, as well as the so-called neoconservatives (who are leftists who call for market expansions through use of governmental coersion and increased immigration).  These are really opportunists who cooperate with leftists when it puts a nickel in their pockets, but who are just as dangerous or more so because of their lack of conscience and pretense of being conservative. 
 
Just to clarify further, I don't consider liberals as leftists, unless they cooperate with leftists and repeat popular leftist talking point phrases which places them in the catagory.  Classical liberals are as important to our societies as are moderates and conservatives.  I detest having to use the term so often, but it is too difficult to describe each time in a different way and everyone knows in their own mind what the term describes.

@ Flanders Fields

I am not interested in "fingerpointing at each other", but I do 'fight' wrongheaded attitudes and ideas.  Among the latter I include Kapitein Andre's blatant anti-Americanism (probably based on his attachment to deepseated and imagined racial 'purity') and his manifest 'racism' embodied in his refusal to make a proper distinction between culture and race.     

Generally I agree with your analysis concerning immigration, but not with your exclusive focus on the 'left' in that regard.  A significant part of the responsibility for the undermining of traditional western values and for rampant immigration can be attributed to 'rightist' forces, particularly so-called libertarians and 'business interests'.
 

@ Kapitein Andre
 

Please, read more carefully, and do not create 'strawmen'.

1) On your first point.
-- I did not state that anti-Americanism is "inherently" European.  I said that it is "shortsighted" and "longstanding".  Very different!
-- "Approval rating" is not an 'argument'. On the contrary, it is often a sign of "kuddegeest". 
--  In the matter of radical islam's assault on the West, you are indeed either "with us or against us". A repetition of Vichy-type behavior will not save anyone, certainly not Europeans.
-- I am neither an American, nor a "neo-conservative".  Ergo, I am definitely not an "American neo-conservative".
 

2) On your second point, I do endorse your desire to preserve "national cultures" and the right to self-determination for all cultures (if truly 'democratic' processes are followed in doing so).  At the same time, it is definitely "racist" on your part to limit "ethnicity" purely in terms of some misbegotten concept of racial 'purity'.  It is not only "racist", but worse, it is stupid and ultimately destructive for that ethnicity.  
 

3) Your third point is again pure sofistry.  Yes, the ongoing conflcts in the muslim world do "increase" Europe's demographic problems.  But, they only do so marginally, and they are certainly not "responsible" for it.   The responsibility for Europe's demographic problems lies EXCLUSIVELY in European policies, past and present.  One could just as well claim that Europe's 'inaction' and 'free-rider' behavior is more responsible for muslim 'refugees' than American actions.  Millions of Afghan refugees have returned to Afghanistan after the Taliban removal (not all from Pakistan, far from it).  If today some of them are fleeing again, it is because ONLY Americans, Canadians and Australians are willing to fight, while the Germans, Italians, etc....want to play glorified 'peacekeeper' in safe areas up North.  And, nobody commands that Sweden has to take in Iraki refugees.  Let the so-called peaceful and 'stable' Arab countries take care of Arabs.  If the Swedes and other Europeans would actually be willing to DO something concrete to defend 'democracy' and pluralism in Irak (and elsewhere), then they wouldn't have to be so 'pluralistic' at home.   

"but I really think it is from a learned response that has become ingrained in many Europeans that America is the true source of evil in the world"

This is an exaggeration. According to the french media, America is more stupid than evil. Anyway, I think you should just shrug off silly anti-Americanism. It may irk you, but I don't think it has very harmful consequences. What should worry you is the lack of intellectual freedom it indicates.
Anti-Americanism manifests itself as the tendency to condemn America as a block, without any nuance or reservation, at the smallest pretext. It is mostly done by the leftist media, but it can be infectious. For example, you have a leftist explain to you that the Iraq war was all about oil. The Americans are imperialists because they won't let the Iraqis live happily by themselves under the rule of Saddam Hussein. As a conservative, you reply that the American government is really stupid to think that it can transform muslims into democrats. We should let Arabs be Arabs. In the end, even though you have contrary opinions, you reach a kind of agreement with the leftist: the USA is to blame. I think that even the right tends to be influenced by the left-wing anti-American brain-washing.
Personally, although I like the United States, I do have a few anti-American tendencies. For example, I like it when José Bové dismantles a McDonald restaurant, or when he harvests someone else's field of genetically modified corn.

Thank you for illustrating my point, Kapitien.  I value the potential you have for contributing to discussions on problems which we share.  You offer opinions at times which are well thought out and illuminating, even where I disagree with you.  At many times, however, you tend to fall back on gratuitous statements of anti-Americanism which take away from any credibility which you attempt to establish, and seemingly invite disagreement so that you can continue a diatribe critical of the US generally.  It may be because you wish to have another opportunity to use the phrase "au contraire", but I really think it is from a learned response that has become ingrained in many Europeans that America is the true source of evil in the world and that it is the mission of any European educated into leftist thought patterns to point this out on every occasion.
 
We hear the same propoganda in the US, so we are accustomed to hearing it, but in the US it is from leftists whom we know to be intentionally repeating ignorance in a biased manner.  The same items repeated by otherwise intelligent Europeans often originate in US media and are picked up and repeated by your European media and predominately leftist instructors.  We Americans feel shocked and offended when we engage in discussion with otherwise intelligent people and hear these snippets of leftist tinged bias repeated. We know that there is intentional obscuring of good effects which may flow from conduct of world affairs by certain US policies, but you are not aware of those, or if you are, your opinions are tinged with the leftist soundbites which pound anti-Americanism into every discussion.

Europeans do not seem to remember more recent history where the US and Europe cooperated to establish good in the world, but many Americans still have those memories which have not been eradicated by our leftists here, despite their strong attempts to do so.

I will point out for illustration where this entire dialogue seems to have originated in this discussion.
35,000 Iraqis to Sweden this year
Sonamaca: 

"....After 12,000 last year and 3,000 in 2005. If this pace continues throught next year, newly arrived Iraqi immigrants will make up nearly 1% or Sweden's population.
Add in the flood of Somalis, Bosnians, Turks, North Africans, and Sweden will be an Islamic country in a generation."
 
@Sonomaca
 Kapitein Andre: 

"If the United States did not invade Iraq, this wouldn't be so. It is not surprising that Europeans frown on the projection of American military power in the Middle East, as this only causes increased demographic problems for Europe."

Our arguments back and forth over whose leaders are responsible for this or that have no bearing on what we are going to do to counter this continuing imposition, and increasingly an inquisition, against us. Our communications could much improve if we kept in mind that our goal of finding solutions is much more important than demonstrating our knowledge of world history, particularly since the main Western history was that of our cooperation to build and maintain societies which are now being demolished without our consent.

well said, infact i think i was a bit angry, ashamed, concerned and feeling helpless ... that why my views were perhaps a bit extreme, as i was interpretting the same threat comming across.... thanks for your intellactual idea, at least it had shown me one more light of hope...

thanks!!

MarcFrans: "I think...his [my] 'ailment' lies...in longstanding and shortsighted European anti-Americanism and 'racism', which both help to undermine western civilization itself."
 
Firstly, I fail to see what makes "anti-Americanism" inherently European or shortsighted. Tthe United States arguably has the lowest approval rating throughout the world of any time in its history, among allied, enemy and neutral states. Either the United States is good and the rest of human civilisation is evil, or there may be some merits to the criticism of American foreign policy, past and present, much of which, incidentally, comes from Americans themselves. Criticism does not imply hostility, and is often constructive. Surely Western Europeans are allowed to differ with the United States on issues that affect them directly, such as the flow of refugees after the Coalition invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there is a "with us or against us" attitude that seems to prevail in American neo-conservative discourse, one that may have applied in the pre-1993 bi-polar world, but is obsolete and crude in one made more complex and in which the left-right spectrum is a useless instrument. Accusing critics of American foreign policy of "anti-Americanism" is no different than labelling critics of Israeli policies anti-Semitic, Western Europeans socialists or communists, or Americans fascist. Mud-slinging is not debate; in this respect you differ little from those self-appointed enforcers of political correctness than patrol the popular and academic discourse of the West.
 
Secondly, the West is founded upon the small European nation-state, in contrast to the opposing social choices of anarchy and empire that prevailed in the rest of the world, where a single ruler could lead an entire civilisation into stagnation and collapse e.g. the Ottoman, Chinese and Mughal Empires. While inheriting civilisational cultural traditions (e.g. Germanic, Slavic, Romantic, Celtic and Christian), that coalesced into contemporary Western civilisation, these nation-states nevertheless struggled to assert their primacy over their neighbors, all the while resisting transnational movements that attempted to erode their sovereignty e.g. dynastic (e.g. the Habsburgs), religious (e.g. Catholicism and the Papacy) and ideological (e.g. Marxism-Leninism). Central to the European nation-state was the nation: an ethnic group composed of various tribes united by lineage, conquest or both, whose membership was determined by the principle of jus sanguinis, which in spite of immigration, remains the basis for citizenship in most of Europe, residency aside. I do not see how it is "racist" to want to preserve the ethnic purity of European nation-states; without strong ethnic majorities, European states will lose their national cultures, as non-European newcomers will find it naturally irrelevant to assimilate into a culture that is not theirs and take pride in history that is not theirs or their ancestors and in heroes who look markedly different from them.
 
MarcFrans: "it is indeed absurd for the 'Captain' to blame Europe's contemporary "demographic problems" on "projection of American power in the Middle East"." 
 
Au contraire. A neat twisting of my words. I claimed that American foreign policy, namely the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in "increased" demographic problems for Europe; I never claimed that American policies were responsibile for even most of them or that there would be no Iraqis in Sweden save for the invasion. Of course, Europeans could simply massacre refugees as they tried to enter Europe, on land and sea, but of course, the United States could annihilate Iran and the Arabian peninsula with nuclear strikes, removing the hotbeds of radical Islam...yet neither scenario is palatable or likely.

It is indeed too easy for those of us who are of like mind toward the evil that is Islam to become finger pointers at each other.  Whether in Europe or in the US, it does nothing for the unity we should be expressing for each other.  Americans find it difficult not to respond to criticism thrown in by some Europeans.  Europeans find it difficult to understand that the criticisms they level are more from intentional social conditioning from the left, which despite their denials, has turned many of them to be able to slip easily into anti-American rhectoric.
 
We each have problems from leftists.  The US has made mistakes in embracing multiculturalism and PC and allowing their media to freely espouse anti-Americanism, not only internally, but exported to join with the media of Europe for a big madrassa of anti-Americanism.  This was primarily promoted by leftist elements in the US.  The left in every place pounds it into the people through media, politics and many other sources.  We all have a common problem with our media.  In the US, there is finally some competition on surface levels.  In Europe, I see little.  Everyone seems focused here on repeating the mantras of the leftist leaders.
 
The fact is that whether it is the US or Europe, we have lost control over our governments.  Government policies in either place tell us how much immigration they choose and the sacrifices we must make to accomodate it.  The opposition by Americans or by the British people or people anywhere the problem exists doesn't stop problem immigration.  Immigration is being imposed upon us.  It is being used to further weaken the citizen in Europe or in America, and the leftist, shariaist/minority alliances are removing our traditional rights.
 
Our arguments back and forth over whose leaders are responsible for this or that have no bearing on what we are going to do to counter this continuing imposition, and increasingly an inquisition, against us.  Our communications could much improve if we kept in mind that our goal of finding solutions is much more important than demonstrating our knowledge of world history, particularly since the main Western history was that of our cooperation to build and maintain societies which are now being demolished without our consent.
 
None of us want sharia, but we don't want leftist's who impose it and assist demolition of our values and freedoms.

nice picture... but world exist beyond america, Europe... and there exist more then democracy and Islamic empires

I was born and grown up in india, and i know how indian government blame almost all problems on west... even you will find lies against west in indian history books, anyways a same phenomena exist in west to... then what, what role really few lies in books can play.....

Forget it, hardly matters till some freak comes and destroy everything.... then will be the time to wake up. and i am real stupid, that i think from human angle, instead of thinking about my country.

when i came to west, the world was upside down for me, not because you speak other language or you have some other culture... but because how deeprooted misconcept exist in our societies. West blame south Asia for terror, and even south asians are attacked in UK(i am speaking about Non Muslims ).... no problem.. same happens in india too due to those lies.... Just because of a few word mangling.... ah, i forgot... we have our own problems... just ignore these small problems..... when it will be read headache then we will think of it.

where German history had provided me a idea, that how evil the ideology is of placing lies in historical books can be... it hardly matters for anyone. we have our own problems.. we will rather go with them.... to hell with global issues... till they dont fall right on our head. when all blames each other ? but someone has to speak against it..... as these small lies later start the war.... and Yes, indian society do place blame on west for everything on west... it can be the inflination in currecny, or it can be failure to tackle terrorism in india.

its the same policy, just a bit twisted.....

what so ever....at least all pointers are pointing that west will be the next victim of the things, what we suffered long....

what ever you think,

Oh, and i accept indian goverment is pseudosecular... but why? had British transfered power of india in hands of right person.... was Gandhi really a supporter of democracy? think again... as there exist communalism, democracy, and kingdoms is there anything exist beyond these groupings.....
Yes, many other concepts do had existed in past like Colonies, Nazism and so on....
one of the old concept which still fighting to come back is a concept of Chaliphet....
and Caliphet is a concept which is laid on Global scale... so never compare it with kingdoms...

well it might be that i hardly use english in my daily life.... but i know that there is no instance in human history, where a evil had destroyed itself own its own accord.... and i also know that evil prevails when good men sleep...

we were till now sleeping, the eggs of hate are now hatching.... the Pause occured in World war 2 with Nuclear attack on Japan is Resumed..... we are slowly slowly approaching a new world war...... which will start with the same rocks of nuclear Bombs which paused it last time....

and one more thing.... Iran nuclear programm is supported by indian goverment... not because indians support it... but because indians are being held in darkness by means of state controlled media....

the only thing is , i am speaking about it.... because i am figuring out that history is repeating ....

@ perfektm
 

Indeed, westerners should stop blaming themselves for the misbehavior of others, and hold each one and everybody responsible for their own behavior. 

1) While I must confess having at times some difficulty understanding your use of the English language, at least some of the specific points you seem to want to make, I think that I broadly understand the larger picture that you are trying to describe.  And it is truly a 'miracle' that India - despite its material poverty and its incredible diversity and multiculturalism - has developed into the world's 'largest' democracy.  There is little doubt that freedom of opinion/expression is today better respected by governmental authorities in India than in Europe.  Other indicators of India's genuine democracy can be found in the fact that (1) the wide variety of state governments in India reflects a wider ideological spectrum than in Europe, and (2) that recent turnovers of power at the federal level represented genuine ideological power shifts.

2) I think that you cannot accuse Kapitein Andre of "Dhimitude".  He is too much aware of the danger that Islam represents for the survival of democracy in Europe.   No, his 'ailment' lies elsewhere, namely in longstanding and shortsighted European anti-Americanism and 'racism', which both help to undermine western civilization itself.

3)  On his latest specific 'gripe', it is indeed absurd for the 'Captain' to blame Europe's contemporary "demographic problems" on "projection of American power in the Middle East".  These demographic problems are the result of changes in European cultures and behavior patterns in recent decades, and for that no one else is to blame but the Europeans themselves.   But, it has always been easier to blame others for 'own' problems, particularly when cultural 'elites' turn 'resentful'.  There is no doubt that all of this plays into the hands of Al Qaeda and its numerous 'soul mates'.  One of its founding 'principles' was the goal to unite all muslims - the muslim world - against the West, and particularly against those in the West who would be willing to actually 'fight' against the planned 'khalifat' for the world.   Five years ago the road to that goal was clear enough for Al Qaeda.... Today, among the many effects of the "projection of American power" in the Middle East, one can discern a growing split, even signs of a civilisational 'civil war' in Islam.   If history is any guide, 'civil war' is an essential pre-requisite to the acceptance of 'faith without certainty', i.e. for the tolerance of other opinions on an 'equal' basis.   It is still going to take considerably more time before utopian leftists and 'resentful' rightists in the West will be able to recognise this. 

Its the height of your Dhimitude...
Every balme should go on west, and if Europe does not fix in the frame then give it to America...

let me tell you, that i am a south asian... and really i have to say for you guys that you have no backbone.... just think, what west had done wrong? they teached the childern to respect human life.. is that wrong? or they told the childern to be polite, is that wrong?... well infact both are great things, for which i respect westerns... but don't make a mistake what we indians made in past..... we fight within our community, just due to islam.... they way you guys are fighting by pointing America and Europe....

what so ever, India was always a test ground... by us it ended in Caste system.... something from which still we struggle, and by you guys the theory is totally different....

before fighting with each other, look what you are really shielding..... a evil cult so called Islam....

if you think, Islam is younger so they are radical... then think again... when you say its the same phase by which christians had gone.. then in christians there were peoples fighting to librate the world, as teaching of Jesus was more influenced with love... it was the viewer... the priest with politics which projected other view...

this time, the fight is to bring world back in dark periods of 10th century, basics of wahabism.... so fights are not compariable..... if you compare christianity and Islam, then in christanity it was a viewers viewport to kill others... but in islam its a command from allah...

they even dont save muslims, look at nigeria, sudan and so on... if you say NO to accept there brand of islam... then they will kill you too...

THINK 10 TIMES what you really are doing, dont make same mistakes what we indians have made in history...
and do look at sadam Husseini relation with AMin al husseini tooo

If the United States did not invade Iraq, this wouldn't be so. It is not surprising that Europeans frown on the projection of American military power in the Middle East, as this only causes increased demographic problems for Europe.

After 12,000 last year and 3,000 in 2005. If this pace continues throught next year, newly arrived Iraqi immigrants will make up nearly 1% or Sweden's population.

Add in the flood of Somalis, Bosnians, Turks, North Africans, and Sweden will be an Islamic country in a generation.
Iraqis in Sweden

Thank you, Perfektm.  You have given me enough information for now.  It is going to take a while for me to absorb this. I have had no experience with this subject until very recently.  You have given connections and background that I have not found to be available in reports that I have read.
I am providing a link for the video you cited on the mosque.  I urge anyone who is interested in seeing what kind of presence this will establish in the West, not only Britain and Europe, to view it.  The link is:   www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKqjuNBUZKw&eurl=
 
The Saudi funding and the initiating and supporting role of Tablighi Jamaat is mentioned in the video, along with other facts.
 
 

JAMMAT IN BIG PICTURE :

i think, you are locating data because Tablighi Jamaat came in light a few days back due to there maga mosque project in the heart of london. The information is located here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKqjuNBUZKw&eurl=

The Al Queda is well known in west, Al Queda equivalent on indian side is Lashkar-e-Toiba(LeT)... where government deal both as a different terrorist organisation, centrally they both are served by same madrssa's.... so even if Osama in future been tracked in PoK... so don't take it as a surprise...

In case of Tablighi Jamaat, they serve somewhere a different job, and they work as zombie organisations, and build infrastructure for terrorist.. Or if I need to explain this by some right phrase from organisational point of view.... then I will say that Tablighi Jammat serve as a department of logistic and production.

Against the odd of being deobandi, tablighi jamat also has one more difference from traditional deobandi styled wahabi islam, the differance is the openness of accepting high end technology (for the sake of Allah), and a ability to get merged with non-Muslims. So I will rather say them a complex mix of salafi and wahabi in todays world. They represent a sect of islam, which behave like Moderate…. But are not really moderate.

The Moderate behaviour is also a reason, why Tablighi also face criticism. Against the odd of deobandi groups... tablighi centralised themselves towards a book called Fazail-e-Amal(Virtuous Deeds in English) ...this is why they are criticized by Salafis and Wahabis, as they think the book contains weak hadiths.

JAMMAT IN WEST :

Saudi Kingdom assured British, American and Australian in early days that Tablighi Jamaat was working on a specific agenda and had nothing to do with propagating Islam or provoking Christianity. Today Jamat is present & working against the assurance, not only in these 3 countries but in entire west Europe…. Including Germany.

It is also interesting to note that Tablighi Jammat has not even bothered to obtain "go-ahead" from learned Islamic scholars of India since Tablighi Jamaat is of the opinion that Saudi Kingdom which follows WAHABIAT as their brand of Islam is the only authority on this earth to legitimize the functions of Tablighi Jamaat. You should check out this in your country, as it might be that they even neither need to pass a integration test, as at last the imams are proposed by saudis.

Jammat came in eyes of Western intelligence during Bosnia-serb problem.It is also the group belived to had master mind and had suplied arms to the besieged Bosnians, they successfully airlifted sophisticated anti tank guided missiles which turned the tide in favour of Bosnian Muslims and forced the Serbs to lift the seige.

They are also involved in Islamic militancy in Sudan and Uganda.or better say Member of Jammat are Islamic Millitant in Somalia and Uganda, what News agancies usually refer as "Arab militancy".

Last Point, and most important.... Jammat is also famous for rising funds. Even if you think that blocking saudi money will hold them, they u might be misjudging the creditability.... they are pioneer in this field.... or better say they are developed for this special purpose..... To provide logistics and every other possible support to Wahabi Islamic movement by every means... and if required, (if run out of Jihadi)... then members of this group will not even hesitate to serve as Jihadi. I think I provided all the answers you seek for tablighi Jammat. U might need to locate the sources, or if u need some.. then I can provide only on weekend.

OH AND DONT FORGET... PAKISTAN WAS ONCE PART OF INDIA.... AFTER PARTATION MOST OF RADICAL ISLAMIC ORGANISATION SHIFTED TO PAKISTAN... BUT MAINTAINED EXISTANCE IN INDIA TOO...THANKS TO GANDHI.

HEAD QUATORS OF NEARLY ALL OF THOSE ORGANISATION ARE IN PAKISTAN, EXCEPT OF DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND.

World After World War 2 :
After World War 2, saudis were rich with its oil state. Saudis had well idea about the creditability of jammat. saudis have taken a bet on Jammat. This was the birth of real Tablighi Jamaat we see today. It is formed by WAHABI Government of Saudi Arabia in order to spread their message in India. Ulema from Deoband were invited by the then King of Saudi Arabia who had offered to them money and support to establish a massive campaign to "combat" Sunniism in India. Hence, Maulana Ilyas along with his other supporters agreed to formation of a particular Jamaat to follow a specified agenda of the Saudi Kingdom. The penetration into Indian religious circles was not an easy job, hence, required consistent funds and work. Saudi Kingdom never stopped funding of Tablighi Jamaat till today, but from early 90s the work load of Tablighi Jammat seems to be shared by other groups. SIMI is overtaking the work of tablighi Jammat in india, and 1 and half years back, the Mumbai train blast shows that very well.

Tablighi Jamat has shifted its concentration from Indian subcontinent to West. Perhaps Interest in India will be further fulfilled by SIMI, which is politically supported by many corrupted politicians of India. Still dont think that its end of tablighi jammat in India, they are just reproducing like a worm, which works all together to destroy the whole tree, in which they live.

PS : historical data is dependent to my previous posts.

I think what you are confused with, is the name...
It is sometimes said to be a independent group, and sometimes considered as a part of deobandi's.. in short its a umbrella group and a outcome from deobandi movement...but something to be noted is that the umbrella groups under deobandi flags are supportive to each other... and are not competetors.... you will see transfer of Jihadis from one group to another.... the ideology in the core is 90% same, and all are centrally served by darul uloom chains(recently some more names of institute also popped up...)....they may differ in interpretation or accepting hidayt and sunna in common life or even in some cases deobandi groups will be involved in a few incidents they are also seen critisizing each other, but the critisization is more verbal.

HISTORY :
DEOBANDIS early 9 yrs (1857-1866) were in middle east, after this time the opening ceremony of darul uloom deoband had taken place. slowly and slowly the pain of fall of mughal caliphet was denutralising.... indian muslims were adopting Ottoman king as the caliph. a close collbration was establish, where scholar served Ottoman empire with there soul. The Muslim loyalty towards the king was really appreciable, though the motive was barbaric & evil. The world was moving towards WW1. During WW1, the Ottoman Empire joins the axis... and threatened British openly using Indian Muslims. British got the wind, but due to World War 1, they had taken extra care to prevent any such revolt in India (at least during World War 1). British had chosen a policy to control deobandis a bit tighter... the freedom of deobandis was a bit restricted. A tight control policy was adopted. due to this policy, Deobandis were unable to accomplish there goals, and most important from them was islamization of indian subcontinent... British had full idea that Deobandis are politically active with Ottoman kings... under such circumstances an Deobandi cleric Maulana Muhammad Ilyas Kandhalawi in the Mewat province of India founded Tabligh movement. In its earliest days it was non-political movement, so it can survive easily under British hood. even today it make itself distant from political movements... thus retaining its goal in a way that no politician intercept them as a threat, but they earn are magicians in arranging money, so Politicians are always happy and closely connected with Tabligh Jammat... the situation had started changing now a days due to Islamophobia(as what we can say, as by now intelligence started providing data….).

EVOLUTION TO THE RADICAL TABLIGHI FOR SPECIFIED ROLE..

In 1917, Amin was shifting from Ottoman army to Arab freedom fight..But remember he was still loyal to caliph (he use to offer prayer for him every Friday with Islamic tradition) ... the problem was that Amin want a statehood for Arab world. By the time, caliphet was broken....the amin was depressed... Amin seeked the meetings with deobandis in 1923, by 1926 a caliphet submit was organised in morraco, though submit was considered as unsucessful, as british were taking extra care on caliphet question after khilafat movement... still some representatives were able to join the submit. Tablighi jammat was also there, but came indirectly under the flag of afganistan. (PS: by the time of khalifat movement, many muslims relocated to afgan and to baluchistan as they want to live in land of peace)... in a period of nearly 20 days after caliphate submit, amin organised Mecca submit... and Muslim organisations from around the globe were present.. and they got the idea that British were controlling & Monitoring things tightly. As Tablighi jammat was free and was seen as politically inactive, British let them free to pass, or with minimum checks. Under such creteria, they feed the best interest of passing information to right place. They are also linked in passing the information to Amin al husseini in early 30's that British delayed the money transaction for the madarssa He was planning to open in Jerusalem.

Jammat served for a long time like this under cover in passing relevant information from one place to another...

Perfectum, you are very good at relating background and history.  I, too, have enjoyed reading your stories.
 
Do you have information regarding a movement which I think began around the time your history lessons ended, specifically on Tablighi Jamaat?  They are said to be concentrated in Pakistan, with a type of headquarters in a location called Raiwind.  They are low-key, but are a major movement which is not very familiar to the West although many known terrorists have had connections with or through them.
 
They are said to be the primary backers for the mosque in London (I refer to it as the Britainistan Mosque) with Saudi financing.  I have done a posting on the mosque with links to information on Tablighi Jamaal, but the sources seem to differ somewhat on their views of them.  It was said to have originated in 1927 under leadership of a Kandhalawi at Mewat, India.
 
 

What i wrote was not indian perspective, it was base of the big game played in Europe during WW2...

you studied well all of those holocaust studies or world war from european perspective, as well as i also had studied them to get integrated in Europe.and this is the problem... how much europeans or indians tried to link them toughther... what happened in india in 1857 repeated itself in Germany in WW2. its really strange that even after reading that whole thing.... with source of information. you haven't linked them toughther...

The problem is not european or indian, then problem is our's. a small german phrase says .... "im kreis schreiben,danach im quadrat sprüngen"...

The phrase hold itself true, when you write to your Girl Friend, as well as its also true when politically influenced historians document history. i am not speaking anything against Holocuast here, but what i documented is the background of game played in europe.....

Problem is that we study global history in localised way. check again the links i provided... and see how it was connected to jewish holocaust...

Deobandis are well known for playing this politics.. where 2 communities fight each other to attain goals of deobandis(wahabis). i will not go in deep history to prove that the even made hindus to fight hindus, but i will start from 1857 to prove my points.1857 mutiny is well documented by "William Dalrymple",this is a place where Europeans might be interested, because hindus and Muslims had slaughtered British and christians at that time. it was a great fuss in Europe, because they were unable to understand what is happening. later it came out that Deobandis(Imams under Mughal king Bahadur shah zafar) had spread lies in society that British are using cow and Pig meat, and are here to anhilate the Hindu and Muslim religion. beside this a feeling of Nationalism was also induced in india.... thus raising 1st fight of indian independance... or better say a fight to save Mughal caliphet, which ended in 1857 sept.

by time, they enhanced the technique in international world... with the king of ottoman empire... who is well known to make let european empires fight each other(check previous posts)....

by fall of caliphet.. the Amin al husseini came in light... he travelled to india to decide what to do now....the Attatürk had taken power of turkey, and king of ottoman empire again faced india... he got all financial assistance from Nawab of hyderabad... and survived later life in France. Nawab of hyderabad was also a deobandi, and a financial donor for chains of deobandi madarssas and Amin al husseini. now a days deobandi madarssa get the money from saudi arabia to spread wahabi brand of islam, and you can check that in europe too... as you have various outlets of darul uloom around you.

Amin learned very fast the techniques from deobandis and other partners left behind from fall of ottoman empire... he was despirate... the period which is said that he was politically inactive is better in west, was orignally a period of poineering the political science. he decided to do practical, that was hebron masscare.. he almost got success... but a fault occur and british located him as the main source of whole thing... he was saved due to political preassure made by Deobandis and Gandhi.

in 1930-1931, Amin decided to open a Madarssa like darul uloom in Jerusalem... the Brtish got the idea and delayed the fund transfer... thus the idea failed... by 1933, Hitler came in power... when all freaks were gathered at one place, from 1933 to 1938 hitler need to do work for converting Germans to the Germans he want to see.... but Amin was there supporting hitler from 1933 onwards... he wrote a latter and a secrte meeting occured between hitlers swiss banker and Amin al husseini...

the Hitler was the easiest victim... now it was the same technique of nationalism to be applied... the goal was too easy, as in india they need to work to raise nationalism in 1857, in Germany people were willing to have nationism.... the frames were set.. the story goes how it was thought.... AMin served 2 big pourpose for Hitler... he build 80% of Waffen SS, as well as he was a gateway for arab oil too...

Remember there are some instances too, where hitler decided to excahnge Nazi taken as war prisioners by allies against Jewish childern...it was amin determined that Jews should face holocaust....

Better think with psycological side, in 1857 80% hindus participated when provoked by means of lies... in Holocaust the work was done by propoganda, and sprit was held up to do such insane work by radio .. when Amin was announcing for killing Jews, when Vatican was saving jews under pope Pius during WW2.

i am well integrated in Europe... and this is also my problem here... why i documented everything with so much details....

@perfektm
Thanks a lot for your articles! It's very interesting to see muslim history from an Indian perspective. I guess that in Europe not too many people are even aware of Muslim presence in India (apart from Cashmere), let alone the history of Muslim invasion. If you had asked me some years ago, I wouldn't have known neither.

By 1923, Caliph was broken, the moonbats becomes fanaticized by the idea that he must restore the lost Islamic Empire. under those conditions Amin Al husseini decided to visit india. he proposed a project for restoration of Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. He decided to sent his brother to Jamil al Husseini to India for fund collection purpose. Jamil was well known for Anti British behavior. due to this reason, British haven't allowed Jamil visit to India. on special security guarantee given by Amin, Jamil was given pass to india. in Nov-1923 Jamil arrived in india, he visited Nawab of Hyderabad. Nawab of Hyderabad is a well known and respected figure in india. he was respected by british, because he was a Nobel Gentleman living in rules. and he was respected by Freedom fighters because he use to fund a lot the freedom fight (he also had funded Hindu saffron Group, and i am a Hindu)

Nawab of Hyderabad was never questioned for anything, after fall of Ottoman Empire.. the king of Ottoman empire were living in exile in France. the living was funded by Nawab of Hyderabad. later the daughter of Ottoman king will get married with son of Nawab of Hyderabad. For Amin this was not only the means of Finance for restoration of Mosque... but also a gateway to synchronize himself with the Indian Muslims, which will help him in the main goal to restore caliphet. Jamil got the desired information from Nawab, as well as lot of cash too...which will be used for restoration of Mosque..

Jamil transfered the information to Amin, Amin also got a Bumber donation for this project from King of Morroco... and this he had enough cash for his project. by Dec 1923, still Amin traveled to India in Dec 1923, saying its a fund rasing mission.. he haven't got any Cash from deobandis but he achieved a long period of stratigical partner, the partnership can even be seen today,...Allegiance to Ottoman Empire and Islamic world take-over will be echoed by Osama Bin Laden in his post-September 11th declaration

Amin returned back to Jerusalem in 1924, with a ultimate stratigical friends ... which will build taliban in Afganistan.

He has the Dome gold-plated for the first time. Thereafter, Jerusalem takes on more importance as Holy Muslim site in the eyes of the Arab World

with time.. everyone was going desperate, by 1921 mass protest started around india...
this was starting of khilafat movement... the bang of khilafat can be heard around the globe. it was a situation under which british fear to loose the india from hand. British want to finish whole stuff as fastly as possible...Indian Muslim knows that British will hurry and will end the caliph. Gandhi at this vary movement wrote to AFgan king to attack india, and take india under Muslim rule.(explained well in this book from 1941...Note... before freedom of india and birth of saffron group radicals)

by 1922 Amin Al-Husseini is appointed Head of Supreme Muslim Council(1922-1937). He was hugely disappointed by the end of the Ottoman Empire under Ataturk. Husseini becomes fanaticized by the idea that he must restore the lost Islamic Empire. He vows to fight all Muslim seculars. In his this goal, he seek help of Indian Muslims, who were already busy with khilafat Movement. He sent message to India, that he will restore caliphet. though Message was well delivered, some Muslim organisations misunderstood that " caliphet is restored, and Haji Mohammed is our new caliph " (indians address with 1st name, against western tradition to adress with last name..). This ended again with riots in India. Muslim started salughtering Hindus and British in kerla, the masscare is known as Mopla Masscare in india.

This was a outfall for plans of Gandhi and Muslims... Gandhi had to step back from supporting caliphet movement under preassure from Hindus. where Gandhi was a figure of Non-voilence, there was no condemination made by Gandhi about such insane acts made by radical muslims. the story never ended here.... Gandhi was still fanatized with his dream to create a state where Muslim and hindu lives toughther...... thats a different part that Hindus will be slaves for Muslims in Gandhi's dream state.

this incident is seen as the main stone for partation of india.... though in cleaning the Gandhis image.. today this topic is only 1 line long in indian history books, though a lie of 1857 munity still exist covering 1 page.... and demonizing the British for a insane work of working against religious values of others(i.e. giving cow and pig meat to Hindus and Muslims respectively)

story continues

By 1917 Gandhi was convince that West or better say Judeo-Christian culture was the source of tranny. he find a common partners in sharing this belief, the people sharing this idea were Deobandis.....

in Middle east, Amin Al Husseini was returned to Jerusalem.. he bring chapter of Armenian Genocide... he served as an officer stationed in Smyrna and participates first-hand in the Armenian genocide. One and a half million Christians are slaughtered under the sword of Islamic Jihad by the Ottoman Army.

by 1917, Amin was a bit more impressed by Arabian freedom fight.. and decided to join them leaving behind the idea of serving caliphet. under the same dream of pan islamic empire... Amin came to Jerusalem, with a dream in his mind of a world where Jews and Christians are not acceptable.

by 1920/1921 Amin got a close relation with radicals in Jerusalem. Amin Al-Husseini becomes lead figure in organizing riots against locals. Amin Al-Husseini begins life-long campaign of inciting hate between Jews and Muslims under British Mandate of Palestine. He begins rule of terror over local Muslim leaders, who denounce him as an ignorant thug. he was Jailed for organising riots.

In 1921, kamil Al Husseini... elder brother of Amin expired. Amin threatned that if Mufti post is given to anyother person, then British should get ready to face riots. there was support from peoples loyal to Husseini family as well as the radicals Amin collected from 1917 to 1921. Under the blackmail from Amin al husseini, The British, against the local Muslim vote, appoint Amin Al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Amin Al-Husseini came in a poor fourth place in the vote. The Moderate Muslim community rejected his candidacy because he had not received any credible Islamic education. He was neither a Sheikh (religiously accredited leader) nor an Alim (Islamic scholar). He becomes the pre-eminent Arab power in Palestine. His brutality becomes notorious and is rejected by local Muslim leadership. but a sect of Muslims were also persent, who were supporting candidature of Amin Al Husseini... as shares the same roots of Mohammed family, like the Aga khan shared.

By all such incidents, Amin was convinced that Moderate muslims a big threat in his goal of pan islamic empire. beside this, Amin considered Jews and British as the real source of problem.. and decided to start a new movement, to accomplish his dream of pan islamic empire extending further the ottoman empire to the most extent of east and west (in short global dream)

but in india, a different game has started. the khilafat movement has started to save the Ottoman empire. the wave of this change haven't reached Amin till now. king of ottoman empire seek help of his loyal deobandis to do something to save the caliphet. for indian muslims the hope was fading.... under such conditions Khilafat Movement was started. Gandhi joined the khilafat movement and extended its non-voilent part known as Non-Cooperation movement. remember it has nothing to do with indian freedom, and it only shows one side of Gandhi the non-voilent leader. the real side is still hidden

khilafat Movement info is located here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement

Info about Amin Al husseini is here :
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html

@BOB DONEY
info about Sadam Hussein is here...
the documentation i am providing here will provide you a big picture.
that what really is happening
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/saddam_en.html

to be continued.....

As our government isn't very good at counting it's not an easy question to answer officially. But this is a link to a recent National Statistics Office paper. Unfortunately the data is already two years out of date, but it gives some of the flavour of the current situation.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/foreign_labour.pdf

Extract from "Key Points":

■ There were 1.505 million foreign migrants working in the UK in 2005, 5.4 per cent of the UK employed population.

■ The foreign workforce generally is employed in more highly skilled occupations than the domestic.

■ The regional distribution of foreign workers is very uneven. In 2005 Greater London had 45.3 per cent of the total.

■ The annual number of work permits approved in 2005 was 129,660. The three main occupations were nurses and carers (19.9 per cent), software
professionals (19.5 per cent) and managers and proprietors in other service sectors (12.8 per cent).

■ 195,000 people from the new accession states were recorded in the Worker Registration Scheme in 2005. Around four fifths of them worked in relatively low-skilled occupations.

■ When all the various schemes are considered, it is likely that 2005 saw the largest ever entry of foreign workers to the UK, totalling some 400,000.

KA: "... American foreign policy with regards to Iraq, in which they have eliminated a potential threat and secured their economic interests."

If they keep on eliminating potential threats and securing their economic interests like they have in Iraq it won't be very long before they are an ex-Empire.

after 1866 foundation, there were always some small level anti-british riots in indian subcontinent. but slowly and slowly muslims understand that something else need to be done to save fate of islam in indian subcontinent. a work of 1000 yrs cant be loosed in just in few years.... Indian Muslim accepted Abdul Hamid, the king of Ottoman empire as a hope, and accepted him as Caliph. this was a hope for them, that soon they might not have to live in a rules of kufir christians.... somethnig which you hear even today when they ask for sharia...

the reason for such pain is, that there are special prayer offered to caliph in islamic tradition... and from the time ottoman empire had fallen, these prayers are offered to an anonymous identity.... isnt it touching...

so slowly and slowly the world was changing, Abdul Hamid got one of the best peoples to serve him. deobandis who were expert in utilizing one community against other were right next to abdul hamid..... the king started expanding/defending the ottoman empire.. by attacking other territories... Indian Muslims hope were restored, they were dreaming that they will be under islamic caliph soon. the news was brought to them by Aga khan of afganistan, thus ending the Islamic rebelion in indian subcontinent. for this great job british decided to provided gun salutes to him. he was belived to be the direct decendent of prophet mohammed.. and we will visit soon... his far relative too.

more about abdul hamid can be located here
Abdulhamid II can be credited for delaying the unavoidable break-up of the Ottoman Empire by at least a few decades through his ruthless and often repressive authoritarian methods in dealing with the secessionist revolts, and his cunning diplomatic manoeuvers by using one European power against the other.

As the World war 1 was approaching, a new figure named "Al Hajj Mohammed Amin Al Husseini" jumped in the complex figure we have seen till here. this personality is known as "Haji Mohammed amin al Husseini" in india, or simply "Haji Mohammed". he served in armenian Masscare in slaughtering 1.5 million Christians and will bring chapter of Holocaust with him to Jerusalem....

at the same time, a holy figure named Gandhi was also thinking that Judeo-christian culture is the source of tranny. this can easily be justified from Gandhis own writeups... which will prove that he was a bit racist.... further his action will prove his baisedness in comming documentation...

Story Continues further...

think of 2 great indian political heros... which you think were messanger of peace!! or better say were broadcasted as messager if peace.. and rethink what role they have played in World War 2.

these are unquestioned Images from Indian subcontient.... before relocating to Europe, i use to respect these images.... but today i hate them.... because due to there selfishness we all are suffering today....... Yes, i am speaking about Gandhi and Dalai Lama...

In case of British, yes they know the whole thing, as well as Many historian knows this... but no, they don't want to bring reality in front. Let millions of people die, because if reality comes in front... then Politicians might loose a lot of votes....

so what really happen.... 2 yrs back i relocated to Germany... with a figure in my mind,that hitler was a great guy. a mentality common to find in many developing countries.... i realize my mistake... and corrected myself. but instead of closing the chapter i decided to find the roots of this mentality. Let me tell you that i am only 24 yrs old, and thus belonging to that new generation of peoples who are neither directly connected with Gandhi... nor with Nazis and nor with churchill, but we do love the freedom we gained as a gift from our ancestors... and we understand that how valueable this freedom is.

I studied German history as a part of integration... and i am lost between something, which was forcing me to crosscheck that reality. something which was speaking a language, that the game was played in Europe, but was designed in india. so what really was it?

till now you learned about Himmler, Hitler and whole Nazi crew.... add 4 more names in that crew.... which will end to todays world conflict. these are "Dalai Lama", "Gandhi", "Amin Al Husseini" and "Deobandis"...

so what game i am speaking, and what is the whole problem... where can it end, and what are the king of this chessboard game is located? was there some prince too this king had given to the empire... perhaps i will answer all of these Questions...

1857 was the fall of Mughal caliphet, British gained complete control over india... throwing last Mughal king in burma.. he was given exile beacuse he had given rise to 1857 munity. he had thrown lies in india, that british use cartridge that were gressed by fat derived from cow and pig meat. these were special type of cartridage, which were covered by a paper which needed to be teared from mouth before using... thus by the rumor, British were destroying the religion of Hindus and Muslims.

the rumor cames after unsuccessful "jihad rebelion" from Muslim imams... in which they declare Christians as kufir and enemy of islam. they said that christanity is in india to anhilate islam and should be defeated by any way. Muslims need to work a bit to attain for this, and this was the 1st time, that indians were given chapter about something known as "Nationalism".... the plan worked, Many indian hindus jumped in fight after hearing rumors... further dream of a world where Muslims and Hindus will live next to each other with love and peace. the beautiful dream placed in eyes of Indian Hindus ended with 85% participation from Hindus and 15% Muslims.... it ended with one of the bloodies period in indian history. every Christian (British or indian convert) were slaugthered on streets of delhi.... this whole was done to save Mughal caliphet... but Hindus realised it soon, that the dreams shown to them were non-sense, the Mughal king Bahadur shah zafar was not even interested to provide food and shalter to kufir hindus, the fever of dream came down, and hindus of 1857 decided to stop fighting and go back.... as they realized that they have been utilised. the imams fighting under Bahadur shah zafar were also jihadis who decided to fight till death.. the keep with the oath.... they run away and returned again in 1866, and founded Darul uloom, Deoband... which had served our world with taliban. Darul uloom is a chain of institutes providing depth education in Wahabi studies and building base of Jihad by brain washing Muslim youngsters... with outlet in Europe too, including in Britain. the center is located in Indian city of deoband. during indian partation, it was feared that saffron groups (of radical hindus) will force indian goverment to close darul uloom.. thus a outlet is opened in karachi, pakistan. this will serve the darul uloom chain as central uni when darul uloom in deoband will be forced to closed. though Gandhi was against the plan, and Darul uloom enjoys the status of freedom fighters institute in india... as Gandhi was in love with Darul uloom ideology....

Story continues....

I am in full agreement that group identity is crucial for human beings, corresponding with the need for belonging in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This sense of belonging is beyond one's family, and human history has demonstrated that its focus is membership in one's national community which is synonymous with ethnicity, people, folk or volk. No ideology, policy or programme, be it egalitarian, liberal or some combination thereof, has successfully broken the bonds of national identity; surely the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON proved this fact.
 
However, while ethnic nationalism dominates political philosophy in the rest of the world*, the West remains dedicated to a globalism which is as much a resurgence of colonialism and Romantic empire-building as it is a good-intentioned, albeit arrogant, attempt at uniting humanity, and increasing peace and prosperity. Both of these seemingly divergent motives are at work in current American foreign policy with regards to Iraq, in which they have eliminated a potential threat and secured their economic interests. Pacification of the multiethnic and sectarian state aims not only to secure American interests but to prove that liberal democracy is superior to all other socio-political systems and that even its most ardent critics (i.e. Muslims) can be shown that it is the higher and better way. Unfortunately for American strategic planners, Muslims would rather die than accept true liberalism. Similarly, China remains as it has been for millennia - a communitarian society controlled b