In Reply to 'Taher'

I. I believe that it is important to note that unless an Arabic-speaker on the Brussels Journal can translate for us, we cannot verify ourselves that Khudayr Taher even exists, or that his name is a pseudonym.


II. I agree that contemporary sources of major "terrorism" tend to be Islamic, however, Western Europe has and continues to deal with non-Islamic "terror" groups e.g. RAF, ETA, IRA, FLN, OAS, etc. Taher is incorrect in assuming that all Islamic terrorism in Western countries is conducted by Western nationals who are Muslim; indeed, foreign Muslims on travel and work visas figure greatly in terrorist acts and attempts. I am in agreement, however, that the costs for Western countries associated with Muslim immigration and issuing travel and work visas to Muslims far outweigh the benefits. Were it possible for Western national security agencies to determine which Muslims are extremist and which are law-abiding "moderate" citizens, this would not prevent the long-term Islamization of Western societies due to the gradual infusion of Islamic culture through demographics.


III. I agree that Western Muslims are all potential Fifth Columnists in that their affinity for the West is limited to the socio-economic, political and legal benefits enjoyed therein. They can therefore be considered to be nominally anti-nationalist e.g. Belgian Turks. For obvious reasons Western Muslims subscribe to civic rather than ethnic nationalities e.g. British not English, Belgian not Flemish.


IV. Certainly it would be advisable to repatriate Western Muslims, despite the immense logistical difficulties in doing so. However, I do not believe that a Western Muslim would advocate his own deportment (why did he come in the first place? why does he not leave voluntarily?). Unless the Brussels Journal presents evidence to the contrary, this article seems to be nothing more than propaganda, even if I agree with it.




"I,as an Arab Muslim immigrant,sincerely call on the countries of Europe and America to deport all Muslims from their territories - including myself,despite my love and sincere attachment to the US..."


Khudayr Taher,an Iraqi Shi'ite.




" I personally don't have a hatred of the American people,and respect American civilization [...] But people who are crying over someone who died 1,400 years ago" (referring to Shiites and their veneration of a leader killed in the 7th century),"these should be eliminated,to clear the society of them,because they are simply trash".


Abu Sarhan,an Iraqi Sunni 'Insurgent'.


We are watching time move by, with the ability too see or perceive the possible out come. I believe that if the Muslim committee does not come forth and take a responsible position about their brothers that are involved in terror and murder, we may never see an end to this fanaticism. A direct action of continuing condemnation and providing constance public revelation of any and all known terror murdering groups hiding within their own mosques and neighborhoods. Take responsibility of their funding and eduction and training.
All bees do not sting, but the ones that do, live among, those that appear sociable.


IMHO the root of terrorism is in the Quran. It is written in there, that they should kill infidels and apostates.

It's a good thing the majority of muslims are moderate due to their conscience but their dormancy can change any time. What is needed is elimination of Islam as a religio-political doctrine. But that's a tall order, given Western's principle of freedom of speech, which unfortunately is disappearing due to PC and "multiculturalism" of the leftists.

Hippocratic Oath

Do Muslim physicians take the Hippocratic Oath? (Primum, non nocere -- First of all, do no harm.)


Extremist Muslims are censored in their own countries. They come to the West where they can speak out freely (there seems to be some confusion on their part: freedom of speech does not equal freedom of action). However, when Western rightist journalists want to take the same freedom, namely to speak out freely, they are censored.

So, in Belgium, lifting censorship for extremist Muslims means censoring rightist journalists by (extremist) leftist groups. Hm, this sounds sensible.

Some seventy years ago, taking freedom away from a group of people meant censoring journalists to report on this. Today, giving freedom, means the same thing. Seventy years from now, people will piss as much on them who do the censorship today, as we piss today on those who censored seventy years ago.

This article made rounds in blogosphere...

...but was not exactly widely reported in MSM. That's my main frustration with blogs I follow. 

Their information value is evident but the coverage does not reach 'the' MSM news, except in a relatively rare occasions (i.e. LGF on some topics).

On the other hand, I can bet a proverbial house that if we start scrutinising tens of thousand laws enacted and enforced within the EU in past decades, we would find quite a few that would not only have an EU-wide legal reach but can also be used in  'Human Rights' cases  when applied from the other side of fence.

I think ordinary Joe Public needs some young smart lawyers looking to make their name.

Political correctness is a 2-way street. Never, ever forget this.   



Back To Basics

I'd settle for a situation in which Western liberal democracies chose to reassert their legitimate  right and duty to deport known and proven Muslim terrorists,but I can't see even that happening any time soon.