Saturday, June 17, 2006

Hadji Girl

I was out in the sands of Iraq
And we were under attack
And I, well, I didn't know where to go.

And the first thing I could see was
Everybody's favorite Burger King
So I threw open the door and I hit the floor.

Then suddenly to my surprise
I looked up and I saw her eyes
And I knew it was love at first sight.

And she said

Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Baklavah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

And she said
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak allah
Hadji girl I love you anyway.

Then she said that she wanted me to see.
She wanted me to meet her family
But I, well, I couldn't figure out how to say no.
Cause I don't speak Arabic.

So, she took me down an old dirt trail.
And she pulled up to a side shanty
And she threw open the door and I hit the floor.

Cause her brother and her father shouted

Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak allah
They pulled out their AKs so I could see

And they said

Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak allah
So I grabbed her little sister and pulled her in front of me.

As the bullets began to fly
The blood sprayed from between her eyes
And then I laughed maniacally
Then I hid behind the TV
And I locked and loaded my M-16
And I blew those little ****ers to eternity.

And I said

Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak allah
They should have known they were ****ing with a Marine

--------------------------

Good Job Marine!

'Hadji-Girl'

Friday, June 16, 2006

Dictionary Dhimmitude

Let’s redefine reason.

No definition of the mayhem and murder committed by muslims in the name of jihad and Allah falls out side of normal practice of Islam.

Killing rape theft lying arson are all acts of piety for a Muslim fighting the oppression of non muslims rule law.

A non Muslim breathing and paying taxes is a legitimate target of jihad.

Only deliberate disregard for the facts and a cultivated disinterest in them can explain the ignorance of those who defend any part of Islam.

It is genocide, Not veiled threats like Hitler made in his struggle but direct.

From scripture unabrogated, unrepentant, unflinching, It doesn’t take mistranslation or “out of context “reasoning it is paln simple language of hate and murder.

Islam calls for the destruction of America & the western culture .

Christians, Jews, polytheist, and atheists must all be brought under the thumb of Islam then eradicated at a convenient time. None are same no are protected.


Islam is jihad is terrorism is Islam is jihad

If fear of death is greater than love of truth, our culture is lost.


Europe carefully chooses its words on Islam and terrorism

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

BRUSSELS: The European Union is refining a communication strategy in an effort to help stop disenchanted Muslim youths turning to terrorism.

How is the word “Islamist” understood in Muslim countries? What does the term “jihad” really mean? These are just some of the questions the EU is trying to answer with its dictionary on issues sensitive among civilisations. Yet even before the row over the cartoons, first published in Denmark last year and which triggered Muslim protests, the 25-member grouping was trying to define a “common vocabulary” for talking about radical Islam.

Since taking over the EU’s rotating presidency in January, Austria has hosted conferences involving experts on Islam, religion and linguistics and has drawn up a first document which it hopes will be finalised by December.

“Unintended stigmatisation resulting from an ill-considered choice of words may have serious negative psychological effects and thus contribute to the process of radicalisation,” the text’s preamble says. It urges EU governments to “ensure that they do not inadvertently and inappropriately impose a sense of identity solely linked to religious affiliation.”

European governments and officials are also warned not use religious language or interfere in any religious debate “as it may discredit the efforts of mainstream Muslims to curb extremist interpretations of Islam.” The common lexicon, for the moment, consists of just three terms: “Islamist,” “fundamentalism,” and “jihad.”

Rather than dictionary-style definitions, the lexicon tries to place the words in their cultural, historical and political context to inform users and give them a better idea of how their use could be misunderstood.

So “Islamist terrorism” should be used instead of “Islamic terrorism”, because the -ist “links terrorism to a distinct political ideology, not to a religion as a whole, and might therefore be preferable.”

As for the word “fundamentalism”: avoid it. The term refers to beliefs and convictions which do not always have immediate political repercussions and when it is coupled into “Islamic fundamentalism” could be offensive to Muslims.

Finally, “jihad” - commonly used in the media to mean “holy war” - is based on contested interpretations of classical Islamic texts which legitimise the use of war against the state. “Mujahideen” is used to describe those who fight this war. But the lexicon explains that it is an intellectual, social or other kind of personal exercise - “great jihad” - or to describe a war in defence of the Muslim community; “little jihad”.
Afp

Daily Times

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Stop accommodating and tell the truth
June 15, 2006

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers an alternate plan to dhimmi governing officials:

A state policy of trying in every way to accommodate Muslims, including the policy of not offending them -- or rather, not doing anything that they could conceivably claim offends them -- is madness. It is obvious that Muslim groups, Muslim spokesman, Muslim individuals, are trying to force the Western world not to see what is in front of it. When appeals to the Idols of the Age ("Everyone Wants the Same Thing," "Everyone Is Exactly Alike") don't do it, other methods are chosen.

These include murder of the outspoken (Pim Fortuyn or Theo Van Gogh) which unfortunately tends to make some Infidels suspicious of Muslims. It includes threats of murder, which unfortunately do not always work (Geert Wildres, Ayaan Hirsi Ali). It includes lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, including those the State brings (the trial of Oriana Fallaci). It includes outrage and hints of economic repercussions (Arab governments might pull those glossy ads), which can cause critics to lose their jobs (Will Cummins at The Telegraph).

The main thing is to shut those Infidels up, to force them to watch every word.

But this is madness. This is not only wrong, this is the very opposite of what should be done. Everywhere Infidels should demonstrate, repeatedly, ostentatiously, that they have studied the Qur'an and Hadith, and that they have read a sufficient amount about Jihad-conquest and the subjugation of non-Muslims, over 1350 years, so that they cannot be fooled.


The mere presence of a single Infidel who knows what he is talking about at one of those Mosque Outreach sessions, can destroy its value to the Muslims who are attempting to inveigle the unwary Infidels. Knowledge is everything; knowledge and the ability to articulate.

Those Infidels who wish to carefully regulate the language in which Islam is discussed, because they have been told to do so by apologists for Islam (in many cases, Muslim propagandists and agitators; in other cases, non-Muslim collaborators; in still other cases, simpletons in positions of authority) are simply choosing to deny what Islam teaches, what attitudes it clearly inculcates, and what has been the perceived behavior of Muslims, animated by the immutable texts, from Spain to the East Indies over 1350 years.

One can ignore all that and keep hoping and wishing, or one can decide to pull the pillow off of one's head and face the day, however disturbing it may be.

The most intelligent thing to do is for Muslims to be put constantly on the defensive, to be constantly made aware that non-Muslims no longer will accept the nonsense about a "religion."


Call it a belief-system with elements of worship and a great deal of everything else -- a political system, a social system -- one which is based on a clear division of the Universe between Believer and Infidel. Let Islam be criticized, let Islam be mocked.

There will be a gigantic campaign, by Muslims -- there is such a campaign, uncoordinated, spontaneous, by all kinds of Muslims everywhere, to protect the Faith from those who do not discuss it exactly as Believers think they should -- which is exactly in the way that Believers do.

But as Ali Sina says, constant mockery, constant awareness of Islam as a totalitarian system, an awareness displayed on every occasion by Infidels, will force certain changes, not least among Muslims of good will and open mind -- or at least stop the onward march of Islam.

Muslims are intent on remaining in the Lands of the Infidels and indeed on swelling their own ranks and power until they will not have to worry about what Infidels think at all.

But at this point they still have to worry. They have to worry about whether or not the Infidels will come to their senses sufficiently, will look into history, and will look simply around the world to see how non-Muslims are treated in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in Iran and Sudan, in Pakistan and Bangladesh and Indonesia, in Malaysia and Afghanistan, and everywhere that Islam prevails and has not been systematically contained either by local despots (Ataturk in Turkey, Bourguiba in Tunisia) and their successors, or opposed by a very large and powerful non-Muslim population (the Maronites in Lebanon until recent decades).

Tell the truth about Islam. Tell it all the time, in different keys. Show that you know what you are talking about. Modify, at times, the way you tell those truths to fit the audience you have, but keep it up. That is the way to make Infidels safer.


And it is also the way to hold out hope for those people who, born into Islam, yet not liking it, wishing to escape from it, secretly hope the Infidels will limit its influence, will force changes upon it or at least the perceived need for change to the teachings, and thus the texts, of Islam.

To limit what is said, to be so solicitous of those who do not wish us well, who wish us, our laws, our customs, our understandings, our freedoms, ill, who in many cases are delighted with whatever suffering they can inflict on Infidels anywhere, is crazy.

We should worry not about offending Muslims, but about whether or not we have effectively conveyed to them that we understand Islam, and that we understand that it is only those Muslims who do not accept its full teachings -- that is, the bad Muslims -- with whom we can conceivably coexist.

And that furthermore we cannot always tell which Muslim is a lax, unobservant, "bad" Muslim, and which is not, nor which children or grandchildren of "bad" Muslims will revert, for one reason or another, to the original, full-bodied, dangerous version.

To engage in self-censorship, to prevent Islam from being freely discussed using terms that are neither obscene nor vicious but only, unfortunately, grimly accurate, to worry about offending Muslim sensibilities, which only promotes (in advance of and in the absence of Muslim rule) the dhimmi mentality, the very theme of Bat Ye'or's Eurabia -- all this will do nothing to protect Infidels.

It will do nothing to modify the beliefs of Muslims, nor to encourage the camp of those Muslims who wish that other Muslims would recognize the dangers of what Islam teaches, and work to somehow modify it. If Infidels will not tell the truth about Islam, those would-be "reformers" within Islam will have no one to point to, no way of creating the necessary atmosphere of defensiveness and alarm which is the only thing likely to force at least some Muslims to realize, and then to admit to, some of the dangers and faults of Islam.


Posted by Robert at June 15, 2006 08:59 AM Print this entry


Why use bombs in a non-conflict zone, preaching is enough,"

Cleric Calls on Bush to Convert to Islam

reputed leader of the al-Qaida-linked terror group blamed for deadly bombings across Indonesia on Thursday accused President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard of waging wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Militant cleric Abu Bakar Bashir also called on Bush and Howard to convert to Islam, saying it was "the only way to save their souls," adding that families still grieving after the 2002 Bali blasts that killed many foreigners should also become Muslim to find "salvation and peace."

Bashir, 68, was released from prison Wednesday after completing a 26- month sentence for conspiracy in the Bali bombings that killed 202 people, was at a hardline Islamic boarding school that has spawned some of Southeast Asia's deadliest terrorists.

The firebrand cleric also declined to directly condemn young men who carry out bombings in Indonesia in the name of Islam, saying they he still considered them "holy warriors," because they believed they were defending the oppressed.

But he also said they misguided and wrong to use bombs in a country at peace.

"Why use bombs in a non-conflict zone, preaching is enough," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8LDC00.html
Cozying up To moderate Nazism.

If Hitler had had the vision of Mohammad we might very well still be ignoring Nazism.

Had he launched daily sneak attacks while denying it was his ideology but radical Nazis who had hijacked the peaceful notions that are the core of the tolerant Nazi ideology. And the only solution to combat the radical Nazis we need to embrace the real moderate Nazis.

Al l the while the active Nazis could go about their piecemeal genocide happily under cover of the apologists protection and denial from above. Yeah that’s the ticket.


Perhaps other ideologies of hate could learn a thing or two?

I can see the press release from the Hihoo bubba of the knights of the Klu Klux Klan saying that their message has been distorted by people who can read and hanging niggers From trees is being misinterpreted as a hate crime. “ These here niggers They are not dying in the normal sense they are changing colors, Its patriotism they is exhibiting”

What is baffling is what happened to the checks and balance in the USA used to be if the president said anything the press would step on each others backs racing to fact check the fool to make him look bad just for spite. And the loyal opposition would rally round the lectern enumerating in detail the why and how of his deceptions.
Who got to them?


Is it perto dollar golden parachutes that protects Islam?

Is it blackmail with a photo of a beloved grandchild’s picture taken with a telephoto lens from a distance at a location when they are supposed to be safe?

Is there a menacing man in a turban in the frame?


What happened to investigative reporting?

Is what a middle eastern studies professor in some swanky high-priced journalism school the be all and end all of what Islam is? Is it sufficiently biased and sympathetic to the liberal cause to paint you a Zionist racist if you question the conclusions of the mujahadeen /professor?

Who decided it might be a good idea to get lesson from CAIR as to the benevolence Of Islam to the premier law enforcement and military in the world .Was it David Forte who can be proven to be materially wrong in every assertion he makes about Islam and the middle east?

Is their a minder working at Fox News library and at CNN to muzzle any voice of warning that things may not be as they seem ? Is that person the fool who thought it would be wise to run an OP Ed By Mourad Benchellali (This week the New York Times published an article by Mourad Benchellali, who spent two years as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

He portrayed himself as a victim, saying this: 'When I was 19, I made the mistake of listening to my older brother and going to Afghanistan on what I thought was a dream vacation ... it turned out to be a Qaeda training camp.'

The New York Times allowed this man to paint himself as a victim of abuse, an object of sympathy.

But here is what the Times did not tell you.

Mourad Benchellali's brother was convicted today of terrorism charges and sentenced to ten years in a French prison. His father, a radical cleric, was also convicted of terror charges. His mother and half-brother are convicted terrorists.

But the New York Times wants us to believe that this guy simply made a bad vacation decision and wound up in Guantanamo Bay. What a bunch of bull! Most readers of the New York Times have no idea who Mourad Benchellali is - they just read his sorrowful words, and then run down to Starbucks in West Hollywood and tell their friends the military is torturing people.

Enough is enough with this b.s. The New York Times should be ashamed of itself!" whose spend some time in Guantanamo bay who denies any connection to terrorism despite his entire family being already in prison for one terror crime or another.

Sure Robert Spencer might get 20 minutes in a year but there are half a million other minutes of bullshit to counter it every year just to be safe.

And safe we are we are promised that it is only a hand full of misunderstanders of Islam causing the trouble and most muslims reject “radicalism” and want modernity yet daily they require special rules treatment and concessions and when asked, insist western culture is to be rejected in favor of sharia and Islam ,every time, everyone of them, If you ask them the right way.. There is no end to the garbage and once you start swallowing it there is just no reason to stop, its to embarrassing to admit you were wrong.

One thing still seems true in a war the first victim is truth the canary in the coalmine has been replaced with an ostrich in the beltway.
We wont Fight

U.S. Marines Build Shrine To Islam

Paul Sperry exposes some official dhimmitude at FrontPage:

We are at war with militant Islam, but you wouldn't know it from the Pentagon, which is busy erecting a shrine to Islam just five short years after Islamic terrorists destroyed a good chunk of its own building and killed more than 100 of its occupants. Worse, it's consulting on the project with a Wahhabi-educated cleric posing as a moderate.

Last week, military brass -- along with representatives from the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations -- dedicated the first Muslim prayer center for the Marines as a symbol of the military's "religious tolerance" and "respect" for the faith the enemy uses to attack us.

Already, plans are in the works to build by 2009 a bigger mosque at the Marine base in Quantico so Muslim service members can have a "proper place" to worship, and one that "honors their religious heritage," officials say, not realizing that the mosque can also be used by the enemy to build a Fifth Column inside the Marines.


The idea for the center came from Navy Lt. Abuhena Mohammed Saifulislam, a young, smooth-talking Muslim chaplain, who wanted a permanent place of worship -- and "education" -- for the growing number of soldiers who are interested in -- and converting to -- Islam. .

I will Continue even when the government has turned against me which will be some time next week by my estimation.

ON ONE HAND WE EMBRACE ISLAM ON THE OTHER WE IGNORE THE FACTS

The al Qaeda manual

The al Qaeda manual presented here was made available by the FBI which distributed the manual on their website: www.fbi.gov

Presentation
Introduction
First Lesson -

- General Introduction
Second Lesson -- Necessary Qualifications And Characteristics For The Organization’s Member

Third Lesson -- Counterfeit Currency And Forged Documents

Fourth Lesson -- Organization Military Bases "Apartments Places"-Hiding

Fifth Lesson -- Means Of Communication And Transportation

Sixth Lesson -- Training

Seventh Lesson -- Weapons: Measures Related To Buying And Transporting Them

Eight Lesson -- Member Safety

Ninth Lesson -- Security Plan

Eleventh Lesson -- Espionage (1) Information-Gathering Using Open Methods

Twelfth Lesson -- Espionage (2 )Information-Gathering Using Covert Methods

Eighteen Lesson -- Prisons And Detention Centers

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Stolen directly from Robert Spencers site.
Ask him why he doesnt have me on his links
Visit him @ His excellent site
jihad watch


Iranian Presidential Advisor: 'Resolution of the Holocaust Issue Will End in the Destruction of Israel'

1938 Alert from MEMRI:

"Iranian Presidential Advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin: 'The Resolution of the Holocaust Issue Will End in the Destruction of Israel'":

On June 9, 2006, the reformist online daily Rooz reported that during a visit with students at Gilan University in Rasht, Iran, Mohammad Ali Ramin, advisor to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, discussed historical accusations against the Jews and questioned the Holocaust.

The following are excerpts from the Rooz article, in the original English: [1]
"'Throughout History, This Religious Group [i.e. the Jews] has Inflicted the Most Damage on the Human Race'"

"On a visit to Gilan University, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin said to a group of students in the town of Rasht, 'Ten years ago, when I brought up the issue of the Holocaust for the first time in this country, my goal was to defend the Jewish people.

But among the Jews there have always been those who killed God’s prophets and who opposed justice and righteousness. Throughout history, this religious group has inflicted the most damage on the human race, while some of its groups engaged in plotting against other nations and ethnic groups to cause cruelty, malice and wickedness.'

"'Historically, there are many accusations against the Jews. For example, it was said that they were the source for such deadly disease as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to Christians and thus killed them,' Ramin said.
[...]

"While acknowledging not knowing the source of these events around the world, Ramin said, 'I only know that Jews have been accused of such conspiracies and sabotage throughout history and have not performed well.'
[...]

"Claiming that the Holocaust was the principal reason why Palestine was occupied while Israel was the main cause of crises and catastrophe in the Middle East. 'So long as Israel exists in the region there will never be peace and security in the Middle East,' he said adding, 'So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel.'...
"'Danish Editor burnt alive,'"

from Pakistan's The Nation, with thanks to Burns:
The editor of the Danish newspaper ‘Jyllands Posten’ was burnt to death when a fire mysteriously broke out in his bedroom, a Saudi newspaper claims.

According to the newspaper, the editor was sleeping in his bedroom when the fire ravaged his bedroom. He and his newspaper became controversial when it had published blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

The paper claims that the Danish govt is trying to cover up the news of the death. He was hit by divine retribution, the paper added. Muslims, all over the world, strongly denounced this blasphemous act and massive protests were held in all Muslim countries including Pakistan.

Text messages and emails that claim that the editor or the cartoonist has been burnt alive have also been circulating since Tuesday, lending support to this report. The paper named the editor as Elliot Back. However, Back is merely a senior in Computer Science at Cornell University, who had published the caricatures on his website. Name of the culture editor of Jyllands Posten, who commissioned the caricatures, is Flemming Rose. Jens Julius is the name of one of the cartoonists that drew the images.

There were 12 cartoonists in all, who according to the BBC have gone into hiding.


SPIEGEL ONLINE -
May 31, 2006, 03:04
PMURL:

Why I Published the Muhammad Cartoons

Opinion
Why I Published the Muhammad Cartoons
By Flemming Rose

European political correctness allows Muslims to resist integration, argues the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten. Instead, Muslims should be treated just like all Europeans -- including being subject to satire. He argues that publishing the caricatures was an act of "inclusion, not exclusion."


REUTERS


The burning of a Danish flag in Islamabad, Pakistan.The worldwide furor unleashed by the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed that I published last September in Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper where I work, was both a surprise and a tragedy, especially for those directly affected by it. Lives were lost, buildings were torched and people were driven into hiding.

And yet the unbalanced reactions to the not-so-provocative caricatures -- loud denunciations and even death threats toward us, but very little outrage toward the people who attacked two Danish Embassies -- unmasked unpleasant realities about Europe's failed experiment with multiculturalism. It's time for the Old Continent to face facts and make some profound changes in its outlook on immigration, integration and the coming Muslim demographic surge. After decades of appeasement and political correctness, combined with growing fear of a radical minority prepared to commit serious violence, Europe's moment of truth is here.

Europe today finds itself trapped in a posture of moral relativism that is undermining its liberal values. An unholy three-cornered alliance between Middle East dictators, radical imams who live in Europe and Europe's traditional left wing is enabling a politics of victimology. This politics drives a culture that resists integration and adaptation, perpetuates national and religious differences and aggravates such debilitating social ills as high immigrant crime rates and entrenched unemployment.

As one who once championed the utopian state of multicultural bliss, I think I know what I'm talking about. I was raised on the ideals of the 1960s, in the midst of the Cold War. I saw life through the lens of the countercultural turmoil, adopting both the hippie pose and the political superiority complex of my generation. I and my high school peers believed that the West was imperialistic and racist.

We analyzed decaying Western civilization through the texts of Marx and Engels and lionized John Lennon's beautiful but stupid tune about an ideal world without private property: "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or hunger/ A brotherhood of man/ Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world."


BIO BOX

Flemming Rose, 48, is culture editor of Jyllands- Posten, the Danish newspaper that set off a wave of protests in the Islamic world when it published a series of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.It took me only 10 months as a young student in the Soviet Union in 1980-81 to realize what a world without private property looks like, although many years had to pass until the full implications of the central Marxist dogma became clear to me.

That experience was the beginning of a long intellectual journey that has thus far culminated in the reactions to the Muhammed cartoons. Politically, I came of age in the Soviet Union. I returned there in 1990 to spend 11 years as a foreign correspondent. Through close contact with courageous dissidents who were willing to suffer and go to prison for their belief in the ideals of Western democracy, I was cured of my wooly dreams of idealistic collectivism.

I had a strong sense of the high price my friends were willing to pay for the very freedoms that we had taken for granted in high school -- but did not grasp as values inherent in our civilization: freedom of speech, religion, assembly and movement. Justice and equality implies equal opportunity, I learned, not equal outcome.

Now, in Europe's failure to grapple realistically with its dramatically changing demographic picture, I see a new parallel to that Cold War journey. Europe's left is deceiving itself about immigration, integration and Islamic radicalism today the same way we young hippies deceived ourselves about Marxism and communism 30 years ago.

It is a narrative of confrontation and hierarchy that claims that the West exploits, abuses and marginalizes the Islamic world. Left-wing intellectuals have insisted that the Danes were oppressing and marginalizing Muslim immigrants. This view comports precisely with the late Edward Said's model of Orientalism, which argues that experts on the Orient and the Muslim world have not depicted it as it is but as some dreaded "other," as exactly the opposite of ourselves -- that should therefore to be rejected. The West, in this narrative, is democratic, the East is despotic. We are rational, they are irrational.

This kind of thinking gave birth to a distorted approach to immigration in countries like Denmark. Left-wing commentators decided that Denmark was both racist and Islamophobic. Therefore, the chief obstacle to integration was not the immigrants' unwillingness to adapt culturally to their adopted country (there are 200,000 Danish Muslims now); it was the country's inherent racism and anti-Muslim bias.

A cult of victimology arose and was happily exploited by clever radicals among Europe's Muslims, especially certain religious leaders like Imam Ahmad Abu Laban in Denmark and Mullah Krekar in Norway. Mullah Krekar -- a Kurdish founder of Ansar al Islam who this spring was facing an expulsion order from Norway -- called our publication of the cartoons "a declaration of war against our religion, our faith and our civilization. Our way of thinking is penetrating society and is stronger than theirs. This causes hate in the Western way of thinking; as the losing side, they commit violence."

The role of victim is very convenient because it frees the self-declared victim from any responsibility, while providing a posture of moral superiority. It also obscures certain inconvenient facts that might suggest a different explanation for the lagging integration of some immigrant groups -- such as the relatively high crime rates, the oppression of women and a tradition of forced marriage.

Dictatorships in the Middle East and radical imams have adopted the jargon of the European left, calling the cartoons racist and Islamophobic. When Westerners criticize their lack of civil liberties and the oppression of women, they say we behave like imperialists. They have adopted the rhetoric and turned it against us.
These events are occurring against the disturbing backdrop of increasingly radicalized Muslims in Europe. Muhammed Atta, the 9/11 ringleader, became a born-again Muslim after he moved to Europe. So did the perpetrators behind the bombings in Madrid and London. The same goes for Mohammed Bouyeri, the young Muslim who slaughtered filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam. Europe, not the Middle East, may now be the main breeding ground for Islamic terrorism.


Lessons from the United States

What's wrong with Europe? For one thing, Europe's approach to immigration and integration is rooted in its historic experience with relatively homogeneous cultures. In the United States one's definition of nationality is essentially political; in Europe it is historically cultural. I am a Dane because I look European, speak Danish, descend from centuries of other Scandinavians. But what about the dark, bearded new Danes who speak Arabic at home and poor Danish in the streets? We Europeans must make a profound cultural adjustment to understand that they, too, can be Danes.

Another great impediment to integration is the European welfare state. Because Europe's highly developed, but increasingly unaffordable, safety nets provide such strong unemployment insurance and not enough incentive to work, many new immigrants go straight onto the dole.

While it can be argued that the fast-growing community of about 20 million Muslim immigrants in Europe is the equivalent of America's new Hispanic immigrants, the difference in their productivity and prosperity is staggering. An Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development study in 1999 showed that while immigrants in the United States are almost equal to native-born workers as taxpayers and contributors to American prosperity, in Denmark there is a glaring gap of 41 percent between the contributions of the native-born and of the immigrants.

In the United States, a laid-off worker gets an average of 32 percent compensation for his former wages in welfare services; in Denmark the figure is 81 percent. A culture of welfare dependency is rife among immigrants, and it is taken for granted.

What to do? Obviously, we can never return to the comfortable monocultures of old. A demographic revolution is changing the face, and look, of Europe. In an age of mass migration and the Internet, cheap air fares and mobile phones everywhere, cultural pluralism is an irreversible fact, like it or not. A nostalgic longing for cultural purity -- racial purity, religious purity -- easily descends into ethnic cleansing.

Yet multiculturalism that has all too often become mere cultural relativism is an indefensible proposition that often justifies reactionary and oppressive practices. Giving the same weight to the illiberal values of conservative Islam as to the liberal traditions of the European Enlightenment will, in time, destroy the very things that make Europe such a desirable target for migration.

Europe must shed the straitjacket of political correctness, which makes it impossible to criticize minorities for anything -- including violations of laws, traditional mores and values that are central to the European experience. Two experiences tell the tale for me.

Shortly after the horrific 2002 Moscow musical theater siege by Chechen terrorists that left 130 dead, I met with one of my old dissident friends, Sergei Kovalev. A hero of the human rights movement in the old Soviet Union, Kovalev had long been a defender of the Chechens and a critic of the Russian attacks on Chechnya. But after the theater massacre he refused, as always, to indulge in politically correct drivel about the Chechens' just fight for secession and decolonization.

He unhesitatingly denounced the terrorists, and insisted that a nation's right to self-determination did not imply a free ticket to kill and violate basic individual rights. For me, it was a clarifying moment on the dishonesty of identity politics and the sometime tyranny of elevating group rights above those of individuals -- of justifying the killing of innocents in the name of some higher cause.

The other experience was a trip I made in the 1990s, when I was a correspondent based in the United States, to the Brighton Beach neighborhood of Brooklyn, N.Y. There I wrote a story about the burgeoning, bustling, altogether vibrant Russian immigrant community that had arisen there -- a perfect example of people retaining some of their old cultural identity (drinking samovars of tea, playing hours of chess and attending church) while quickly taking advantage of America's free and open capitalism to establish an economic foothold. I marveled at America's ability to absorb newcomers. It was another clarifying moment.

An act of inclusion. Equal treatment is the democratic way to overcome traditional barriers of blood and soil for newcomers. To me, that means treating immigrants just as I would any other Danes. And that's what I felt I was doing in publishing the 12 cartoons of Muhammad last year. Those images in no way exceeded the bounds of taste, satire and humor to which I would subject any other Dane, whether the queen, the head of the church or the prime minister.

By treating a Muslim figure the same way I would a Christian or Jewish icon, I was sending an important message: You are not strangers, you are here to stay, and we accept you as an integrated part of our life. And we will satirize you, too. It was an act of inclusion, not exclusion; an act of respect and recognition.
Alas, some Muslims did not take it that way -- though it required a highly organized campaign, several falsified (and very nasty) cartoons and several months of overseas travel for the aggrieved imams to stir up an international reaction.


DPA

Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the Muhammad cartoons.Maybe Europe needs to take a leaf -- or a whole book -- from the American experience. In order for new Europe of many cultures that is somehow a single entity to emerge, in a manner similar to the experience of the United States, both sides will have to make an effort -- the native-born and the newly arrived.

For the immigrants, the expectation that they not only learn the host language but also respect their new countries' political and cultural traditions is not too much to demand, and some stringent (maybe too stringent) new laws are being passed to force that. At the same time, Europeans must show a willingness to jettison entrenched notions of blood and soil and accept people from foreign countries and cultures as just what they are, the new Europeans.

Flemming Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the largest newspaper in Denmark.