|
|
23 novembre
Article from
a Sydney newspaper 2006 but still valid today in many western countries
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get
out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off
potential terror attacks.
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia
at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made
it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.
Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some
radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that
Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament.
"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law
or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national
television.
"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws
governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic
law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law,
independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the
opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's
a better option," Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those
with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.
Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not
want to accept local values should "clear off".
"Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want
to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically
clear off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian
Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the
nation's mosques.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ Australia- The Right to Leave Our Country - YOU Have the
right...................the right to leave !
After Sydney not wanting to offend other cultures by putting up Christmas
lights and after hearing that the State of South Australia changed its opinion
and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face
covered.
This prompted this editorial written by an Australian citizen.
Published in an Australian newspaper.
Quote:
IMMIGRANTS,
NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take it or Leave It I am tired of this
nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their
culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge
in patriotism by the majority of Australians.
However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the
"politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility
that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration,
nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to
Australia.
However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our
country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.
This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to
dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.
As
Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our
own lifestyle.
This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and
victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak
mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or
any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society,
learn the language!
Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing,
political push but a fact because Christian men and women, on Christian
principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is
certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God
offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new
home, because God is part of our culture.
We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept
ours and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like " A Fair Go",
then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.
We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't
care how you did things where you came from. By all means keep your
culture but do not force it on others.
This is OUR
COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity
to enjoy all this.
But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our
Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take
advantage of one other great Australian freedom, "THE RIGHT TO
LEAVE".
If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here.
You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.
Pretty easy really, when you think about it. I figure if we all keep
passing this to our friends (and enemies) it will also, sooner or later get
back to the complainers, let’s all try, please.
Thank you!
11 novembre
The last
day of World War 1 was November 11th 1918, known as Armistice Day.
Despite November 11th being the last day of the war, on many parts
of the Western Front fighting continued as normal. This meant, of course, that
casualties occurred even as the people of Paris, London and New York were
celebrating the end of the fighting.
After
three days of intense negotiations in a rail siding just outside of Compiegne,
the German delegation that had been brought to the personal carriage of Marshall
Ferdinand Foch was ordered by its government in Berlin to sign any terms put on
the table by the Allies. Potentially serious social upheaval had forced the
government in Berlin into giving out this instruction as people had taken to
the streets as a result of chronic food shortages caused by the British naval
blockade. Therefore, the German delegation led by Matthias Erzberger signed the
terms of the Armistice.
This was
done at 05.10 on November 11th. However, the actual ceasefire would
not start until 11.00 to allow the information to travel to the many parts of the
Western Front. Technology allowed the news to go to capital cities by 05.40 and
celebrations began before very many soldiers knew about the Armistice. In
London, Big Ben was rung for the first time since the start of the war in
August 1914. In Paris, gas lamps were lit for the first time in four years. But
on the Western Front, many tens of thousands of soldiers assumed that it was
just another day in the war and officers ordered their men into combat.
Quite a
number of the final casualties were at Mons, Belgium – ironically one of the
first major battles of the war in 1914. In a cemetery just outside of Mons in
the village of Nouvelle, there are nine graves of British soldiers. Five are
from August 1914 while four are dated November 11th 1918.
The
Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) states that their records show that
863 Commonwealth soldiers died on November 11th 1918 – though this
figure also includes those who died on that day but of wounds received prior to
November 11th.
In
particular, the Americans took heavy casualties on the last day of the war.
This was because their commander, General John Pershing believed that the
Germans had to be severely defeated at a military level to effectively ‘teach
them a lesson’. Pershing saw the terms of the Armistice as being soft on the
Germans. Therefore, he supported those commanders who wanted to be pro-active
in attacking German positions – even though he knew that an Armistice had been
signed. In particular, the Americans suffered heavy casualties attempting to
cross the River Meuse on the night of the 10th/11th with
the US Marines taking over 1,100 casualties alone. However, if they had waited
until 11.00, they could have crossed the river unhindered and with no
casualties. The 89th US Division was ordered to attack and take the
town of Stenay on the morning of November 11th. Stenay was the last
town captured on the Western Front but at a cost of 300 casualties.
The last
American soldier killed was Private Henry Gunter who was killed at 10.59.
Officially, Gunter was the last man to die in World War One. His unit had been
ordered to advance and take a German machine gun post. It is said that even the
Germans – who knew that they were literally minutes away from a ceasefire –
tried to stop the Americans attacking. But when it became obvious that this had
failed, they fired on their attackers and Gunter was killed. His divisional
record stated:
“Almost
as he fell, the gunfire died away and an appalling silence prevailed.”
Information
about German casualties is more difficult to ascertain. However, it may well be
the case that the last casualty of World War One was a junior German officer
called Tomas who approached some Americans to tell them that the war was over
and that they could have the house he and his men were just vacating. However,
no one had told the Americans that the war had finished because of a
communications breakdown and Tomas was shot as he approached them after 11.00.
Officially
over 10,000 men were killed, wounded or went missing on November 11th 1918. The
Americans alone suffered over 3,000 casualties. When these losses became public
knowledge, such was the anger at home that Congress held a hearing regarding
the matter. In November 1919, Pershing faced a House of Representatives
Committee on Military Affairs that examined whether senior army commanders had
acted accordingly in the last few days of the war. However, no one was ever
charged with negligence and Pershing remained unapologetic, remaining convinced
that the Germans had got off lightly with the terms of the Armistice. He also
stated that although he knew about the timing of the Armistice, he simply did
not trust the Germans to carry out their obligations. He therefore, as
commander in chief, ordered the army to carry on as it would normally do as any
“judicious commander” would have done. Pershing also pointed out that he was
merely carrying out the orders of the Allies Supreme Commander, Marshall
Ferdinand Foch, that were to “pursue the field grays (Germans) until the last
minute”.
Sources: the history learning site
CANADA's
LAST MAN TO FALL - An Eyewitness Account
The
events surrounding the death of Private George Lawrence Price are recorded in
the transcripts of the interviews published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
(CBC) in thier production "Flanders' Fields: Canadian Voices from Vimy".
The original 1965 production was aired on the radio and released in a series of
vinyl LPs, some of which we have been able to secure at the CEFSG. The original
production was narrated, directed and produced by J. Frank Willis, with
planning and research by A. E. Powley, and consultation from Colonel G. W. L.
Nicholson who authored the "Official History of the Canadian Army in
the First World War".
In episode 16 "Victory" the following eye witness account is given: (Art
Goodmurphy #105410, 28th Battalion)
Major Ross, the one of our officer’s there, told us that we were to halt on
the bank of this river, or canal, to await for further orders. Well just about
this time, this Price, he came over to me and said “What do you think of those
houses across the road there?”. Well there were brick houses, facing us, with
bricks knocked out, that looked like a wonderful spot to stick a machine gun
out of you know, or a rifle or anything like that. So I said “I don’t like the
look of it. All of us on this road here, we’re just sitting ducks.”.He said
“You know, I think we should go across that road and see what is in those
houses.”. So I said “fine.” So he said “Let’s get a couple of guys and go
across there.” So we got three other machine gunners, and uh, we went across.
Well when we got to the bridge, on a little knoll or hill off to our right we
could see Germans mounting machine guns. No doubt about that they were mounting
machine guns there. How many we didn’t know, but we walked across this steel
bridge and all we found in these houses were old Belgium people. And then the
machine guns opened up. Oh boy! They knocked bricks this house and knocked
shingles off and hit this bridge we had come across. It looked like an emery
wheel the way the bullets were ricocheting off that steel, you know. But these
were brick houses you know. There was a brick fence, ran around this first
house, so Price said “Let’s go outside and see what’s going on outside there”.
So the two of us went outside. All of a sudden – Bang! One shot came from way
up the end of the street there. Got him right through the back, and through the
heart, and he fell dead right in my arms there. It was not an accidental shot,
it was a sniper like you know. If there was two there they’d have got both of
us. And I leaned down behind the fence there and went in and got the other boys
and told them that he was killed, you know. What’s the matter, there was not a
sound, there’s suppose to be machine guns firing, everything is quiet. One said
“Wait ‘til we start across that bridge they’ll get us then.” But we walked the
bridge, no firing, nothing ever fired. And I went right up to Major Ross and
told him that Price was killed. Oh Jeez did he blow a fuse. “The War is over”
he said, “The war is over”. I said “Well I can’t help that”. He said “What the
hell did you go across there for? We had no orders to go across there.” I said
“We went across to look what was in those brick houses over there. They looked
like good spots for someone to pick us off there.” “Hell of a way to think that
would happen right when the war is over.” We never even thought about the war
being over then, you know. And poor old Price he never even knew that it was
over, you know. He was just doing his job. We didn’t always get orders to do
everything that we did.
Sources:
Richard
Laughton (from his interview with Art Goodmurphy 1979 – 1980)
10 novembre
|
|
The final Allied push towards the German
border began on October 17, 1918. As the British, French and American
armies advanced, the alliance between the Central Powers began to
collapse. Turkey signed an armistice at the end of October,
Austria-Hungary followed on November 3.
Germany began to crumble from within. Faced with the prospect of
returning to sea, the sailors of the High Seas Fleet stationed at Kiel
mutinied on October 29. Within a few days, the entire city was in their
control and the revolution spread throughout the country. On November 9
the Kaiser abdicated; slipping across the border into the Netherlands
and exile. A German Republic was declared and peace feelers extended to
the Allies. At 5 AM on the morning of November 11 an armistice was
signed in a railroad car parked in a French forest near the front
lines.
The terms of the agreement called for the cessation of fighting along
the entire Western Front to begin at precisely 11 AM that morning.
After over four years of bloody conflict, the Great War was at an end.
"...at the front there was no celebration."
Colonel Thomas Gowenlock served as an intelligence officer in the
American 1st Division. He was on the front line that November morning
and wrote of his experience a few years later:
"On the morning of November 11 I sat in my dugout in Le Gros Faux,
which was again our division headquarters, talking to our Chief of
Staff, Colonel John Greely, and Lieutenant Colonel Paul Peabody, our
G-1. A signal corps officer entered and handed us the following message:
|
Official Radio from Paris - 6:01 A.M., Nov. 11, 1918.
Marshal Foch to the Commander-in-Chief.
1. Hostilities will be stopped on the entire front beginning at 11 o'clock, November 11th (French hour).
2. The Allied troops will not go beyond the line reached at that hour on that date until further orders.
|
[signed]
MARSHAL FOCH
5:45 A.M.
|
'Well - fini la guerre!' said Colonel Greely.
'It sure looks like it,' I agreed.
'Do you know what I want to do now?' he said. 'I'd like to get on one
of those little horse-drawn canal boats in southern France and lie in
the sun the rest of my life.'
My watch said nine o'clock. With only two hours to go, I drove
over to the bank of the Meuse River to see the finish. The shelling was
heavy and, as I walked down the road, it grew steadily worse. It seemed
to me that every battery in the world was trying to burn up its guns.
At last eleven o'clock came - but the firing continued. The men on both
sides had decided to give each other all they had-their farewell to
arms. It was a very natural impulse after their years of war, but
unfortunately many fell after eleven o'clock that day.
All over the world on November 11, 1918, people were
celebrating, dancing in the streets, drinking champagne, hailing the
armistice that meant the end of the war. But at the front there was no
celebration. Many soldiers believed the Armistice only a temporary
measure and that the war would soon go on. As night came, the
quietness, unearthly in its penetration, began to eat into their souls.
The men sat around log fires, the first they had ever had at the front.
They were trying to reassure themselves that there were no enemy
batteries spying on them from the next hill and no German bombing
planes approaching to blast them out of existence. They talked in low
tones. They were nervous.
After the long months of intense strain, of keying themselves
up to the daily mortal danger, of thinking always in terms of war and
the enemy, the abrupt release from it all was physical and
psychological agony. Some suffered a total nervous collapse. Some, of a
steadier temperament, began to hope they would someday return to home
and the embrace of loved ones. Some could think only of the crude
little crosses that marked the graves of their comrades. Some fell into
an exhausted sleep. All were bewildered by the sudden meaninglessness
of their existence as soldiers - and through their teeming memories
paraded that swiftly moving cavalcade of Cantigny, Soissons, St.
Mihiel, the Meuse-Argonne and Sedan.
What was to come next? They did not know - and hardly cared.
Their minds were numbed by the shock of peace. The past consumed their
whole consciousness. The present did not exist-and the future was
inconceivable."
References:
Colonel Gowenlock's account appears in Gowenlock, Thomas R.,
Soldiers of Darkness (1936), reprinted in Angle, Paul, M., The American
Reader (1958); Simkins, Peter, World War I, the Western Front (1991).
How To Cite This Article:
"Armistice - The End of World War I, 1918," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2004).
|
The
following is the Democratic "common good" version of the old
favorite, the Ant and the Grasshopper:
Remember
the ant and the grasshopper?
OLD
VERSION . . .
The
ant works hard, in the withering heat, all summer long.
He builds his house and stores supplies for the winter.
The
grasshopper thinks that the ant is a fool.
He laughs, dances and plays the summer away, preparing nothing for the coming
winter.
Winter
comes, the ant is safe and warm.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
The
moral to the story being: BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEW
VERSION . . . (sad but true)
The
ant works hard, in the withering heat, all summer long.
He builds his house and stores supplies for the winter.
The
grasshopper thinks that the ant is a fool.
He laughs, dances and plays the summer away, preparing nothing for the coming
winter.
Winter
comes, the ant is safe and warm.
The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the
ant should be allowed to be warm and fed, while others are cold and starving!
CBS,
NBC, ABC & CNN show up to provide pictures of shivering grasshoppers, next
to a video of an ant in his comfortable home, with a table filled with food.
America
is stunned by the sharp contrast! How can this be, that in a country of such
wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer this way?
Kermit
the Frog appears on Oprah, with the grasshopper.
Everyone cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green".
Jesse
Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house, where the news
stations film the group singing "We Shall Overcome".
Jesse then has the group pray for the grasshopper's sake, and reminds the group
to contribute to his group, so that he can "continue the fight" for
grasshoppers, everywhere!
Ted
Kennedy & John Kerry exclaim, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, that the ant
has gotten rich, off the back of the poor grasshopper!
Both call for an immediate tax hike, to make the ant pay "his fair
share"!
Finally,
the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity For Grasshoppers Act",
retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The
ant is fined for failing to hire the proportionate number of green bugs and,
having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his house is confiscated by
the government.
Hillary
Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper, in a defamation
suit against the ant. The case is tried in federal court, with a jury comprised
of unemployed welfare recipients.
Surprise!
The ant loses the case!
The
story ends, as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's
food, while the government house he lives in (which happens to be the ant's old
house) crumbles around him,
due to lack of maintenance!
The
ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found, dead, in a drug-related incident.
The house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders, who terrorize
this once-peaceful neighborhood.
(As found on internet - Original author unknown)
1 novembre
I heard on a British TV show that the European Union
wants to move the “Green” revolution to its Military. They are preparing to
introduce legislation that will force military vehicles to reduce their
emissions and to adhere to the existing laws that already apply to commercial
cars, boats and planes. This will mean that the CO2 footprint will be reduced. So we will have
cleaner exhaust fumes at the end, while shooting with depleted uranium shells
at the front. It must be a great comfort to the enemy that they now will be
killed by machines with much improved emissions
12 octobre
Since your organization is a
politically appointed entity, and since the government is elected by the people
of this country, then technically speaking you are responsible at all times to
give information to the electorate. Furthermore, as I am a member of the
electing body, I am qualified to receive such reports. If you feel that this is
arrogance on my part, then you may feel that way. I don’t really care if you
feel that way or not. Whatever your feelings on the subject may be, your
establishment owes explanations to me, or any voter who asks for it.
As it happens I have been living abroad
for several decades, and ever since my return four years ago I first observed
the workings of your centre for equality and opposition to racism, I must
confess that from my point of view your association is firstly a costly white
elephant (pardon the pun), and secondly a biased waste of time and resources.
Biased towards the original population of this country. Frivolous lawsuits
against the indigenous people based on some second hand info or the “say-so” of
some person or group. Those lawsuits always are extensively milked in the
various media. Is this perhaps to appear to be busy and to justify the
ridiculous funds you receive?
It is a fact that I must yet hear about
or observe the first court case you would set in motion against a person or
group with roots outside this country for discriminating against a native. Am I
therefore to assume that only white people can be racist? One of your
foundation’s legal statements calls for “…respect for the basic rights of
foreigners” What
about the rights of our own population? Nowhere did I read anything about the
basic DUTIES of foreigners. I guess they only have rights and nothing else.
Reading further in the legalese language of your document nowhere is it stated
that your “personnel at the
Centre actively intervene and provide practical support to the victims” if
those same victims happen to be of white extraction. This creates the
impression that this section of the population can never be victims but only
perpetrators.
There are areas in Belgium which have
become no-go zones for us indigenous people. I feel discriminated. Can I rely
on your personnel to pursue this with the utmost urgency? Daily I hear about
illegal immigrants being housed in hotels at taxpayer’s expense while my mother
who worked her whole life can hardly afford anything on the pathetic pension
she’s being paid. This is also discrimination. Where was the centre when she
was mugged by these same foreigners with rights but no duties? Where was the
centre when in March a woman was murdered in a robbery by these people full of
rights? But of course this is not politically correct is it?
Don't
let anyone fool you that political correctness is just about being "nice
to people", tolerant and treating them with proper respect. That's called
good manners. Political correctness has been deliberately designed to subvert
free speech, debate and common sense, replacing these with a ruthlessly
enforced set of left wing ideas. Far from being tolerant, politically correct
people are the most intolerant of all people and have the worst manners. They
refuse to debate subjects (as their views don't stand up to the most elementary
scrutiny), preferring just to scream abuse at you.
Should
you question whether unfettered immigration into this country is necessarily a
good thing or perhaps whether immigrants should be health checked, then you
must be a nasty bigoted person. Political correctness is perpetrated by the
left in politics as a cover for their flawed ideology - a sort of cultural
Marxism. By cloaking their strange ideas under the cover of not wishing to
offend anyone (which naturally appeals to peoples' better nature), they try to
bypass debate and give a 'received wisdom' which must not be questioned. And
anyone who disagrees with this 'received wisdom' must therefore be a really
nasty person and deserves to be ostracized by their peers. This peer pressure
is instrumental in enforcing and expanding political correctness. This reeks of
despotism and megalomania.
I
see that you are prosecuting anyone with Nazi sympathies, and are against anti-Semitism.
Good for you. But why not go a bit further? Why don’t we also outlaw anything
to do with Communism since Russia and China were also responsible for as many
if not more deaths as Nazi Germany? Let’s ban T shirts with Che Guevara on it,
or Stalin, or Mao. Let’s also ban any literature to do with those repressive
regimes. After all, why just stop at only the Nazi regime? Oh I forgot, they
were anti Semitic. That’s right. I suppose Russia wasn’t, or the Arab world?
This should keep you busy with litigation well into the next century wouldn’t
you say?
You
guys love the term “multiculturalism”. I don’t need another culture thank you
very much. I am happy with the one I have. Of course you claim that this will
enrich my perspective. Still, of the so called cultures and religions that are
being imported here I want no part of. Why would I need to accept a new
religion that is preaching a return to standards that we have left behind
hundreds of years ago? I prefer the works of Shakespeare or Goethe, the works
of Leonardo or Vermeer, the technological progression of my own culture. You
may keep the others. I
am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of
civilians, cowardly attacks on
public buildings, suicide murders, the murder of film directors in Holland , and the rioting and looting in Paris
and Brussels. That is what
offends me. If some do not like the values of the West
maybe you can help and educate them about our rights as well. Of course they are free to leave if that is not too much to
ask of them.
Illegal
immigrants (if caught) are rarely deported. Those that are deported are just
the more honest ones who don't know how to play the system or haven't been
coached by the likes of you! Oh and have you got a long way to come to get
here? Why not hijack an airliner for the trip? Don't worry; we will still let
you stay! I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized,
and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it! I also think the cops have
the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color
you are. I am convinced 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.
I feel discriminated against because you appointed yourself
judge, jury and executioner over whom I have to accept as friend or am willing
to associate with, of what I can or cannot think or share, and how to live my
life. In any case, I do as I please.
I presume hereby that in view of your
insistence on multiculturalism you understand English.
25 août To: Mr. André Vanhaeverbeke, Chairman, Belgian Section, Association Internationale des Anciens des Communautés Européennes
Dear Sir,
For nearly three decades I have lived abroad. Away from the country of my birth. I was born in Flanders, and now for the past 3,5 years I have returned here. All this time I was unable to use the language of my birth and it is not surprising therefore that I write to you in English as it is best suited to express myself.
By chance I read through your publication (Nr 47) in which you defend the wearing of the headscarf, the Chador, and even the Burka in our Western Society. Furthermore, you echo the writings of our former (luckily) minister of culture earlier this year where you seem to, like him, have no tolerance for your own countrymen and women who seem to abhor this symbol of a foreign culture. Not only that, but you naively suggest we should accept this in the hope that Muslim girls will eventually get rid of this voluntarily. Sir, either you are really that naïve, or, what’s more likely, you just repeat parrot fashion the leftist nature of the European community who over the years has forced this so called multi cultural society on us. After all, why bite the hand that feeds you? Since this is more or less the same argument I had with our former minister, I shall incorporate some parts of my previous writings. Unlike you I do know what I am talking about when I touched on the subject of our culture being overrun by this backward and anachronistic religion and its rules. Of the thirty years I was away I have lived sixteen of those years in a predominantly Islamic neighborhood. This is not to say I am an expert, far from it, however I do think it qualifies me to talk about this.
“Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a vehicle for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world. “ (Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat)
The veiled woman has over the years become a symbol of Islamic self-assertion and a rejection of Western cultural hegemony. The issue of the veil has been hijacked to a degree by cultural essentialists. For Islamists rejection of Western modes of dress is not enough. Resistance and independence can only be demonstrated by wholesale affirmation of their culture. An American magazine (The Weekly Standard) did a survey in France (May 2003) and reported that it found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab did so because of physical threats. Muslim women in India, Iraq and other countries have been attacked and even killed for not adhering to strict Islamic dress code. So I ask you, if they reject our Western norms, why not let them depart to places where this dress code is fashion? Why reject our Western values, but not our medical care system, our unemployment benefits, our welfare system? Why not go a step further and do away with all Western stuff such as cell phones, cars, Ipods, TV, Radio, and go back to their religion in its purest form? Or is that too much to ask maybe?
Basically you are telling us Europeans are selfish and afraid of the unknown religions that swamp our country. In particular Islam. Why shouldn’t we be? It has taken us centuries to get where we want to be and in those centuries we finally have freed ourselves from the yoke of organized religion and have moved on with great strides because of it. Now you want us to accept that another religion comes over here and as guests force us, the host country, to accept a backwards and dangerous theocracy. This religion is the greatest danger the western world has ever faced and if unchecked will force their outdated worldviews on us. Does it not worry you that they call our women whores when they dress in ways Islam does not accept? Is it not OUR country? Does it not worry you that most violent protests are perpetrated by this section of citizens? Do you not see that they have nothing but contempt for our laws, for our lifestyle, for our culture? Or would you rather roll over and surrender to a foreign influence which is trying to make sure that the western world will be dragged back into the middle ages? And this time, it will take a lot longer to climb out from that abyss. The European Union has ensured that people have become second class citizens in their own countries by threatening with fines and jail terms anyone who speaks out against this state of affairs. People are afraid to be branded racists because they disagree with this section of the population. This multicultural society you praise so highly and try to force on us is an abject failure. Why are Belgians called before a court if they mistreat their spouses but not them? Why is it accepted that they can get away with the unequal treatment of women while it clearly states in our laws that this is forbidden? Why are they allowed to chant Anti Jewish and Anti Christian Slogans without fear of prosecution, while if one of our own is even suspected of harboring such thoughts is hauled before court so fast his feet won’t even touch the ground? All they have to do is yell “Discrimination!” and governments piss their pants.
Unlike you and your colleagues I have been on the front line in the struggle against terrorism. Unlike you I have seen first-hand what fundamentalists do to those they consider “Kafir” (unbelievers). Unlike you I paid my dues in blood, sweat, and tears. And maybe unlike you I do have a Qur’an at home. This book has 114 chapters named Surahs and are not in chronological order but according to length. Many verses are contradicting themselves, so according to Surah 2:106 only the later verses are valid. i.e. Surah 9 is extremely violent and will render all previous peaceful passages null and void.
Muslims may never question or doubt the Qur’an (Surah 2:1) Muslims may not have as friends anyone from a different faith (Surah 5:51) “O, you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as your friends and protectors… It is the task of Muslims to kill non-Muslims (Surah 9:5) …then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…. It is ok to terrorize non-believers (Surah 8:12) Muslims are required to lie to non-believers to help Islam (Surah 3:28 & 16:106). Non-believers have 3 options: a) they can die, b) they convert to Islam & c) Pay Jizya (religious tax) so they will be left alive (Surah 9:29). Non-Muslims are bad people who deserve no mercy (Surah 98:6). Corporal punishment for women is allowed (Surah 4:34). If a woman has been raped she will need 4 male witnesses as proof. (Surah 24:13). The whole of chapter 8 is called “The spoils of war” and deals with the fact that robbery and theft from non-believers is a good deed. Marrying an underage child is allowed (Surah 65:4) Even Mohammed did so. He was 51 when he married Aisha who was 6 at the time. At 54 (when she was 9) he consummated the marriage. There is evidence that the number of Islamic child brides in Europe and England is increasing. Shariah courts and law are now officially recognized in cities across England, even as domestic abuse of Islamic women increases. There are reports that estimate there are now between 50,000 and 100,000 polygamous Muslim marriages in the U.S.
As Europe and England have learned, radical Islamists have a different definition of “co-existing” than we do. “Co-existing” ultimately means our values; traditions and practices must give way to theirs.
Don't let anyone fool you that political correctness is just about being "nice to people", tolerant and treating them with proper respect. That's called good manners. Political correctness has been deliberately designed to subvert free speech, debate and common sense, replacing these with a ruthlessly enforced set of left wing ideas. Far from being tolerant, politically correct people are the most intolerant of all people and have the worst manners. They refuse to debate subjects (as their views don't stand up to the most elementary scrutiny), preferring just to scream abuse at you. Should you question whether unfettered immigration into this country is necessarily a good thing or perhaps whether immigrants should be health checked, then you must be a nasty bigoted person.
So as you can see, I happen to disagree with your perspective.
1 juillet
Yankton, South Dakota: A woman was arrested at her step son's Boy Scout meeting. While watching a policeman demonstrate his drug dog's ability, the dog found a bag of grass in her purse.
Colorado Springs: A guy walked into a little corner store with a shotgun and demanded all the cash from the cash drawer. After the cashier put the cash in a bag, the robber saw a bottle of scotch that he wanted behind the counter on the shelf.
He told the cashier to put it in the bag as well, but he refused and said "Because I don't believe you are over 21."
The robber said he was, but the clerk still refused to give it to him because he didn't believe him. At this point the robber took his driver’s license out of his wallet and gave it to the clerk. The clerk looked it over, and agreed that the man was in fact over 21 and he put the scotch in the bag. The robber then ran from the store with his loot.
The cashier promptly called the police and gave the name and address of the robber that he got off the license. They arrested the robber two hours later.
A woman was reporting her car as stolen and mentioned that there was a car phone in it. The policeman taking the report called the phone and told the guy that answered that he had read the ad in the newspaper and wanted to buy the car. They arranged to meet, and the thief was arrested.
San Francisco: A man, wanting to rob a downtown Bank of America, walked into the branch and wrote "this iz a stikkup.Put all your muny in this bag."
While standing in line, waiting to give his note to the teller, he began to worry that someone had seen him write the note and might call the police before he reached the teller window. So he left the Bank of America and crossed the street to Wells Fargo.
After waiting a few minutes in line, he handed his note to the Wells Fargo teller. She read it and, surmising from his spelling errors that he was not the brightest light in the harbor, told him that she could not accept his stickup note because it was written on a Bank of America deposit slip and that he would either have to fill out a Wells Fargo deposit slip or go back to Bank of America. Looking somewhat defeated, the man said "OK" and left.
The Wells Fargo teller then called the police who arrested the man a few minutes later, as he was waiting in line back at Bank of America.
From England: A motorist was unknowingly caught in an automated speed trap that measured his speed using radar and photographed his car.
He later received in the mail a ticket for 40 Pounds and a photo of his car. Instead of payment, he sent the police department a photograph of 40 Pounds. Several days later, he received a letter from the police that contained another picture...of handcuffs. The motorist promptly sent the money for the fine.
Drug Possession Defendant Christopher Jansen, on trial in March in Pontiac, Michigan, said he had been searched without a warrant. The prosecutor said the officer didn't need a warrant because a "bulge" in Christopher's jacket could have been a gun.
"Nonsense," said Christopher, who happened to be wearing the same jacket that day in court. He handed it over so the judge could see it. The judge discovered a packet of cocaine in the pocket and laughed so hard he required a five minute recess to compose himself.
Oklahoma City: Dennis Newton was on trial for the armed robbery of a convenience store in district court when he fired his lawyer. Assistant district attorney Larry Jones said Newton, 47, was doing a fair job of defending himself until the store manager testified that Newton was the
robber. Newton jumped up, accused the woman of lying and then said, "I should have blown your fucking head off." The defendant paused, then quickly added, "If I'd been the one that was there." The jury took 20 minutes to convict Newton and recommended a 30-year sentence.
Detroit: R.C. Gaitlan, 21, walked up to two patrol officers who were showing their squad car computer felon-location equipment to children in a Detroit neighborhood. When he asked how the system worked, the officer asked him for identification. Gaitlan gave them his driver’s license, they entered it into the computer, and moments later they arrested Gaitlan because information on the screen showed Gaitlan was wanted for a two-year-old armed robbery in St. Louis, Missouri.
Another from Detroit: A pair of Michigan robbers entered a record shop nervously waving revolvers. The first one shouted, "Nobody move!" When his partner moved, the startled first bandit shot him.
THE WINNER
A Charlotte, NC, man having purchased a case of very rare, very expensive cigars insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of cigars and without having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim
against the insurance company. In his claim, the man stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The man sued.... and won. In delivering the ruling
the judge agreeing that the claim was frivolous, stated nevertheless that the man held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure against fire, without defining what it considered to be “unacceptable fire," and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he lost in "the fires." After the man cashed the check, however, the company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.
29 juin
Rule One:
If you pull into my driveway and honk you'd better be delivering a package, because you're sure not picking anything up.
Rule Two:
You do not touch my daughter in front of me. You may glance at her, so long as you do not peer at anything below her neck. If you cannot keep your eyes or hands off of my daughter's body, I will remove them.
Rule Three:
I am aware that it is considered fashionable for boys of your age to wear their trousers so loosely that they appear to be falling off their hips. Please don't take this as an insult, but you and all of your friends are complete idiots. Still, I want to be fair and open minded about this issue, so I propose this compromise: You may come to the door with your underwear showing and your pants ten sizes too big, and I will not object. However, in order to ensure that your clothes do not, in fact, come off during the course of your date with my daughter, I will take my electric nail gun and fasten your trousers securely in place to your waist.
Rule Four:
I'm sure you've been told that in today's world, sex without utilizing a "barrier method" of some kind can kill you. Let me elaborate, when it comes to sex, I am the barrier, and I will kill you.
Rule Five:
It is usually understood that in order for us to get to know each other, we should talk about sports, politics, and other issues of the day. Please do not do this. The only information I require from you is an indication of when you expect to have my daughter safely back at my house, and the only word I need from you on this subject is "early."
Rule Six:
I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little girl, you will continue to date no one but her until she is finished with you. If you make her cry, I will make you cry.
Rule Seven:
As you stand in my front hallway, waiting for my daughter to appear, and more than an hour goes by, do not sigh and fidget. If you want to be on time for the movie, you should not be dating. My daughter is putting on her makeup, a process that can take longer than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. Instead of just standing there, why don't you do something useful, like changing the oil in my car?
Rule Eight:
The following places are not appropriate for a date with my daughter:
Places where there are beds, sofas, or anything softer than a wooden stool.
Places where there are no parents, policemen, or nuns within eyesight.
Places where there is darkness. Places where there is dancing, holding hands, or happiness. Places where the ambient temperature is warm enough to induce my daughter to wear shorts, tank tops, midriff T-shirts, or anything other than overalls, a sweater, and a goose down parka - zipped up to her throat. Movies with a strong romantic or sexual theme are to be avoided; movies which features chain saws are okay. Hockey games are okay. Old folks homes are better.
Rule Nine:
Do not lie to me. I may appear to be a potbellied, middle-aged, dimwitted has-been. But on issues relating to my daughter, I am the all-knowing, merciless god of your universe. If I ask you where you are going and with whom, you have one chance to tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I have a shotgun, a shovel, and five acres behind the house. Do not trifle with me.
Rule Ten:
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It takes very little for me to mistake the sound of your car in the driveway for a chopper coming in over a rice paddy near Hanoi. When my Agent Orange starts acting up, the voices in my head frequently tell me to clean the guns as I wait for you to bring my daughter home. As soon as you pull into the driveway you should exit your car with both hands in plain sight. Speak the perimeter password, announce in a clear voice that you have brought my daughter home safely and early, then return to your car - there is no need for you to come inside. The camouflaged face at the window is mine.
27 juin
When his .38-calibre revolver failed to fire at its intended victim during a hold-up in Long Beach, California, robber James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder: he peered down the barrel and tried the trigger
again. Happily for most concerned, this time it worked.
The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat-cutting machine and, after a little peremptory hopping around, submitted a claim to his insurance company. The company, suspecting negligence, sent out one of its
men to have a look. He tried the machine out and lost a finger. The chef's claim was approved.
Surprised while burgling a house in Antwerp, Belgium, a thief fled out the back door, clambered over a nine-foot wall, dropped down the other side, and found himself in the city prison.
In Bermuda in 1975 a man on a motor scooter was knocked down and killed by a taxi. Exactly a year earlier the same driver in the same taxi, carrying the same passenger, had knocked down and killed the motor-scooter rider's brother, on the same street, riding the same scooter.
An American tourist in South America had the decidedly grave misfortune to be attacked by Killer bees as he stood on the bank of the Amazon. Seeking refuge, he leaped into the river and was devoured by piranha fish.
A Malaysian monkey that had been trained to gather coconuts from trees demonstrated a pressing need for a refresher course when it leaped onto the shoulders of a passer-by in Kuala Lumpur and tried to twist his head off. The passer-by was treated at a local hospital for a sprained neck.
In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a sixteen-year-old youth was charged with beating up his fifteen-year-old wife after the latter hid the caps to his toy pistol.
A man who shovelled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her dead.
After shooting and wounding his wife and young son, Louis Pilar of Rheims, France, told police that a three-week strike by television technicians was to blame. 'There was nothing to look at,' he explained, 'and I was bored.
Fortunately his wife did not seem to mind being shot at. From her hospital bed she said: 'I don't blame my husband. It really was very boring in the evenings.'
|
|
|
|
Outils 
Envoyer un message privé
Conseiller à un ami
Ajouter à Mon MSN
Ajouter à votre réseau
Inscrivez-vous à des alertes
