Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Quei comunisti del Financial Times sul grande complotto islamico

http://tinyurl.com/3a995l
Richiede registrazione. E' gratuita.
-- 
                          Annarella
       When did ignorance become a point of view?
                        (Scott Adams)
 
http://danzasullacqua.wordpress.com

                          Annarella
#_Annarella! Un copia / incolla (1 uno) e`legale lo stesso e risparmia dal 
moltiplicarsi degli SPAM... evita inoltre di restituirli alla loro sorella!
Grazie!
G. 



Ecchilo:
The crescent and the cross
By Simon Kuper
Published: November 10 2007 02:00 | Last updated: November 10 2007 02:00
Books Essay
A wave of polemics argues that Europe is sleepwalking towards Muslim
domination ' or actively conspiring in it. Simon Kuper discovers the
strange world of 'Eurabia'
While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within
by Bruce Bawer Doubleday $23.95, 256 pages
The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent
by Walter Laqueur Thomas Dunne £12.99, 256 pages
Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within
by Melanie Phillips Gibson Square £8.99, 384 pages
Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis
by Bat Ye'or 
Farleigh Dickinson University Press £15.50, 384 pages
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was written in the 1890s, possibly by
the Russian-French journalist Matthieu Golovinski, and spread by the
Tsarist secret police. A forgery, it claimed to be the manual of a Jewish
conspiracy to rule the world.
Bat Ye'or, author of the little-read but influential book Eurabia,
repeatedly mentions the Protocols. Well she might, because Eurabia has been
described as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in reverse. Bat Ye'or is
Hebrew for ''daughter of the Nile'', the pseudonym of a woman who fled
Egypt as a Jew in 1957 and now lives in Switzerland. In Eurabia, she
purports to reveal an Arab-European conspiracy to rule the world.
Though ludicrous, Eurabia became the spiritual mother of a genre. Ye'or's
genius was to bridge two waves of anti-European books: those of 2002-03,
which said Europe had gone anti-Semitic again, and those of 2006-07, which
say Europe is being conquered by Muslims.
The four books here provide a fair summary of the ''Eurabia'' genre. False
as they are, their existence reveals something about the geopolitical
moment.
A fixed trope of ''Eurabia'' books is the writer behaving as though only he
or she and a few other resistance heroes see Europe's impending doom. Bruce
Bawer, a US journalist living in Oslo, credits his aunt for coming up with
his title, While Europe Slept, but Melanie Phillips sees Britain as forever
asleep too. ''Only if we take up this civilisational gauntlet that has been
thus thrown down at us will we stop sleepwalking to defeat,'' she concludes
her book. (Phillips writes for the Daily Mail, and reading Londonistan
feels like being imprisoned with a never-ending Mail editorial.)
All these authors start with disclaimers that not all Muslims support
terrorist jihad. This is then swiftly forgotten as the plans for jihad in
Europe are outlined. Ye'or, for whom Muslims are always the same, describes
jihad as a 1,400-year-old strategy. Like Bawer, she explains that ''they''
never got over losing Andalusia in 1492.
Mixed with the hysteria are kernels of truth. Phillips' Londonistan rightly
recalls that in the 1990s the British authorities let many radical
jihadists settle in London. Some later plotted terrorism against the UK.
Phillips leaps from this to claiming that Britons cannot see the terrorist
threat. However, this is rather negated by the fact that almost all her
information about British terrorism comes from British newspapers.
About 16 million nominal Muslims live in the European Union, less than 4
per cent of the EU population. A tiny minority are terrorists. Nobody sane
denies that. But the ''Eurabia'' theorists - with the partial exception of
Walter Laqueur, the most judicious of them - seem to regard the mass of
Muslims as the enemy. Phillips sees ''a continuum that links peaceful,
law-abiding but nevertheless intensely ideological Muslims at one end and
murderous jihadists at the other''.
A favourite rhetorical trick of these writers is the pars pro toto:
isolated examples of Islamic extremism come to stand for a vast Muslim
movement. It's true, as Laqueur twice notes, that one group said: ''We
shall hoist our flags over 10 Downing Street.'' But this is atypical.
European Muslims almost all vote for mainstream parties, mostly of the
left. In surveys the great majority profess satisfaction with their lives
in Europe.
But in these books, the Islamic notion of the global umma (community)
becomes reality: all Muslims, wherever they are born, Sunni or Shia, doctor
and dock-worker, march behind the same green banner. (Again, only Laqueur
notes the many rifts.) Because Muslims are united, it's possible to
generalise about them in ways that we sleeping Europeans might consider
deeply questionable. Bawer writes: ''For these beurs - the universal term
of the French-born progeny of North African immigrants - the meaning of
life is derived from their hatred for French society.'' Bawer,
incidentally, is even-handed in his ethnic jibes: a white Frenchman's
remarks are dismissed as ''Gallic jibber-jabber''. Or here is Laqueur, on
younger European Muslims: ''The rapping' is as ugly as their language,
consisting mainly of expletives and curses, the lingo of the underworld'
devoid of even a trace of humor, as in Cockney or the Berlin patois.''
According to the ''Eurabia'' thesis, these youths will inherit Europe. They
pump out babies while white Europeans are barren. Laqueur portrays a future
Europe in which some countries have Muslim majorities.
He does grant that birth rates are likely significantly to decrease
''eventually in the Middle East and North Africa''. In fact, they already
have. In 1970 Algerian and Moroccan women averaged about seven children
each. Today the Moroccan figure is below three, while the CIA World
Factbook estimates the Algerian, Turkish and Tunisian figures at below two,
lower than France's. No serious demographer expects an Islamic takeover.
The other problem with forecasting numbers of European Muslims in 2100 is
the premise that sixth-generation European Muslims will still be a foreign
body in the continent - Islam as a bacillus that even secular former
Muslims carry around, forever dangerous.
In the imagined ''Eurabia'', the Muslims are taking over. Europeans aren't
resisting. In fact, it is 1938 again, or in Bawer's phrase, ''Europe's
Weimar moment''. A keyword of the ''Eurabia'' genre is therefore
''appeasement'' - once of Hitler, now of Muslims. Phillips urges a
British-American alliance, as ''when they stood shoulder to shoulder
against Nazi Germany'', with the US providing ''muscle'' and Britain
''backbone''. But unfortunately, Britain has gone wobbly. She expects this
will prove fatal, because it is correct ''at least in part'' to see ''Islam
as a successor to Nazism and communism''. It follows, for all four authors,
that another exodus or Holocaust of Europe's Jews is likely, though Laqueur
grants that ''by taking a low profile they might be able to survive in the
new conditions''.
Why is Europe supine? (Sorry - the ''Eurabia'' habit of grand rhetorical
questions is infectious.) Ye'or has the fullest theory. She explains that
something called the ''Euro-Arab Dialogue'' - with a permanent secretariat
of 350 members, and a seat in Paris - runs a plot to hand over Europe to
the Arabs, and to destroy Israel. ''In just thirty years (1973-2003), the
Euro-Arab Dialogue has successfully brought about the mutation of European
civilization, giving birth to a hybrid culture: Eurabia - as foreseen in
1969 in Cairo by the European Committee for Coordination of Friendship
Associations with the Arab World.'' In her book if nowhere else, the EU has
a united foreign policy.
The ''Euro-Arab Dialogue'' is so secret that hardly anyone knows it exists
except Ye'or and Saleh al-Mani, who wrote a book about it in shaky English
in 1983. It seems probable that ''European-Arab dialogue'' (EAD) is a
phrase European officials and academics occasionally use to describe the
talking shops they convene with Arabs, as with all other regions, and that
Ye'or may have decided to capitalise the ''d'' in ''dialogue''. Certainly
she believes that history is made by conferences. Her book is full of dark
references to events such as ''the 1977 Euro-Arab seminar of Venice'',
''organized in order to promote the diffusion in Europe of the knowledge of
the Arab language and civilization''. The EAD's plot accounts for
Europeans' otherwise mystifying opposition to the Iraq war. The anti-war
demonstrations of 2003, Ye'or explains, were ''anti-Jewish
demonstrations'', ''in favor of Saddam Hussein'', or of Yassir Arafat, or
''mass anti-American demonstrations''.
Phillips has a different theory about Britain's demise. Wonderfully, it
unites all the enemies of her journalistic career. Jihad is conquering
Britain because intellectuals, transsexuals, judges, Antonio Gramsci, the
human-rights brigade, gays who adopt children, etcetera, have destroyed the
country's confidence in its own values. So Phillips' former employer, The
Guardian, is ''a virtual mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood'', while
Islamic jihad is ''the armed wing of the British left''.
The sailor in the Royal Navy who received legal permission ''to carry out
Satanic rituals aboard the frigate HMS Cumberland'' crops up not once but
twice in Phillips' book, which like Ye'or's could have been cut by half
without losing substance. Tabloid-speak takes up a lot of space: ''A
seismic development within the Arab world was to cement and expand the
Muslim hatred of the Jews being fanned by the Nazi flames.''
Admittedly it's courageous of Phillips to keep supporting the Iraq war in
the face of all evidence. She is a bitter-ender. Reading her is to be
transported back to the bright neocon morning of 2002. Now as then, good
confronts evil. For Phillips as for Ye'or, Israel is always right, and the
Palestinians (Ye'or argues there is no such thing) always wrong.
Laqueur is a more geostrategic thinker than the others (and more pompous).
An august American historian born in Weimar Germany in 1921, he worries
about Europe's diminishing global role. To him history is a
winner-takes-all game that Europe is losing, with its shrinking population
and armies, and its modest economic growth. This is such a non-European
point of view that it's hard even to argue with. If things are so bad in
Europe, why are they so good? The continent since 1945 has lost
geopolitical power but gained probably the best quality of life in global
history. People in the EU live longer than anywhere else ever except Japan,
are richer than any previous generation, have far more leisure time than
Americans, and have avoided wars on their own soil for 60 years. Laqueur
acknowledges much of this. As for the future, Europe is doing more than
other regions to fight climate change, a topic ignored in ''Eurabia''
literature. (Phillips has dismissed ''the global warming fraud'' as ''utter
garbage''.) Nor will Europeans be conquered by Muslims with collapsing
birth rates, the overwhelming majority of whom say in surveys that they
oppose terrorism.
Yes, that leaves about 15 per cent of European Muslims who profess sympathy
for violence, and a tiny group willing to commit it. Islamic terrorists
have committed about as much carnage in Europe in the last dozen years as
far-left terrorists did in the 1970s. This is not Armageddon. But to
concede that would render ''Eurabia'' literature pointless. Its target
market seems to be the US. Of the four books only Londonistan seems to have
had much circulation in Britain, probably because hardly anybody who
actually lives in Europe could take these dystopias seriously. The only way
to interest many US readers in Europe's tame politics is to predict
catastrophe. Bawer, for instance, warns of ''the end of the West as we know
it - and perhaps the beginning of the end of freedom, too''.
These are polemics, not reports. Any source will do: Bawer cites Ye'or, an
Amsterdam taxi driver, a woman in a Swedish bar, or often no source at all.
In Laqueur's book, a planned mosque for ''40,000 faithful'' in east London
apparently pops up again 34 pages later as ''a mega mosque' planned to
accommodate 70,000 worshippers''.
But the many factual errors in most of these books may be beside the point.
The ''Eurabia'' genre does not belong to the ''reality-based community''.
Rather, it exists to meet emotional needs. Its anti-Europeanism is a
satisfying retort to European anti-Americanism. It also has a political
message: if the Europeans, America's traditional allies, have folded before
Islam, then the US must go it alone.

 By Simon Kuper
Mr. Simon Kuper č da standing ovation. Grazie, Annarella.
Namib 

Rather, it exists to meet emotional needs.
Il modo migliore per aprire le porte al nemico è quello di negarne
l'esistenza.
L'Europa è uno spazio di libertà. Dopo la condanna a morte di Rushdie
e l'assassinio di Van Gogh, i musulmani ci hanno già limitato la
libertà di espressione. La trasformazione dell'Europa in Eurabia è già
in corso, anche se solo agli inizi. Può darsi che il processo possa
tornare anche indietro, se sapremo fare apprezzare ai musulmani il
valore della libertà, del pluralismo e della democrazia e se sapremo
neutralizzarne le teste calde.

 neutralizzarne le teste calde.
Quid, capisco che ti abbiano smontato il tuo complotto preferito, ma hai
presente cos'e' il Financial Times VERO ?!?


 wrote in message 
news:1y2d95unz1lwi.1...@40tude.net...

#_Abbracciasse e baciasse le mani, Annare'
Grazie!
Giano 



Annarella, tu non hai smontato proprio niente.
Io non sto parlando di complotti, ma di realtà
Ti sentiresti tranquilla nel pubblicare un libro di vignette
sull'islam? In Europa non possiamo più farlo, se lo fai, ti devono
assegnare la scorta armata. E' ora che te ne accorgi! :-)

 assegnare la scorta armata. E' ora che te ne accorgi! :-)
ROTFL scusa ma mi viene da ridere perche' mi pare che tu l'articolo o non
l'hai letto o non hai capito bene di cosa si parli.
Tu mi stai citando due casi eclatanti. Due.
La prima causa di morte violenta femminile, in Europa, e' la violenza
famigliare.
Una donna, in Europa, ha molte piu' possibilita' di finire
massacrata/uccisa dal suo compagno di vita che, eventualmente, da un
possibile attentatore.
Ora applicando il tuo ragionamento, se tanto mi da tanto, ogni donna
europea dovrebbe temere molto piu' te che un qualsiasi potenziale
attentatore.
Inizia a pensarci, potenzialmente potresti essere visto come un qualsiasi
musulmano.


 wrote:

Annarella, mi sto cominciando a stufare.
Sposati un bel magrebino e poi ne riparleremo.
Passo e chiudo!