Strands #301 “Festival Of Lights...
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Prompted by AOG's Q and final comment below..
Is there any comparison between those who refused to entertain the idea that the Nazi's where a threat in the 30's with todays Islam apologists? Churchill was originally labelled an alarmist nutter by the liberal Elite but even they eventually woke up, too late, they needed saving by those they dispised. Is history repeating itself with the current creeping Islamasization? Will the Islamophiles wake up when their cozy little lives are threatened with serious change?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Or, another question could be...
Is there a comparison with those who believed the Nazis when the said that foreigners (jews) were taking over the country (Gremany) and were trying to impose their religion and culture on the country, (which led to led to Hilter, and World war) and the people who believe the same of Muslims in this country now.
Is there a comparison with those who believed the Nazis when the said that foreigners (jews) were taking over the country (Gremany) and were trying to impose their religion and culture on the country, (which led to led to Hilter, and World war) and the people who believe the same of Muslims in this country now.
Theland1
But the Muslims aren't bombing and plotting to bomb Brits in Britain.
Muslim extremists are...I grant you...but what the Islamophobes are trying to do is exactly what the Muslim extremists are trying to do...
...they're trying to start a war between Islam and the West. Simple as that. And for the record, the opposite of 'Islamophic' is 'moderate'. We are in the majority. It's the extremists (both those who fear/despise Islam and those who fear/despise the West) who are making life rubbish for those of us in the middle who just want to get on with life and are fed up with the claims and counter-claims of both groups.
But the Muslims aren't bombing and plotting to bomb Brits in Britain.
Muslim extremists are...I grant you...but what the Islamophobes are trying to do is exactly what the Muslim extremists are trying to do...
...they're trying to start a war between Islam and the West. Simple as that. And for the record, the opposite of 'Islamophic' is 'moderate'. We are in the majority. It's the extremists (both those who fear/despise Islam and those who fear/despise the West) who are making life rubbish for those of us in the middle who just want to get on with life and are fed up with the claims and counter-claims of both groups.
R1Geezer
To answer your question - yes...you could easily compare "those who refused to entertain the idea that the Nazi's where a threat in the 30's with todays Islam apologists" but it is so far-fetched that even the Daily Mail hasn't dared utter it.
I'm no expert on Islam, but I'm pretty certain that the aims of Islam and the aims of the Nazi party are not the same.
Can't prove that, but like I say - I'm no expert.
To answer your question - yes...you could easily compare "those who refused to entertain the idea that the Nazi's where a threat in the 30's with todays Islam apologists" but it is so far-fetched that even the Daily Mail hasn't dared utter it.
I'm no expert on Islam, but I'm pretty certain that the aims of Islam and the aims of the Nazi party are not the same.
Can't prove that, but like I say - I'm no expert.
The reason the Daily Mail will not draw this parallel is simple, sp1814: In the 1930s the Mail itself was all in favour of fascism and Oswald Mosley, leader of the British fascist party, in particular. (It's his son who is currently suing the News of the World for claiming he held Nazi-style orgies with prostitutes.)
'Hurrah for the Blackshirts!' was a famous Mail headline.
The problem with the Nazis wasn't that they were Nazis but that they ran a government. As an ideology, like say al-Qaeda, they couldn't have done much. As a party running Germany they were able to build up the military and start wars. Al-Qaeda can't do that. There are countries with Islamic governments, of course, but none of them is declaring war on the west. So that's why the comparison doesn't work.
'Hurrah for the Blackshirts!' was a famous Mail headline.
The problem with the Nazis wasn't that they were Nazis but that they ran a government. As an ideology, like say al-Qaeda, they couldn't have done much. As a party running Germany they were able to build up the military and start wars. Al-Qaeda can't do that. There are countries with Islamic governments, of course, but none of them is declaring war on the west. So that's why the comparison doesn't work.
This is what I've gleaned so far (from Wikipedia):
Nazism was not a monolithic movement, but rather a (mainly German) combination of various ideologies and groups, sparked by anger at the Treaty of Versailles and what was considered to have been a Jewish/Communist conspiracy
I think we need to establish whether we believe that Islam has both a religious or political ideology, and whether it has a central aim (the Islamification of the West?)
If that is the case, then you could argue that like any ideology (from communism to Christianity to capitalism) it will either succeed or fail based on whether the people want it.
You absolutely without doubt cannot 'Islamify' a country if the people don't want it.
I reckon that the best way forward is for people to stop treating Islam and Muslims as the enemy within. If we carry on doing that then we only have ourselves to blame if young Muslim men get sway by the bile spewed forth by the Immans.
Did I mis-spell 'Immans'???
Nazism was not a monolithic movement, but rather a (mainly German) combination of various ideologies and groups, sparked by anger at the Treaty of Versailles and what was considered to have been a Jewish/Communist conspiracy
I think we need to establish whether we believe that Islam has both a religious or political ideology, and whether it has a central aim (the Islamification of the West?)
If that is the case, then you could argue that like any ideology (from communism to Christianity to capitalism) it will either succeed or fail based on whether the people want it.
You absolutely without doubt cannot 'Islamify' a country if the people don't want it.
I reckon that the best way forward is for people to stop treating Islam and Muslims as the enemy within. If we carry on doing that then we only have ourselves to blame if young Muslim men get sway by the bile spewed forth by the Immans.
Did I mis-spell 'Immans'???
jno
To go off topic for a moment...
The Max Mosley thing is possibly the funniest news story I've ever read.
"I sometimes like to put on a German accent whilst taking part in S&M sessions because as a language, it sounds very authoritative"
I read that at Kings Cross Station this morning and didn't finish laughing until Tufnell Park.
What a star.
To go off topic for a moment...
The Max Mosley thing is possibly the funniest news story I've ever read.
"I sometimes like to put on a German accent whilst taking part in S&M sessions because as a language, it sounds very authoritative"
I read that at Kings Cross Station this morning and didn't finish laughing until Tufnell Park.
What a star.
The Nazi party in the 30's had seized power in Germany were re-arming at an incredible rate.
They had a stable power base and a large industrial might. They had a large modern mechanised army, navy and airforce.
They had started annexing other countries.
In Britain we had persued a policy of disarmament and the US had persued a policy of isolationism.
Today Islamists do not reall haved any of those positions and the UK is a highly armed nuclear nation with a global reach.
I think your comparisom is a flight of fancy.
I think it will be a while before we see Iranian invasion barges in the channel
They had a stable power base and a large industrial might. They had a large modern mechanised army, navy and airforce.
They had started annexing other countries.
In Britain we had persued a policy of disarmament and the US had persued a policy of isolationism.
Today Islamists do not reall haved any of those positions and the UK is a highly armed nuclear nation with a global reach.
I think your comparisom is a flight of fancy.
I think it will be a while before we see Iranian invasion barges in the channel
If memory serves Chamberlain was elected on a policy of rearmament.
The language of Islamic fundamentalism is very reminiscent of Naziism just substitute 'Kuffar' for 'Jew'' the 'unbelivers' face a similar predicament as our ancestors in 1940 alot German Jews and Italians (Mussolini was a fascist not a racist) had fled their countries only to be interned.
I tend sometimes to feel like it's 1938 all over again, but that said Bush is no Churchill...
The language of Islamic fundamentalism is very reminiscent of Naziism just substitute 'Kuffar' for 'Jew'' the 'unbelivers' face a similar predicament as our ancestors in 1940 alot German Jews and Italians (Mussolini was a fascist not a racist) had fled their countries only to be interned.
I tend sometimes to feel like it's 1938 all over again, but that said Bush is no Churchill...
I don't think you can compare Islam with the Nazis, however, I don't think anyone can deny that certain sections of that religion have openly stated that they want to Islamise this country,
This is certainly worth a read,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-103318 9/This-country-pro-Muslim-giving-succour-extre mists-destroy-us.html
This is certainly worth a read,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-103318 9/This-country-pro-Muslim-giving-succour-extre mists-destroy-us.html
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.