After the Great War, under the Treaty of Saint-Germain in 1919, several million ethnic Germans living in a region known as the Sudetenland (a part of Bohemia and Moravia) were included in the new state of Czechoslovakia. The relations between the Sudeten Germans and the Czechs remained a bone of contention during the interwar years.

Adolf Hitler appointed himself the protector of the Germans in the Sudetenland, and various incidents — some real, some manufactured — were used to inflame German public opinion about the oppression of the Sudeten Germans by the Czechs. The growing tensions culminated in the Munich Agreement in September of 1938, in which Czechoslovakia surrendered the Sudetenland to Germany under pressure from Britain and France. Czechoslovakia was fatally weakened by the loss of the Sudetenland, and the entire country was occupied and annexed into the Reich in March of the following year.

I bring all this up because the current situation of ethnic Turks within Germany bears an uncanny similarity to the Sudeten crisis. The parallels are not exact — the Germans had been resident in the Sudetenland for centuries, whereas the Turks have been in Germany for less than fifty years — but still, the analogy is compelling.

(Photoshop by Europe News; original by Cox and Forkum)


Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has set himself up as the protector of German Turks, and the Turkish government and the news media in Turkey have whipped up the Ludwigshafen fire into a crisis in Turkish-German relations. The recent DDOS attack against Europe News and various German blogs was trumpeted by the Turkish nationalists who did the hacking as revenge for the fire.

Henrik of Europe News sends the following summary of the Ludwigshafen fire:
– – – – – – – – –

Excessive Turkish reactions to the fire in Ludwigshafen

While Denial of Service attacks and cracking into servers is annoying, what is more sinister is the background and the behavior of the Turkish press and politicians. They reacted to a bit of graffiti on the burned-out building, as if graffiti weren’t everywhere in Germany, and jumped to the conclusion that this would most likely be the beginning of a new wave of racist attacks on Turks in Germany, like the racist arson attack in Solingen in 1993.

By reacting in this way, however fickle the evidence, the Turkish politicians are posing as the protectors of Turks in Germany, disregarding the fact that Germany has a fine legal system. That includes the Turkish prime minister Erdogan visiting the place of the fire, holding a joint press conference with Angela Merkel and lots of press articles recalling the, implying that now a new wave of racist attacks against Turks is looming. Indicative of the distrust from the Turkish side, a Turkish investigation team was sent to the site as well — Germans should be perfectly able to examine the site themselves.

This spectacle by the Turkish politicians ignores the fact that the fire-fighters were doing a marvelous job (no ‘racism’ here), that the cause of the fire is still unknown after four days of investigation and might be simply bad electric circuits. Also ignored is the context that the 1993 attack was extensively exploited by Turkish investment groups to discourage Turks in Germany from investing their hard-earned money in Germany. Later these Turkish investment groups went into bankruptcy, losing €25 billion in a network of AKP-connected businessmen (and probably AKP itself). The potential gains by creating another Solingen-like crisis are impressive.

Finally, the performance of the Turkish politicians posing as the protectors of Turks in Germany is a divisive move eerily similar to the events that eventually led to the division of Cyprus. This is counter-productive to integration but fits well with the “special role” Erdogan assigns the Turkish diaspora in Europe. We are on the edge of insurgencies in many places, most recently in Cologne.

What we would like to see from the German politicians, instead of the nice photo-ops, is a clear statement that there is no need to assume racist motives for the fire, no need for ministers of foreign nationality to intervene in the matter, and that the German authorities are perfectly capable of investigating the matter on their own. The Turkish government is already much over the top on this matter and can use a polite lesson on respectfully abstaining from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and on the primacy of the Rule of law.

Then, suitably, apply that lesson to Turkey proper, where violence against non-Muslims is a significant problem, much more so than any graffiti-based rumors of arson.

The latest news report from Spiegel indicates that arson was unlikely to be the cause of the fire. The testimony of two little girls (the primary source of the arson rumors) contradicts the physical evidence, the testimony of other witnesses, and even each other. John Rohan at Shield of Achilles has more details.

The claim of arson at Ludwigshafen is a thin reed on which to build a crisis in international relations. But mere plausibility has never gotten in the way of ethnic demagoguery, as the events of the 1930s showed all too well.

It’s instructive to remember the ultimate fate of the Sudeten Germans: after their incorporation into the Reich, followed by six years of war, they were forcibly and brutally expelled from Czechoslovakia under the Beneš decrees.

Are the Turks in Germany willing to bet that the Sudeten analogy is not complete?

In the run-up to last November’s election in Denmark, Naser Khader, a moderate Muslim politician and the leader of the New Alliance party (Ny Alliance) received a lot of media attention. The New Alliance was a small party, but as a member of the governing coalition, it was billed as a “power broker”, since the election was expected to reduce the power of Venstre, the party of Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the dominant partner in the coalition.

Naser Khader’s political positions — including a proposal to ease some of the rules about immigration, and other social issues — were expected to influence government policies as a part of the price for his participation in the government.

New Alliance was formed as an alternative and counterweight to the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti), an anti-immigration party committed to the promotion of traditional Danish values. The DPP is anathema to the elite media and celebrities in Denmark, what with its vulgar and politically incorrect attitude towards all things Danish.

The best and the brightest of the glitterati flocked to New Alliance, and prompted the coinage of a new term, halalhippierne, “halal hippies”, for this convergence between the moderate Muslims and chic celebrities.

But Venstre did better than expected in the election, as did the DPP, and New Alliance was limited to just five seats in Parliament. Even so, Mr. Rasmussen’s core parties (Venstre, the Conservatives, and the DPP) hovered right around the 50% mark, which still allowed for the possibility that Naser Khader would retain the front-page celebrity and influence to which he has become accustomed in the past few years.

In the last two weeks all that has changed. First one New Alliance MP left the party, and then another defected to Venstre. The three-member “rump” of New Alliance in Parliament is essentially irrelevant now, and the glory days of Naser Khader are a thing of the past.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I make it a habit to look through the Danish-language news media, but my grasp of Danish is still too rudimentary for me to understand much. When I reach an impasse in a news story, I often ask our Danish correspondent Kepiblanc to help me out.

Gitte Seeberg was the first defector from New Alliance on January 29th. Here’s what Kepiblanc had to say about her:

Gitte Seeberg was — until recently — a ‘foot soldier’ in the old Conservative Party (Det konservative Folkeparti — the classical conservative party founded around 1890 by landlords, nobility, squires etc.) and was rewarded with a seat in the European Parliament, where she couldn’t do any harm.

But apparently she wanted some influence, so she left the party and founded New Alliance, together with Naser Khader and one Anders Samuelsen (yet another surplus politician from the EU Parliament, placed there by the Radical Left [Det Radikale Venstre] — nothing “radical” about that, merely a wishy-washy party of do-gooders, tree-huggers, Islamophiles, etc. — in short the “café latte crowd”).

– – – – – – – – –

Right after the startup of New Alliance (May 2007) polls gave them something like twenty seats in Parliament (out of 175), which meant substantial influence. The whole idea of the party was to reduce the influence of the Danish People’s Party, a supporter of the present government and our guarantee against uncontrolled Muslim immigration.

But the new party blew it completely: the candidates flooding into the party were political amateurs, yuppies, TV-anchors, actors, etc. — the ones we call ‘urban fools’ (storbytosser) who came up with crazy ideas (like reducing tax solely on the island of Funen), some of them best known for their greed and extravagances.

Anyway, at the election the party got five seats and thus barely made it into Parliament. The Danish People’s Party became stronger than ever. The New Alliance ended up as nothing but laughingstock and without any influence whatsoever. Consequently they gave up any opposition to the government and the Danish People’s Party and fell in line as supporters of PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Gitte Seeberg could not accept this merry-go-round, so she left the party — now down to four seats. She’s a sole player now and without any chance of getting re-elected, even to the EU Parliament. She’s just finished.

Exit Gitte Seeberg.

All in all, I think she’s honest and good-spirited, but naïve, ignorant and a little dumb.

Shortly after the departure of Ms. Seeberg — on February 5th — Malou Aamund left New Alliance. Kepiblanc gave me this brief summary:

Another MP, Malou Aamund, has left New Alliance.

She is one of those ‘celebrities’, a former fashion model and the daughter of a yuppie businessman. She has now joined Venstre (a most ironic label literally meaning ‘left’. A proper label would be something like ‘Right-wing liberals’ — the party of PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen).

The party ‘New Alliance’ is a dead joke.

New Alliance got five seats at the election. With Gitte Seeberg and now Malou Aamund gone they’re down to three. The party is history.

New Alliance may be history, but one suspects Naser Khader is not. Mr. Khader has become accustomed to the media spotlight, and he has gained international stature as that most elusive of creatures, a moderate Muslim politician.

I can’t see him giving up the limelight voluntarily. But I can’t see him playing second fiddle to Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the other leaders of Venstre, either.

So what’s to become of Naser Khader? Yet another new political party? The Radical Left? Some other party?

Or is he doomed to political oblivion?

I reported on Thursday about the remarks made by Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning the inevitability of sharia law in at least parts of Britain.

The Archdhimmi provoked a surprisingly large backlash both inside and outside the Anglican Church. The outraged responses came not just from the usual suspects — Tories, BNP members, and assorted other racists, fascists, and xenophobes — but even from members of the Labour Party, including the former Home Secretary David Blunkett. I was never fond of the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, George (now Lord) Carey, but Dr. Williams’ statements were too much even for him. According to The Daily Telegraph, Lord Carey said “that Dr Williams was wrong to believe that sharia could be accommodated into the English system because there were so many conflicting versions of it, many of which discriminated against women.”

According to This is London:

Bishop of Southwark Tom Butler, a liberal who would normally be expected to defend Dr Williams, said the archbishop had been entering a minefield and added: “It will take a great deal of thought and work before I think it is a good idea.”

He was more blunt in a circular to clergy in his diocese, saying he had yet to be convinced of the feasibility of incorporating any non-Christian religious law into the English legal system.

That’s a relief.

Here’s a voice of sanity from a Muslim Baroness:

Tory cohesion spokesman Baroness Warsi, a Muslim herself, said: “The archbishop’s comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

“Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices.

“But let’s be absolutely clear. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts.”

And from an Anglican Tory (in the old days that would have been a tautology):

Tory backbencher David Davies, an Anglican, said: “I am astounded. Dr Williams is a nice enough man, very intellectual, but he has clearly lost the plot.

“He’s one of the most influential Christian prelates in the world and he’s supposed to be standing up for Christianity.

“What he’s doing is abandoning his own religion. If people come to this country they should be prepared to compromise their own traditions to fit in with the host country.”

One of the more vehement critics of the Archdhimmi was the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, who drew headlines and criticism last month for having the temerity to describe certain urban neighborhoods in Britain as “no-go areas” for non-Muslims.

Back then Dr. Nazir-Ali was on the receiving end of criticism from his fellow Anglicans (including the Archbishop), and death threats from Muslims, for speaking the plain truth. Now it’s his turn to take a fellow Anglican to task:
– – – – – – – – –

The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.

He said it would be “simply impossible” to bring sharia law into British law “without fundamentally affecting its integrity”.

Sharia “would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

“This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy.”

[…]

Debates on sharia “are not an argument for disturbing the integrity of a legal tradition which is rooted in the quite different moral and spiritual vision deriving from the Bible,” he concluded.

Dr. Nazir-Ali is a native Pakistani and a convert from Islam. Having been on the receiving end of sharia, he has some idea of what Dr. Williams is proposing. Also, being a “brown person” himself, he is immune to the charge of “racism” that would normally be flung in his direction for saying such dreadful things.

Dr. Williams is backpedaling as fast as possible on his Archiepiscopal unicycle. He now maintains that he didn’t mean what his critics say he did:

Claiming he never called for the introduction of the Muslim system, Dr Rowan Williams claimed he wanted to “tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state”.

In a statement on his website based on his controversial lecture in London last night, he added he had only used sharia as an example.

Revisit Dr. Williams’ own words and judge for yourself whether he was “teasing out the broader issues”:

“It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.

“We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances.”

[…]

“There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.

“It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.

“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.

“In some cultural and religious settings, they would seem more appropriate.”

The above quote seems pretty clear to me. If it’s just an “example”, it’s a lengthy and detailed one, with no alternative examples — from, say, Buddhist or Mormon law — offered to indicate consideration of a broader juridical theology.

No, Dr. Williams, you will simply have to accept the fact that you were speaking without particular alarm about the inevitability of sharia in Britain. You made your bed; now lie in it.

There have been calls for the Archdhimmi’s resignation, but in my opinion the Anglican hierarchy is too rigid and hidebound to crack under such a minor controversy.

If, however, Dr. Williams were pressured to step down, let’s hope Michael Nazir-Ali is appointed to succeed him. Now there’s a Defender of the Faith.

Hat tips: TB and Queen.

Fausta has a list:

*CPAC 2008 BLOGGERS ROW*

Ace O’Spades
Alarming News
Atlas Shrugs
Bluey Blog
Captain’s Quarters
Conservatives with an Attitude!
Fausta’s Blog
FreedomWorks
Gay Patriot
Girl on the Right
HotAir.com
Hugh Hewitt
Human Events
Little Miss Attila
Mary Katherine Ham
Matt Sanchez
Musclehead Revolution
My Man Mitt
Newsbusters
Outside the Beltway
Politico
Reasoned Audacity
Red State
Riehl World View
Right Wing News
Sam Adams Alliance
Save the GOP
The American Mind
The Autonomist
Truth Laid Bear

Fausta provided good background, including parts of the President’s speech and the reception that various people (e.g., John McCain) received. Go over and see some bloggers’ pictures. Listen to the podcast….

Fausta is a good reporter; maybe she missed her calling!

[da end…but I left a list so you can check your favorites]

Mark Steyn poses beside Pamela Geller, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in New York City.

Ms. Geller leaped three tall buildings and stopped a speeding train to get to this event, where she served as the introductory speaker to Mark Steyn and left him with this limerick:

There once was a kafir named Steyn
Muslims said wrote an offending line
’Twas an imam he quoted
Now he’s being swiftboated
But his battle is yours and its mine.

[No doubt the kids had Cheerios for dinner and kvetched, but their hearts weren’t in it — they knew Mamma would be bringing home a whole cape full of hors d’oeuvres from the CPAC party. It’s harder and harder to get that outfit on these days: telephone booths are scarcer all the time.]

Atlas also live-blogged John Bolton and he had this bit of good news:

Bolton tells us McCain strongly lobbied for Bolton’s nominations.

Lenin said “Worse is better…”

“Not a position the conservatives should take especially at a time when our country is at war. WORSE IS NOT BETTER.”

“I’ll be supporting John McCain in this election and I hope you will be as well…”

Bolton thinks McCain took a stronger position yesterday regarding Iran were than Bush.

Go see the whole thing. Lots of good pictures, quotes, and interviews, as usual.

NB: I’d vote for anyone who had John Bolton in his cabinet. I say “his” because Bolton would give Hillary apoplexy within ten minutes.

[that’s all – go on over to Atlas see the rest]

Here is some typical Euro-wriggle to ponder:

Italy is ready to recognise the independence of Kosovo, but plans to do it together with France, Germany and Britain and “without splits” with the other EU states.

On the day on which it was paradoxically Serbia that officialized the date – February 17 – in which Pristina will continue unilaterally to break away from Belgrade, Italian diplomatic sources confirm that Rome is ready to take up to the end its responsibilities together with the other three big states of the European Union that are part of the Contact Group on Kosovo.

It is an already taken decision which however must be measured with care in the time and modes, so as to avoid digging a ditch with the six EU members – Cyprus, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia – strongly critical on the new status of Pristina.

Thus, while the United States have their hands untied and could express an official opinion in favour of the independence on the very same day on Sunday, February 17, the situation for Europe is more complicated. The fundamental political opportunity, which will allow the offices in Rome, London, Paris and Brussels to send formal letters of recognition to the Kosovo authorities, will be the meeting of the 27 foreign ministers in Brussels on February 18, the day after the unilateral declaration of Pristina.

According to the sources, apart from determining the timetable of the civilian mission that Brussels will send to the region, the meeting will also have to come up with a document that is absolutely unbinding to the European Union in its entirety and will yet allow every single state to “legitimately” recognise the new state or not.

The goal is to avoid sanctioning the failure of the efforts to reach a unitary position for the entire continent and to create “a political framework in which the Union in its entirety can take note of the new state” while still letting the separate governments exert their power of establishing diplomatic relations with Pristina or not in the following days.

And Serbia can do what, exactly?

Hat tip: insubria

[end of post]

Regular readers will remember Lars Vilks, the Swedish artist who offended the sensibilities of Muslims and the dhimmi Left with his various depictions of “the Prophet as a Rondellhund”.

Mr. Vilks’ latest installment of the Art Project is a series of watercolors represented as stamps. These new Modoggies have met the same fate as his earlier ones: censorship, in anticipation of a wrathful reaction by the dreaded “Muslim street”.

The Danish online magazine Sappho has the story, and our Danish correspondent Kepiblanc has kindly translated it for Gates of Vienna.

Norway Says No to Mohammed Watercolor

It is extremely unusual for an art gallery to reject an artist due to fear of media exposure. Such, however, is the situation in Norway, where the gallery “Lautom Contemporary” in Oslo has chosen to censor artist Lars Vilks out of the upcoming exhibition.

By Uwe Max Jensen

The Swedish artist Lars Vilks achieved notoriety last summer when he depicted the Muslim prophet Mohammed as a so-called “rondellhund” [a ‘roundabout-dog’ — see the Modoggie Archives]. However, in spite of the then huge exposure in the media, not a single art gallery dared to exhibit Lars Vilks’ drawings.

It started with an arts club in Wärmland, Sweden, claiming “self-censorship” and fearing to offend religious feelings. Later, the Swedish school of arts “Gerlesborg”, Bohus County, removed Lars Vilks’ drawings, while pointing to the safety of its students, and lastly the “Moderna Museet” in Stockholm refused to show the drawings.

And now the same fate will meet Lars Vilks in Norway.

No to Mohammed

Originally Lars Vilks was invited to the exhibit at the one year old Lautom Contemporary gallery in connection with the exhibition “Where a river runs north underground”. But when gallery manager Randi Thommesen realized that Lars Vilks wanted to show three stamp-sized watercolors depicting Mohammed as a ‘rondellhund’ she backed out.

Too dangerous for Norway


Randi Thommesen doesn’t want to exhibit the Lars Vilks watercolors, and in a letter she asked him to provide something else to the scheduled event. In this letter (quoted in its entirety in Sappho because of its relevance in the ongoing discussion on freedom of expression) Randi Thommesen writes that she admires Lars Vilks because he did so well in the media hullabaloo in the wake of his drawings.

The debate is over

Nevertheless Randi Thommesen does not want to exhibit Lars Vilks’ drawings fearing that the new watercolors might stir up yet another violent discussion about freedom of speech like the one in Norway when the Norwegian daily Magazinet published the Mohammed drawings from Jyllands-Posten. According to the letter, Randi Thommesen sees no reason to repeat that debate, feeling the subject is history and she wonders what might be the intentions of showing new Mohammed drawings in Norway.

Furthermore Randi Thommesen fears that Lautom Contemporary might encounter a media tornado she can’t handle and she doesn’t want the gallery to be widely known in association with Vilks’ Mohammed watercolors.
– – – – – – – – –
Her letter concludes: “You (Lars Vilks, ed.) are an interesting artist who worked with groundbreaking objects. That’s the side of you I want to exhibit”.

Following Lautom Contemporary’s rejection of his three Mohammed watercolors Lars Vilks chose to say ‘no, thanks’ to exhibit other oeuvres in Oslo.

Hi, Lars

I’m happy that you would like to exhibit in my gallery and I’m exited to see how Tommy’s exhibition might turn out. Last night I was informed that you want to show little watercolors of Mohammed. That worries me.

In my opinion you have focused the spotlight precisely on freedom of expression and art, and we need such existential debates. You stood upright against a severe media storm, threats, and unpleasantness. I admire you for doing so.

Nevertheless I have some objections.

As I’m sure you know we had quite a turbulent time here in Norway when the Christian Magazinet reprinted the Danish cartoons. We had some nasty reactions from radical Muslim circles abroad and quite an upbeat and one-sided debate here at home. Unfortunately, the debate was dominated by extremists and the finer nuances thereby disappeared. Later on we had a more fruitful discussion in Norway and by and by a more inclusive climate with more nuances. But I consider that debate and its principles history, and ask myself what purpose is served by showing new Mohammed drawings in Norway. And that’s why I ask you to bring other items.

Lautom is a young gallery, not even one year old, and we don’t get much press attention, which actually suits me fine. I want reviews, not scandals. And risking the our greatest press exposure in a process I can’t defend is not something I want for Lautom.

You are an interesting artist who worked with groundbreaking objects. That’s the side of you I want to exhibit. That’s the side I want to see. Tommy should have sent me your drawings, but hasn’t done so, probably due to stress with his own exhibit, and I don’t want to push him any further. I’m sorry for the somewhat ambivalent response from our side.

Regards

Randi Thommesen
Lautom Contemporary
Oslo

For previous posts on Lars Vilks and the Roundabout Dogs, see the Modoggie Archives.

Hat tip: Jens.

I posted the other day about the rash of “balcony incidents” in Sweden, a series of suspicious deaths of young girls who fall or are pushed from apartment balconies. Most of these deaths are assumed to be honor killings.

The most recent incident was in Malmö; Esther at Islam in Europe has written extensively on this topic. Our Swedish correspondent LN pointed us to this interesting new twist in the case, from an article in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet. A letter purporting to be from a witness to the murder was found at the scene of the killing. Our Danish correspondent TB has kindly translated the text of the letter, and also the article about it.

Note: This is a Swedish story which was covered by a Norwegian newspaper, brought to our attention by a Swede, and translated by a Dane. That’s Multiculturalism, Gates of Vienna style.

The text below is TB’s translation, with his own explanatory remarks in italics:

In the letter that appears on the photograph in the beginning of the article it says something like (not precise):

Why

Why should this happen to you. I saw it. What kind of pigs they were those who did this to you. I saw you being pushed out from the balcony by these two pigs. What have you, as a girl, done to deserve a punishment like this.

Beneath the first photograph it says:

This letter was found outside the house where a 16 year old girl where pushed to her death in Malmö on Sunday. The writer of the letter is unknown, but could be from an important witness.

And the article:

Police are looking into the mysterious writer of a letter in Malmö

This letter was found on the scene where a 16 year old girl was pushed to her death.

(Dagbladet.no): Monday the police caught two men under suspicion of having pushed a 16-year-old girl off the balcony on the fourth floor. The two men are the stepfather (38) and the brother (19) of the victim, who fell to the concrete and died instantly.

– – – – – – – – –

The police work from the theory that it is a so-called “honor killing”.

Mysterious piece of paper

Two days ago a mysterious piece of paper was found on the crime scene which could have been written by an eye witness, Expressen.se writes. In the letter it says, among other things:

“I saw you being pushed from the balcony. What have you done as a girl to deserve this punishment.”

Several people witnessed the girl being pushed but only a few of them have been interrogated. One of those that the police have talked to is a 22-year-old man who was first interviewed by Kvällsposten [Swedish Newspaper]. He criticize the police for asking people who where near the crime scene to go away. Several of these people could be important witnesses, he thinks.

“They must have seen everything”

“Four teenage girls stood right in front of the balcony. They saw exactly what happened,” he says, and gets support from his neighbor.

“They must have seen everything.”

The mysterious letter could have been written by one of these girls, but according to what Kveldsposten knows, the police detectives have not been able to establish any contact with them. The writer of the letter is still unknown.

Europe News, a joint Danish-German news and opinion aggregating service, suffered a Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack yesterday initiated by Turkish hackers, temporarily incapacitating their site.

It may be that the above link is not working. That’s because the Europe News site was brought down entirely during the night. Since then service to it has been restored intermittently, but it’s not back to full operations yet.

Henrik, who runs the English-language half of Europe news, sent me this account of recent events:

Turkish nationalist hackers attack Islam-critical blogs

The leading Islam-critical news aggregator EuropeNews has been attacked and knocked off the Internet, along with Politically Incorrect and several other blogs. Yesterday, February 7th, we faced a botnet attack out of Russia, which overloaded and crippled our servers. We weathered that by blocking the IP addresses involved. Today, February 8th at 13:50 CET, our server was knocked out entirely. Right now, 15:45, we are online again.

We do not know yet what exactly has happened. A Turkish hacker team by name of AyYildiz Team (Crescent and Star Team) has attacked and defaced roughly a hundred German sites. More information on Earth Times. The group, according to Netcraft, moves to a fresh server every few months. Part of their ethos is to never attack any Turkish web sites.

The attack seems to be motivated by a fire in Ludwigshafen, Germany, in a house inhabited by Turkish families. The fire had wide publicity, not least by a sensational rescue of a baby falling down four stories. The fire brigade is reported to have done a great job at the scene, but nonetheless nine persons succumbed to the rapid fire in the century-old building.

The fire, however, has escalated to a diplomatic crisis between Germany and Turkey, as claims of arson have been thrown around, nothing proven. (ABC News report; Guardian report. More details in this Spiegel report.)

– – – – – – – – –

Unsurprisingly, the Turkish government is exploiting the event to the max. Zaman reports, like every other Turkish media.

The latest assumption about the cause of the fire is that it may be due to tinkering with the electrical installations. From Fact — Fiction blog (German).

False accusations of racist hate attacks constitute blood libel.

Revenge through Internet attacks will be publicized as widely as possible, and dealt with to the full extent of the law. We will not give in to assorted Turkish bullying.

As a reluctant member of the Anglican Soviet Communion, I’ve been embarrassed more than once by the leaders of the hierarchy. The Most Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, and the Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, have given me ample reason over the last few years to wince and turn my head away. If it weren’t for the muscular evangelical version of Christianity that prevails in Africa and Asia, there would be no hope left for Anglicanism.

But Dr. Williams has hit a new low today. He has, in effect, announced the full dhimmitude of the Church of England:

Adoption of Islamic Sharia law in Britain is ‘unavoidable’, says Archbishop of Canterbury

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable” and that it would help maintain social cohesion.

Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4’s World At One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Dr Williams said there was a place for finding a “constructive accommodation” in areas such as marriage — allowing Muslim women to avoid Western divorce proceedings.

Other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, he pointed out, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual’s rights as a citizen.

“Other religions”? Which other religions, specifically? The Shia Muslims in the holy city of Qom? How about the Sunnis in Mecca?

He said it would also require a change in perception of what Sharia involved beyond the “inhumanity” of extreme punishments and attitudes to women seen in some Islamic states.

“Change of perception”, eh? Do you mean we should ignore the embarrassing details, and concentrate on the big picture? And the big picture consists of… what? The overall record of humane, tolerant, peaceful, and benevolent behavior by Muslims the world over throughout history, right?
– – – – – – – – –

Dr Williams said: “It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.

“We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances.”

Yes, we have. The enlightened British government did just that a few days ago, when it effectively legalized polygamy for persons of the Muslim persuasion.

Polygamy! They didn’t like it when the Mormons practiced it, did they? That was barbaric, but this… Well, this is multicultural.

He added: “There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.

“It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.

“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.

“In some cultural and religious settings, they would seem more appropriate.”

Oh yes, those other ways of looking at divorce. Talaq, talaq, talaq!

There’s more, much more, in the article. Read it and weep.

I’ve said repeatedly that things have to get worse before they can get better. And they do; they just keep getting worse and worse.

I’m still waiting for the last clause of that sentence to kick in.

Hat tip: Cimmerian.

You don’t want to piss off the European Union.

If you do, they’ll mobilize all their divisions and… oh, no, wait a minute, that’s not right… umm… they’ll issue administrative directives and, er, appoint a commission to investigate your malfeasance.

Yeah, that’s what they’ll do!

And maybe — just maybe — they’ll ask NATO to bomb the crap out of you again.

But the Serbs are flipping them the bird, anyway:

Angry EU officials attack Serb’s blocking of pact with Brussels

The European Union criticized Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica of Serbia on Wednesday after the nationalist leader blocked plans to sign a political and economic agreement with Brussels.

He called the agreement a “deception” aimed at tricking Belgrade into conceding the independence of Kosovo.

The pro-Western president of Serbia, Boris Tadic, who won re-election Sunday, had backed the accord, which would expand trade, ease visa restrictions and improve student exchanges between Serbia and the Union. But after Kostunica accused the EU of trying to trick Belgrade into letting Kosovo go, the EU said his unwillingness to back the deal had made it legally impossible to proceed with a signing ceremony planned for Thursday.

Olli Rehn, the EU commissioner responsible for the Union’s expansion, made little attempt to conceal his anger. “I deeply regret the obstruction by certain politicians in Belgrade in blocking the signature,” he said. He accused Kostunica of ignoring the will of Serbian people, as expressed in the election of Tadic, who made EU membership the centerpiece of his campaign.

– – – – – – – – –

Rehn attacked the prime minister by name for linking Serbia’s EU membership aspirations and the future of Kosovo. “It is truly sad for Serbia, if politicians continue to put power games ahead of their own citizens’ interests,” he said, adding that “certain politicians” were seeking a “divorce before the marriage has even been agreed.” He also chastised Kostunica’s nationalist Democratic Party of Serbia for opposing the deal.

Kosovo, a breakaway province of Serbia that is expected to declare independence this month with the backing of the EU and the United States, has been under United Nations administration since 1999 after NATO intervened to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s repression of Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority. Serbs consider the territory to have been their medieval heartland and it is the location of several important Serbian religious sites.

Analysts said Kostunica, a constitutional lawyer who helped lead the revolution that overthrew Milosevic in 2000, was determined not to go down in history as the Serbian leader who lost Kosovo, even if that meant destroying the country’s future within the EU.

“Serbia is heading toward disaster,” said Zoran Dogramadziev, a Serbian commentator. “Kosovo is lost and now we also risk losing Europe as well.”

Kostunica’s intransigence was buttressed by the strong showing in the presidential election by the nationalist Radical Party candidate, Tomislav Nikolic, a former Milosevic ally, who argues that Serbia should punish the West for its support of an independent Kosovo by turning toward Russia and China.

Tadic, who supports closer ties with the European Union and Washington, also is vehemently opposed to Kosovo’s independence. But he made it clear during his election campaign that he was not willing to sacrifice Serbia’s European future.

Ministers of his Democratic Party have demanded that Kostunica convene the cabinet, where they hold a majority strong enough to endorse the Brussels pact. Kostunica has refused to do so. Instead, he is pushing to take the issue to Parliament where he can rely on the votes of the Radical Party, Serbia’s strongest single party, to back him in what promises to be a showdown over the country’s direction.

Dogramadziev said the crisis would probably cause Kostunica, whose Democratic Party of Serbia rules in a coalition with Tadic’s Democratic Party, to collapse the government and force early elections. There is widespread speculation in Belgrade that Kostunica will try to form a new majority with the Radical Party. But Nikolic has clashed with Kostunica in the past and it remains unclear whether he would now embrace the prime minister.

Kostunica’s stance hardened after the EU announced this week that it had approved plans to send a supervisory mission to Kosovo to take over administration of the province. Kostunica said Tuesday that an accord with the EU as it prepared to take over administration of Kosovo would be tantamount to Serbia’s giving a blessing to its dismemberment.

“The EU’s proposal to sign a political agreement with Serbia while at the same time sending a mission to break apart our state is a deception aimed at getting Serbia effectively to sign its agreement to Kosovo independence,” Kostunica said.

Officials in Kosovo said they would proceed toward independence, regardless of the political crisis in Serbia. Several said Kostunica’s actions could accelerate independence because Kosovo’s leaders might declare independence sooner.

Stephen Castle reported from Brussels.

It’s time for everyone to support Serbia in its resistance against the establishment of an independent Kosovo.

Horst Krautwurst has an online offering of critical documentaion on Islam called Stage 6, presented here:

This channel collects documentaries on islam, terrorism, muslim immigration, taqiyya and the many conflicts in the middle east.

I have incorporated documentaries that take diverse perspectives on the subject, and uploaded some of the more critical and conservative documentaries myself.

Being an agnostic I have a quite critical approach to islam, but I am always willing to learn more, and if you have any suggestions for material or forum subjects, please http://www.stage6.com/islam—critical-documentation please let me know.

Here is some documentation on the problem:

an interesting document in the Al-islam encyclopedia. It is a three-part argument in favor of taqiyya being an integral part of islam, written by a shia muslim. The site has a 86000 traffic rank and is obviously a reliable source for muslims.

The point of the text is to unite sunni and shia muslims in the idea that taqiyya is demanded by the quran, and is essentially islamic “diplomacy”… Thought you might want to take the time and give it a read. I have been appalled by the success of the arab league in stalling intervention in Darfur through all the taqiyya tricks they have in their bag (guess its the only arab branch of science).

People should know, that islamic states are not to be trusted in any diplomatic situation whatsoever. The only thing one can be sure about is that they are playing a game of intrigue and deceit.

Here are the three links to discussions of the ways to use taqiyya “legitimately” — which always make me think of Tariq Ramadan, the current master of the trade:
– – – – – – – – –
al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation (Part I)

I intend to demonstrate and prove that the concept of “al-Taqiyya” is an integral part of Islam, and that it is NOT a Shi’ite concoction.

As usual, the two perspectives, the Sunnis and the Shia, will be presented to maintain a level of fairness and integrity in the reporting of this topic.

al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation (Part II)

================================
al-Taqiyya According to the Shia
================================

The Shia did NOT innovate or concoct anything new, they simply followed the injunctions of Allah (SWT), as stated in the Quran, and the custom of the Seal of Prophethood, Muhammad (PBUH&HF). Nonetheless, one must also examine what the Shia themselves say about al-Taqiyya…

al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation (Part III)

================
Reason and Logic
================

Aside from the instructions of Quran and Hadith on the permissibility and necessity of Taqiyya, such necessity can also be derived from a logical and rational standpoint. It is apparent to any discerning observer that Allah (SWT) has bestowed upon His (SWT) creation certain defense mechanisms and instincts to protect themselves from impending danger. What follows are some examples that serve to illustrate the above point.

This is a good site for studying what we’re up against. Anything that leaves you wiser about what threatens our cultural integrity can only help.

Cimmerian, who shuttles between the UK and Belgium, sends along a Belgian article translated from the French. First, his introduction:

Here’s a story that probably hasn’t received much attention outside Belgium (translated from RTBF)

A couple of things stand out for me about this story. First we have yet another case of Muslim immigrants with criminal records in the host country being released to commit further violent crimes. Why weren’t they deported back to their countries of origin after their release from prison?

Secondly, it’s interesting that this brief account (from state broadcaster RTBF via a French news site) goes out of its way to mention that the latest details have already been covered in the Flemish media. The murder took place in a village in the district of Beersel in Flemish Brabant. It’s just across the border from the French-speaking part of Belgium, but the implication is that the crime may have been downplayed by Belgium’s French-speaking media.

The suspects came from Charleroi which is further to the south in the French-speaking province of Hainaut. In other words, the perps probably hoped to take advantage of linguistic and administrative differences between the two provinces — a bit like American criminals crossing a state line to carry out an armed robbery.

The story is also strikingly reminiscent of a recent case in the UK in which WPC Sharon Beshenivsky (a mother of five who was a recent police recruit) was shot dead when she came upon a robbery in progress in Bradford. Her female colleague was also shot. Subsequently, several Somali immigrants to the UK received long prison sentences for murder and manslaughter. One of the men had to be extradited from Somalia where he had fled following the shooting.

And now Cimmerian’s translation of the article:

Arrest of the Suspected Murderers of Kitty Van Nieuwenhuysen

Latest news in the fatal shooting in Lot last December. A 23 year-old female police officer, Kitty Van Nieuwenhuysen, lost her life in the course of a routine intervention during a suspected robbery. Three suspects were arrested Saturday evening in Charleroi.

Various Flemish media have covered the latest developments. Very soon after the shooting, investigators came to the conclusion that the perpetrators came from the Charleroi district. They even put names and faces to the suspects — three men who, within days of the event, fled to their countries of origin, Morocco and Turkey. Investigating officers were faced with a dilemma: either to launch an international manhunt, or to await the return of the suspects to Belgium. A return which they believed was inevitable. This was the course of action chosen.

– – – – – – – – –

Saturday evening it was proved correct. The three men were reported to be back. A police operation arrested them in and around Charleroi. All three had previous convictions for armed robbery. As for the present crime, let us keep in mind that they are so far only suspects. The proper legal process will be necessary to throw further light on the matter.

This is a crime which has provoked strong feelings within the police force. The young woman had only just joined the force and she was gunned down as she arrived to investigate an apparent car-jacking. Her male colleague was seriously wounded.

Last Sunday morning, Brussels authorities released further details of the suspects. Two live in Charleroi and one in Namur; ages 29, 30 and 31 years. Two of the three men have considerable criminal records, including prison sentences of 6 and 7 years for armed assaults. The three men are expected to be formally charged with murder committed during the course of a robbery, and with membership of a criminal organization.

Another report says that two of the men, Noureddine Cheikni and Hassan Iasir, denied that they had fled the country, and claimed through their lawyer that they had been in Morocco on ‘family business’.

As I’ve stated before, I don’t plan to cover the elections until October. Doing anything before that is being reduced to one of the paying customers at a clown circus — a predictable circus at that. We’ve had two new (and opposed) political ideas since the 1930’s: FDR and his Keynesian nudges vs. Reagan’s supply-side economics. The rest is semantics and journalists trying to make a living.

So instead, I’ll spend some time reading about the history of American politics. You know yourself that the more things change, the more they remain merely the same old, same old — but with better technology and more make-up. It’s the minute difference between “a chicken in every pot” and flights of fancy about “hope” and “change.” Yawn…

Then, last night, reading the English online version of Sweden’s paper The Local, I was brought up short by an opinion piece from Dr. Gregg Bucken-Knapp, a senior lecturer in political science.

This picture accompanied his article, which he entitled… are you ready?

“Don’t reduce Democratic primaries to ‘skirt or negro’”

What a difference culture makes for p.c. language rules! And being by nature an Irish troublemaker, I couldn’t resist passing the article on to you. It’s not just the picture’s title that would have some ever-alert reptilian readers hissing “racist, racist, racist” or “sexist, sexist, sexist”; it’s also the waaaay-over-there flinty-eyed left-wingers in Europe who hope for a real socialist to take the controls in the US, instead of the capitalist warmongers currently fighting for face time. I mean, did you know that the Socialists in Sweden consider the 6,000 socialists in the US their very special friends? Get this take on our current situation, from Åsa Linderborg, an Aftonbladet columnist:
– – – – – – – – –

First things first.

In this year’s Democratic contest, organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) know that the stakes are too high to sit on the sidelines. The 6,000 member sister-organization to the Swedish Social Democratic Party, DSA has played an active part in supporting the election campaigns of progressive politicians fighting against American capitalism. Their most visible success story is Bernie Sanders, the only openly-socialist member of the U.S. Senate, who rose to national prominence as the first Congressperson to organize “prescription drug bus tours” to Canada, allowing Americans to buy medicine at much lower prices than in the US.

So what if the Honorable Mr. Sanders is a party of one? So what if his simplistic solution doesn’t really solve anything? Wave that reality away in favor of some tasty rhetoric instead:

“DSA believes that progressives must cooperate to do everything possible to prevent Hillary Clinton — the epitome of neoliberal cynical opportunism — from being the Democratic nominee.”

Hmmm… no soap for the skirt, then. But is the negro any better? Not by any measure used by The Aftonbladet columnist featured by our Swdish political scientist:

[To] Åsa Linderborg, this doesn’t seem to be of much importance. As she put it prior to the Iowa caucuses, “it doesn’t matter so much who becomes president — skirt or negro — it’s still the market that rules.” For Americans seeking to transform their society, her voice is the counsel of despair: so long as there is capitalism, choosing between these two Democrats is a waste of time. Indeed, Linderborg’s analysis of American politics implies that campaigns are nothing more than a thinly-veiled puppet show, in which candidates are marionettes, where big corporations dictate campaign promises, and where special interest groups determine the foreign policy stances held by candidates. The only saving grace in Linderborg’s eyes is that class struggle drives how “yanks” actually vote.

But The Local‘s author, Dr. Bucken-Knapp isn’t so sure:

Many activists on the American left — who share her disregard for capitalism — view the Democratic primaries as an important opportunity for limiting the influence of market forces. Nor do Swedes necessarily benefit from her sweeping claims about the role of money in American politics or the importance of class struggle as a factor shaping the vote. Asserting that big business controls the policy agenda isn’t the same as demonstrating it.

But the good Dr. Bucken-Knapp forgets the first rule of political propaganda: you don’t have to demonstrate it, you just have to say something over and over again, relentlessly. Why do you think Noam Chomsky hasn’t been committed to an asylum years ago? He’s always on message, and the message never changes.

Dr. Bucken-Knapp quotes two American political scientists on the habits of American voters. And it has naught to do with the class struggle so central to socialist thinking. He says:

Those arguing that big business pulls the strings in American politics frequently claim that interest groups buy legislative outcomes through campaign donations. Yet, John Wright, a professor at Ohio State University… demonstrates that while the tobacco industry is able to get what it wants from Washington policymakers, [it is because]… legislators hold specifically pro-business and anti-regulatory ideologies.

Linderborg also claims “pocket book issues — that is, the class
struggle” are decisive for Americans when they enter the ballot box.

[…]

Nearly thirty years ago, Morris Fiorina demonstrated that Americans cast their vote on the basis of whether they believe the nation’s economy as a whole (and not their personal financial situation) had gone well during the previous administration.

[…]

Fiorina’s findings not only shaped an entire generation of voting behavior specialists, they were central to the internal rallying cry of the 1992 Clinton campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

And remember Reagan’s theme during his first campaign: are you better off than you were four years ago? Following Carter’s dystopian reign, the answer was a no-brainer and led to Reagan’s eight years in office. Years in which the Left called him stupid, a loser, illiterate, etc. Yet he transformed the world… left us with a new set of problems, but transformations do that.

Though this analysis of American politicians failed to mention the Republican side of the battle — as though the Democrats were running only against one another — you can’t help but ask: will it be the war hero with anger management problems and a loose understanding of the Constitution, or do we get the evangelist from Arkansas, or the Mormon from Massachusetts? Not as catchy as “the skirt or the negro,” however.

Maybe our readers can come up with something pithier…?