Terror Attacks in Europe

A lovely old British name involved again

snip "Elias Djelloul, 19, will appear in court next week after he was accused of sharing extremist material. On Saturday, he was charged with six counts of dissemination of terrorist material, contrary to Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006."

Teen, 19, charged with terror offences after cops raided London house

Obviously one of those Far Right neo-Nazis they warned us about.
 
This actually is one of those 'Far Right neo-Nazis' they warned us about:


I'm not sure what threat they actually pose - half the time this lot seem to be blundering fantasists who like to have all the gear and talk the talk without (thankfully) walking the walk.

However, the threat posed was deemed serious enough to get him locked up for a few years, and I'm glad this XRW tosser is out of action for the foreseeable future and more importantly before he ever did get to harm anyone.
 
Last edited:
This actually is one of those 'Far Right neo-Nazis' they warned us about:


I'm not sure what threat they actually pose - half the time this lot seem to be blundering fantasists who like to have all the gear and talk the talk without (thankfully) walking the walk.

However, the threat posed was deemed serious enough to get him locked up for a few years, and I'm glad this is XRW tosser is out of action for the foreseeable future and more importantly before he ever did get to harm anyone.
National Action became National Socialist Anti Capitalist Action. Yet it is extreme right wing?

I can't see him or his mates ever voting Tory.
 
National Action became National Socialist Anti Capitalist Action. Yet it is extreme right wing?

I can't see him or his mates ever voting Tory.

Good point actually. Perhaps we (generally) are falling into the trap of branding any terrorist that isn't Irish or Islamic as being XRW, when as you rightly point out when you scratch the surface - they are very far from the Right in their concepts and ideology indeed.
 
Good point actually. Perhaps we (generally) are falling into the trap of branding any terrorist that isn't Irish or Islamic as being XRW, when as you rightly point out when you scratch the surface - they are very far from the Right in their concepts and ideology indeed.
I always have to laugh when the BBC describe Marine Le Pen and her party as 'far right'. Apart from their policies on immigration, everything else - economic, labour, education, health, defence policies etc. are straight out of the socialist playbook.
 
Good point actually. Perhaps we (generally) are falling into the trap of branding any terrorist that isn't Irish or Islamic as being XRW, when as you rightly point out when you scratch the surface - they are very far from the Right in their concepts and ideology indeed.
It seriously boils my piss when racists are described as extreme right wing, as though only right wingers can be racist, or that racism is a right wing construct. It also pisses me off that journalists can't tell the difference between left and right wing.

BNP, self described as the Labour party that your grandparents voted for. Norman Tebbit read their 2005 General Election manifesto and described it as "Old Labour with racism", which is a bit of a tautology.

EDL, originally a reaction to Muslim grooming gangs in Luton (the infamous "Muslamic ray guns" should perhaps be translated into "Muslamic rape gangs"). With white, black and Sikh members it was sectarian/anti muslim but not racist. Again, not many traditional Tory voters among their members.

SNP. Anti English extreme left wing racists.

Fascist. Economically an offshoot of Marxism but without the anti semitic clap trap of that racist ideology. Jews even joined the Italian fascist party. To his dying day Mussolini considered himself to be a socialist.

And finally, for now, the hard line right wingers who opposed change in Russia in the 1990s were hard line communists. The right wingers were the ones pushing through the economic and democratic changes.
 
(...) Fascist. Economically an offshoot of Marxism but without the anti semitic clap trap of that racist ideology. Jews even joined the Italian fascist party. To his dying day Mussolini considered himself to be a socialist. (...)
Fascism is actually more closely associated with syndicalism than Marxism. There are many variations of syndicalism because as was typical of the time there were multiple competing groups. Syndicalism was closely associated with parts of the early labour union movement.

Both Marxists and syndicalists were part of a broader socialist movement, but you have to understand that "socialism" was interpreted much more broadly than is usually the case today. All were interested in transforming society, but many of the issues which concerned them at the time don't even exist today.

Mussolini was a big wheel in the Italian Socialist party, which was more or less under the control of Marxists at the time. He split with them over issues of nationalism, as he had become obsessed with the issue of taking the remaining territory of what was seen as "Italy" from Austro-Hungary. Hence he had dodged national service under the orders of the party, but volunteered to fight in WWI because of the above mentioned territorial issues (Trieste and certain other bits of land in northeast Italy).

Post WWI Mussolini wanted a form of socialism which was nationalist rather than internationalist as Marxism was. Instead of outright nationalization of property there were to be regulatory boards with representatives of the government, management, and labour deciding on how to run each segment of the economy. These bodies were called "corporatives" (from corpus, meaning "body"), from which we get the term "corporate state". The latter has nothing to do with business corporations, although people who don't understand the actual meaning will sometimes be confused about this. Under Fascism there was a place in society for every loyal citizen, there was to be no class or racial struggle with the losers being disposed of.

For Fascists "nationalism" was about country, not race, so anyone who was a loyal Italian could be a good Fascist, including Jews. Nazism was about "race" (including the natural supremacy of the "Aryan race"), and so differed from Fascism on this as well as a number of other fundamental issues. The alliance between Italy and Germany was one of diplomatic and strategic convenience rather than of any ideological convergence.

Fascists sometimes referred to themselves as the "third way", a compromise between capitalism and Marxism. In that sense, they claimed to be the moderate middle between the extremes of capitalism and Bolshevism. They were fundamentally anti-democratic, but so were the Bolsheviks and Nazis.

To understand "left wing" versus 'right wing" and who is what you have to keep in mind that this is a product of Marxist analysis. One of the fundamental Marxist intellectual tools is their interpretation of Hegelian dialectic. This is the idea that all change is the product of two opposing forces (thesis and anti-thesis) which struggle with one another, eventually producing a compromise (synthesis). The new synthesis then becomes the starting point for a new struggle of ideas. This isn't a concept created by the Marxists, but it is one they have adopted because it is compatible with their ideas of "class struggle" being the driving force of history.

Given the need to fit a battle of ideas into a dialectical framework, the Marxists defined themselves as "left wing", and all who opposed them as "right wing". The "left - right" terminology originated in French Revolutionary politics, but was revived later and recycled for use in late 19th and early 20th century politics.

Fascists equally found it convenient to depict themselves as the only viable opponents of Bolshevism, with the latter being feared by many in society given the then recent record of the Bolsheviks in Russia.

So where does modern democratic capitalism fit into this? It doesn't. In the early 20th century capitalism was seen as being on its last legs, with WWI being its last gasps, and the Great Depression showing the corpse was supposedly already putrefying. So there was no need for either Marxists or Fascists to explain capitalism any more than there was a need to explain feudalism in the context of modern politics.

There were syndicalist movements in the UK, France, Canada, the US, South America, etc. in the early 20th century. They were generally associated with labour unions and achieved limited political success. They generally got sat on heavily by the authorities. I won't even attempt to try to catalogue the various syndicalist factions as they were numerous and nobody really cares anyway.

Syndicalism as a serious political movement didn't really survive WWII except perhaps in Spain and a few other places. Marxism-Leninism survived however, largely because the Soviet Union ended up on the winning side of WWII and so provided an intellectual home for it.

The thing to keep in mind however is that while all Fascists were syndicalists not all syndicalists were Fascists. Indeed the different syndicalists factions hated one another with great ferocity. Anarcho-syndicalists and national syndicalists found themselves on the opposite sides of the Spanish Civil War with the national syndicalists (Franco's party) coming out on top.

Today while Marxism may be brain dead and shambling about like a zombie, the putrefying syndicalist corpse is barely twitching. The syndicalist cause in the US was centred around the IWW (International Workers of the World), or "wobblies". They are still around and centred in Portland Oregon where their original political base was in immigrant forestry industry workers. The genuine (as opposed to imitators) "Antifa" movement in the US are the street fighting storm troopers of the Wobblies, which is why they have such a strong presence in Portland. They're not Fascist however, as they are more anarchist than nationalist.


This is a long way of explaining things, but to get back to who is "left" and who is "right", I'm neither a Marxist nor a Fascist so I don't feel any obligation to fit my political ideas within their intellectual frameworks. I see politics as multi-dimensional, rather than a single "Marxism-Fascism" linear dimension. If they want to describe themselves as "left socialist" and "right socialist" then I'm happy to use their own names for themselves (I wouldn't want do the equivalent of not using their preferred pronouns).

I don't feel compelled however to define Islamist Jihadist politics into left-right labels either though. It can be its own thing unrelated to either. I'm not a Marxists so I don't have to compel my mind to work within a Marxist framework and insist that Jihadis must be "left" or "right".

So understand labels as being just labels and don't feel compelled to swallow Marxist dialectical analysis when trying to explain the world.
 

WhiteCrane

Old-Salt
This has been a huge source of grievance France and Algeria amongst Arabs, especially since there has been no official recognition or enquiry since that time.
There is a huge painting of it in the Hall of Martyrs in Algeria. Very graphic. They have a life-sized diorama of Algerians being tortured by French soldiers! It is like something from the London dungeon!
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
Fascism is actually more closely associated with syndicalism than Marxism. There are many variations of syndicalism because as was typical of the time there were multiple competing groups. Syndicalism was closely associated with parts of the early labour union movement.

Both Marxists and syndicalists were part of a broader socialist movement, but you have to understand that "socialism" was interpreted much more broadly than is usually the case today. All were interested in transforming society, but many of the issues which concerned them at the time don't even exist today.

Mussolini was a big wheel in the Italian Socialist party, which was more or less under the control of Marxists at the time. He split with them over issues of nationalism, as he had become obsessed with the issue of taking the remaining territory of what was seen as "Italy" from Austro-Hungary. Hence he had dodged national service under the orders of the party, but volunteered to fight in WWI because of the above mentioned territorial issues (Trieste and certain other bits of land in northeast Italy).

Post WWI Mussolini wanted a form of socialism which was nationalist rather than internationalist as Marxism was. Instead of outright nationalization of property there were to be regulatory boards with representatives of the government, management, and labour deciding on how to run each segment of the economy. These bodies were called "corporatives" (from corpus, meaning "body"), from which we get the term "corporate state". The latter has nothing to do with business corporations, although people who don't understand the actual meaning will sometimes be confused about this. Under Fascism there was a place in society for every loyal citizen, there was to be no class or racial struggle with the losers being disposed of.

For Fascists "nationalism" was about country, not race, so anyone who was a loyal Italian could be a good Fascist, including Jews. Nazism was about "race" (including the natural supremacy of the "Aryan race"), and so differed from Fascism on this as well as a number of other fundamental issues. The alliance between Italy and Germany was one of diplomatic and strategic convenience rather than of any ideological convergence.

Fascists sometimes referred to themselves as the "third way", a compromise between capitalism and Marxism. In that sense, they claimed to be the moderate middle between the extremes of capitalism and Bolshevism. They were fundamentally anti-democratic, but so were the Bolsheviks and Nazis.

To understand "left wing" versus 'right wing" and who is what you have to keep in mind that this is a product of Marxist analysis. One of the fundamental Marxist intellectual tools is their interpretation of Hegelian dialectic. This is the idea that all change is the product of two opposing forces (thesis and anti-thesis) which struggle with one another, eventually producing a compromise (synthesis). The new synthesis then becomes the starting point for a new struggle of ideas. This isn't a concept created by the Marxists, but it is one they have adopted because it is compatible with their ideas of "class struggle" being the driving force of history.

Given the need to fit a battle of ideas into a dialectical framework, the Marxists defined themselves as "left wing", and all who opposed them as "right wing". The "left - right" terminology originated in French Revolutionary politics, but was revived later and recycled for use in late 19th and early 20th century politics.

Fascists equally found it convenient to depict themselves as the only viable opponents of Bolshevism, with the latter being feared by many in society given the then recent record of the Bolsheviks in Russia.

So where does modern democratic capitalism fit into this? It doesn't. In the early 20th century capitalism was seen as being on its last legs, with WWI being its last gasps, and the Great Depression showing the corpse was supposedly already putrefying. So there was no need for either Marxists or Fascists to explain capitalism any more than there was a need to explain feudalism in the context of modern politics.

There were syndicalist movements in the UK, France, Canada, the US, South America, etc. in the early 20th century. They were generally associated with labour unions and achieved limited political success. They generally got sat on heavily by the authorities. I won't even attempt to try to catalogue the various syndicalist factions as they were numerous and nobody really cares anyway.

Syndicalism as a serious political movement didn't really survive WWII except perhaps in Spain and a few other places. Marxism-Leninism survived however, largely because the Soviet Union ended up on the winning side of WWII and so provided an intellectual home for it.

The thing to keep in mind however is that while all Fascists were syndicalists not all syndicalists were Fascists. Indeed the different syndicalists factions hated one another with great ferocity. Anarcho-syndicalists and national syndicalists found themselves on the opposite sides of the Spanish Civil War with the national syndicalists (Franco's party) coming out on top.

Today while Marxism may be brain dead and shambling about like a zombie, the putrefying syndicalist corpse is barely twitching. The syndicalist cause in the US was centred around the IWW (International Workers of the World), or "wobblies". They are still around and centred in Portland Oregon where their original political base was in immigrant forestry industry workers. The genuine (as opposed to imitators) "Antifa" movement in the US are the street fighting storm troopers of the Wobblies, which is why they have such a strong presence in Portland. They're not Fascist however, as they are more anarchist than nationalist.


This is a long way of explaining things, but to get back to who is "left" and who is "right", I'm neither a Marxist nor a Fascist so I don't feel any obligation to fit my political ideas within their intellectual frameworks. I see politics as multi-dimensional, rather than a single "Marxism-Fascism" linear dimension. If they want to describe themselves as "left socialist" and "right socialist" then I'm happy to use their own names for themselves (I wouldn't want do the equivalent of not using their preferred pronouns).

I don't feel compelled however to define Islamist Jihadist politics into left-right labels either though. It can be its own thing unrelated to either. I'm not a Marxists so I don't have to compel my mind to work within a Marxist framework and insist that Jihadis must be "left" or "right".

So understand labels as being just labels and don't feel compelled to swallow Marxist dialectical analysis when trying to explain the world.
I think you are my favourite politics explainerer.

Fragmentation of knowledge ripping through the legs of the usual runners on this thread.

What's clear is that these political ideologies have arisen because of the industrial revolution, mass industry & the migration of labour from the countryside into cities. There is no religious equivalent to this transformation.

We all hear this comparison of Islamists with the far right more frequently but as you've so clearly explained, there is no common ground beyond totalitarianism & ideological rigidity between the two.

I'm no expert but I see Islamism very much as focusing on society through the prism of religion (obviously) but after that, family and institutions such as courts. As there is no mass industry to speak of in any of the religious texts, the issues of labour, labour rights & statehood can never be addressed in modern terms.

Modern labour laws surrounding health & safety, equality and employment rights fly directly in the face of religious law and can never be reconciled. That's how far apart they are.

Anyway, we can all agree that totalitarianism & ideological supremacism is a poor way to run a society, no matter the ideology.
 
I think you are my favourite politics explainerer.

Fragmentation of knowledge ripping through the legs of the usual runners on this thread.

What's clear is that these political ideologies have arisen because of the industrial revolution, mass industry & the migration of labour from the countryside into cities. There is no religious equivalent to this transformation.

We all hear this comparison of Islamists with the far right more frequently but as you've so clearly explained, there is no common ground beyond totalitarianism & ideological rigidity between the two.

I'm no expert but I see Islamism very much as focusing on society through the prism of religion (obviously) but after that, family and institutions such as courts. As there is no mass industry to speak of in any of the religious texts, the issues of labour, labour rights & statehood can never be addressed in modern terms.

Modern labour laws surrounding health & safety, equality and employment rights fly directly in the face of religious law and can never be reconciled. That's how far apart they are.

Anyway, we can all agree that totalitarianism & ideological supremacism is a poor way to run a society, no matter the ideology.


My bold .. I think that is very true, Islam, as I understand it, is based on the Koran, supposedly the "immutable" word of god as allegedly heard by one man in the sixth C, who was a person of his times, primitive & violent who had no concept of industry apart from farming or fishing. It codifies ALL aspects of life as it was known then and hence being immutable is totally unsuitable for todays world!
 
I think you are my favourite politics explainerer.

Fragmentation of knowledge ripping through the legs of the usual runners on this thread.

What's clear is that these political ideologies have arisen because of the industrial revolution, mass industry & the migration of labour from the countryside into cities. There is no religious equivalent to this transformation.
I think the origins of syndicalism are similar to the origins of Marxism as a mass movement. They had similar goals in the sense of social revolution, but different ideas as to how to go about achieving it or what the exact nature of the organizing principles of the new society would be.

I think that in either case the reason for why they had influence was due to the lag in incorporating the new urban working classes into established political structures. This left a political gap which could be exploited to convince people that the answers to society's problems could not be found through existing political means. This also explains why the countries which had a less solid and long established democratic political basis were more prone to be taken over by either syndicalists or Marxists.

We all hear this comparison of Islamists with the far right more frequently but as you've so clearly explained, there is no common ground beyond totalitarianism & ideological rigidity between the two.

I'm no expert but I see Islamism very much as focusing on society through the prism of religion (obviously) but after that, family and institutions such as courts. As there is no mass industry to speak of in any of the religious texts, the issues of labour, labour rights & statehood can never be addressed in modern terms.

Modern labour laws surrounding health & safety, equality and employment rights fly directly in the face of religious law and can never be reconciled. That's how far apart they are.

Anyway, we can all agree that totalitarianism & ideological supremacism is a poor way to run a society, no matter the ideology.
I don't really know enough about the social basis of Islamism to really be confident about this, but my theory on it is that it has always been around to some degree since the early days of Islam itself.

What I think has made it more prominent in recent times is the collapse of Marxism as an intellectual force. I started writing a more detailed explanation of this but I've give up on this and so will keep it brief. With Marxism a spent force in terms of providing a model by which to modernize society and restore Islamic countries to parity with the West there was a huge void in intellectual mind share. There were also crises and hardships which made people dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs.

Islamism stepped into this void. They would provide meaning to life, a goal to strive for, and sense of common purpose in society. They would "return" to a just society, root out corruption, and provide succour to the poor. If their economic program was weak, then at least their focus was less on the material world and more on the spiritual. They would give people their sense of pride back.

I don't really see an answer to it other than to let the inevitable disillusionment set in over the long term. Also, as the world turns away from powering itself with oil, the artificial economies of the oil producing countries will decline leading to problems for international Islamism similar to those which the collapse of the Soviet Union posed for international communism.

That doesn't mean that Islam as a religion or cultural force would go away. Rather it would become more like what Roman Catholicism is, just another religion and not a political force.
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
I think the origins of syndicalism are similar to the origins of Marxism as a mass movement. They had similar goals in the sense of social revolution, but different ideas as to how to go about achieving it or what the exact nature of the organizing principles of the new society would be.

I think that in either case the reason for why they had influence was due to the lag in incorporating the new urban working classes into established political structures. This left a political gap which could be exploited to convince people that the answers to society's problems could not be found through existing political means. This also explains why the countries which had a less solid and long established democratic political basis were more prone to be taken over by either syndicalists or Marxists.


I don't really know enough about the social basis of Islamism to really be confident about this, but my theory on it is that it has always been around to some degree since the early days of Islam itself.

What I think has made it more prominent in recent times is the collapse of Marxism as an intellectual force. I started writing a more detailed explanation of this but I've give up on this and so will keep it brief. With Marxism a spent force in terms of providing a model by which to modernize society and restore Islamic countries to parity with the West there was a huge void in intellectual mind share. There were also crises and hardships which made people dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs.

Islamism stepped into this void. They would provide meaning to life, a goal to strive for, and sense of common purpose in society. They would "return" to a just society, root out corruption, and provide succour to the poor. If their economic program was weak, then at least their focus was less on the material world and more on the spiritual. They would give people their sense of pride back.

I don't really see an answer to it other than to let the inevitable disillusionment set in over the long term. Also, as the world turns away from powering itself with oil, the artificial economies of the oil producing countries will decline leading to problems for international Islamism similar to those which the collapse of the Soviet Union posed for international communism.

That doesn't mean that Islam as a religion or cultural force would go away. Rather it would become more like what Roman Catholicism is, just another religion and not a political force.
The notion of returning a community to the era of glory & casting off the shackles of humiliation & disgrace are themes which are common amongst nearly all religions and ideologies. Listen to any fringe political / religious activist and they all purport to speak on behalf of a much larger community and the message is usually along the lines of 'look what the b@stards have done to us". It's a line common to this forum just as it is on any other forum.

There are sophisticated and credible critics of Islam & Islamism from within the Islamic world; they and the people who share their views are best placed to discredit Islamism as a political force. Unfortunately they're not currently in a prominent position.
 
Good point actually. Perhaps we (generally) are falling into the trap of branding any terrorist that isn't Irish or Islamic as being XRW, when as you rightly point out when you scratch the surface - they are very far from the Right in their concepts and ideology indeed.
Most are just spotty teenage w-anker fantasists but they serve to reflect attention away from the real source of terror
 
I think the origins of syndicalism are similar to the origins of Marxism as a mass movement. They had similar goals in the sense of social revolution, but different ideas as to how to go about achieving it or what the exact nature of the organizing principles of the new society would be.

I think that in either case the reason for why they had influence was due to the lag in incorporating the new urban working classes into established political structures. This left a political gap which could be exploited to convince people that the answers to society's problems could not be found through existing political means. This also explains why the countries which had a less solid and long established democratic political basis were more prone to be taken over by either syndicalists or Marxists.


I don't really know enough about the social basis of Islamism to really be confident about this, but my theory on it is that it has always been around to some degree since the early days of Islam itself.

What I think has made it more prominent in recent times is the collapse of Marxism as an intellectual force. I started writing a more detailed explanation of this but I've give up on this and so will keep it brief. With Marxism a spent force in terms of providing a model by which to modernize society and restore Islamic countries to parity with the West there was a huge void in intellectual mind share. There were also crises and hardships which made people dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs.

Islamism stepped into this void. They would provide meaning to life, a goal to strive for, and sense of common purpose in society. They would "return" to a just society, root out corruption, and provide succour to the poor. If their economic program was weak, then at least their focus was less on the material world and more on the spiritual. They would give people their sense of pride back.

I don't really see an answer to it other than to let the inevitable disillusionment sebtt in over the long term. Also, as the world turns away from powering itself with oil, the artificial economies of the oil producing countries will decline leading to problems for international Islamism similar to those which the collapse of the Soviet Union posed for international communism.

That doesn't mean that Islam as a religion or cultural force would go away. Rather it would become more like what Roman Catholicism is, just another religion and not a political force.
Unlike Catholicism there is no centralised source of doctrinal authority in sunni islam. Al Azar mosque in cairo has provided clarifications on dogma in the past but it tends to remain aloof in matters of jihad against the West. The result is that the army of corner shop faithful fall under the spell of whichever snake oil salesman calls for war against the West.
 
Last edited:
My bold .. I think that is very true, Islam, as I understand it, is based on the Koran, supposedly the "immutable" word of god as allegedly heard by one man in the sixth C, who was a person of his times, primitive & violent who had no concept of industry apart from farming or fishing. It codifies ALL aspects of life as it was known then and hence being immutable is totally unsuitable for todays world!
Plus as Islam never had a reformation, the Koran has to be taken literally. It cannot be altered, or interpreted like the Bible. So if some inadequate nutbag reads "kill the unbelievers whereever you find them" he can take that literally if he wants to.
 
There are sophisticated and credible critics of Islam & Islamism from within the Islamic world; they and the people who share their views are best placed to discredit Islamism as a political force. Unfortunately they're not currently in a prominent position.
They're not in a prominent position because the left dominated media wilfully refuses to put them there.

You won't see for example Ayaan Hirsi Ali in most places in the UK media as she criticises Islam intelligently, and on the left this is verboten.
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
They're not in a prominent position because the left dominated media wilfully refuses to put them there.

You won't see for example Ayaan Hirsi Ali in most places in the UK media as she criticises Islam intelligently, and on the left this is verboten.
That applies to the Western world. I think the media in this country is very ill prepared to deal with Islamists who are highly capable & savvy around exploiting the media for their purposes. For example, last month was "Islamophobia awareness month" which was partially successful in reducing the focus & moving the news cycle effectively in a month where an MP was stabbed to death & a botched suicide attack at a mother & baby unit. That's disturbing.

But anyway, the point I was making is that the momentum behind change in the Muslim world will more likely come from the ME where the numbers & centres of gravity are.
 
The notion of returning a community to the era of glory & casting off the shackles of humiliation & disgrace are themes which are common amongst nearly all religions and ideologies. Listen to any fringe political / religious activist and they all purport to speak on behalf of a much larger community and the message is usually along the lines of 'look what the b@stards have done to us". It's a line common to this forum just as it is on any other forum.

.There are sophisticated and credible critics of Islam & Islamism from within the Islamic world; they and the people who share their views are best placed to discredit Islamism as a political force. Unfortunately they're not currently in a prominent position


My bold & especially the underlined bit ... Don't forget anyone who dares put their head over the parapet and is "perceived" to dare to criticise any aspect of Islam, risks a FATWA as Salman Rushdie did, which I believe is still in force and worth $3.3 million to anyone wsho succeeds!!
 
There is a huge painting of it in the Hall of Martyrs in Algeria. Very graphic. They have a life-sized diorama of Algerians being tortured by French soldiers! It is like something from the London dungeon!
Do they have a Museum to commemorate the killing of Algerians by Algerians? Both sides committed awful atrocities in their Civil war and needed no help from the French whatsoever.
 

Latest Threads

Top