This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read.. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
Dr. Tanay’s views on Islam:
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. ‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China ‘s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on – before it’s too late.
Boadicea's Chariot 
I have seen this before Zen, it seems that its authenticity is questionable.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/Tanay-Merek-German-Islam.htm
It may be fiction – and not for really ‘real’. But there is much truth in what it tries to portray, which is that evil can only succeed if good men remain silent.
Could well be, Minty, it came from an impeachable source. However, I thoroughly endorse the sentiments.
Dito.
Well I have control issues, at the beginning of Ramadan. So please forgive me.
Do you honestly believe that those terrorists will give up or weaken if the majority of the muslims spoke up? Do you know how they see us? You can see their view from the eyes of Elle. They see us as collabrators. (Ironic they blame us for not speaking up too. ).
This is why Al quadea made two bombings in Istanbul. They punished us.
Did you ever think who is benefitting from these type sloganish crap? What do these people expect to receive? Something like the muslims saying “uh we went wrong lets make a rally and denounce them?”
I sadly see it’s just helping the animosity grow.
And from a very bad point of view. These loons may be using my religions name. They don’t have my support. There is not much that I can do to stop them. They are hurting me too.
On the other hand, there are people whose lands are occupied, whose children, fathers, mothers are brutally killed. By the armies who is financed by the taxes of the same very people who are accusing me of being a supoorter of terroprism. Funny world eh?
I’m sorry. It was a bit harsch, I guess. You are welcome to delete it Boadicea. Apologies again.
The authorship is secondary to the power of the message.
Levent
Welcome! And thank you for commenting.
You make a very valid point, – that these ‘loons’ are not only using your religion’s name, but that they are also bombing you and yours as well as us and ours.
Sadly, whether anyone likes it or not, evil is spread by good men doing nothing – whether it be the peaceable Muslims not standing up against the ‘loons’ – or the peaceful people of the West not standing up to their governments to stop the bombings… we all have to find a way to stand up to be counted…
It is very difficult not to be offended and read things that are not meant. We know that there are those who see all Muslims as supporters of terrorism – just as there are some Muslims who see all Westerners as supporting the terrorism of their governments. I don’t think that I am in the first category, and I not believe that you are in the latter.
Somehow, all peaceful people must learn the knack of standing up together against those who would use our combined silence to turn the world into what they want and what we do not.
That is the message I read in this post… 🙂
Islam is the current vehicle for terrorism, as was Christianity for the KKK in America. in both cases the religion’s meaning adulterated to suit the evil motives of terrorism. Lev, I in no way having a go at you.
You may well be right, Tom, but nevertheless I find it somewhat dishonest.
“Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.”, and survivor of a concentration camp.
sorry, I was interrupted and hit the submit comment button too early!
Tanay existed but he apparently did not write this at all.
Hello Boadicea, Mr. Zen, (Thank you)
The message I read in the text is a bit different than yours. 🙂
I read “if you are not with us you are against us” in such kind of texts. Perhaps I’m too touchy.
I fear I’m not alone seeing it this way. This does not do that much harm for the likes of me, I sit in my country with muslims. The worst possiblity is we cut ties with the countries that has issues with us.
But can you imagine a muslim in west, a young one, always under the covered message “you are a potential terrorist”. There are times chosing hate is easier than love, I guess.
That is the problem for both sides of the problem.
I have just finished reading a book on 16th C France and their Wars of Religion. It made me very sad that people who espoused the religion of the peaceful Christ could commit such atrocities in the name of Christianity.
Lev, that is exactly what the terrorist wants, and what we must all fight against.
Perhaps you are a bit touchy, Levent, but with good reason.
I do think that whoever wrote the message which is the subject of this post, it does have some merit but it seems to put the blame for extremists on the “silence” of peace loving Muslims.
All we have to do is to forward the email, and if we don’t we are part of the problem!
Agreed Boadicea,
Mr. Zen my point exactly.
Araminta,
I guess I’m a part of the problem in that case. 🙂
I didn’t sent it on either, Levent, so you can blame me too!
Politics and Religion, ban them both. Hang on a minute, that didn’t work in Russia did it? 🙂
… or China come to that!
Levent, your particular flavour of organised superstition is the worst of a bad lot. The vast majority of its practitioners are poor, ill-educated, backward and easily led – to their detriment. Their cultures are both oppressive and repressive, particularly of women. (Do I need to publish the numbers yet again, or will you take them, this time, as read?) Of the minority, a largish* number are coming under the sway of the medieval outlook of the Wahabists, whose money – and we know where it comes form, don’t we, you and I – is financing the building of mosques across Europe, particularly in the Balkans, the Caucusus, Chechnya and the ‘Stans on Russia’s southern border. None of this describes Turkey, I know as well as you – you can thank your mythical god for Ataturk. But beware. ‘First they came for the Jews, then they came for…’ They will come for you.
Whatever the provenance, the sentiments are correct. Appeasement does not work – how many times in history has it been tested? Whether those with their heads in the sand realise it or not, the ‘West’ is at war. It will become apparent with the detonation of the first nuclear or sub-nuclear device by the muslim terrorists. Hope, that you are not in the chosen target location.
*Only Turkey stops them being a majority of the minority.
The entire sorry episode of religion has always been one of power. Some guy wants it, invents a god and way of life and off it goes. Now and then there are true people who had good ideas and wanted to lead men, but as they died then others began preaching in their name and then the power craze takes over.
Then it becomes habit and the strong tell the weak and ignorant that if they don’t believe they are evil.
The mistake people make is they blame religion, it is not religion that causes wars and problems it is men and fanatics of all creeds, colours and sex. Politics, money and hero worship are the new religion.
Of course it is, and, still, appeasement has never worked.
On a relatively micro-scale, the men of goodwill are winning in Ireland – they cannot all be dubbed killers.
The ‘West’ is at war, Bravo? If you mean terrorists, well yes.
How are we appeasing terrorism, and exactly what would you propose to do about it?
Araminta, we’ve been here before. The war is not against terrorism. It is a war of cultures. One is open, progressive tolerant and liberal, the other is the opposite of all of these things. It is islam we are appeasing, bending laws – with no general consent – preaching tolerance against intransigence, deprecating long-standing values in case a minority is ‘offended.’
The war will begin in earnest when the horror weapon is detonated.
Oh, Minty, take your head out of the sand, and look around you. Our legal system and the culture which relies on it aree heavily biased to avoid the slightest hint of discrimination against any immigrant from a different cultural base, to the detriment of the home grown populace.
Araminta, my comment about the power of the message outweighing the authorship does not imply support for what is a brilliant piece of propaganda. It is well written and persuaive. Some will be hooked by it, irrespective of who wrote it. I too did not pass it on.
Yes we have been here before and if we are involved in a war of cultures then I suggest that we ought to make sure our culture is damn well worth defending.
I happen to think it is, but trying to impose one’s culture on others is exactly what you are seemingly suggesting is the answer.
Islam is the enemy? I don’t think so, Bravo, unless you are really suggesting that all followers of Islam are our enemies? There are rather a lot of them and I really don’t think the majority of them are in the slightest bit interested in pursuing a war.
Identifying the “enemy” is the first problem, and I think you are wrong.
It is indeed a very persuasive piece of propaganda Tom. Quite right.
I don’t disagree, Zen, I have said so. It was a very stupid stance from a Socialist government, who now have thankfully started to dismantle some of the idiocies, and I think a sensible immigration policy is hopefully one of the tasks.
I do hope so, genuinely.
So do I, Zen, but I also think that labelling all Muslims as potential if not actual terrorists is counter productive and unwise.
You are up late, so I hope you have a peaceful night. 🙂
Sorry, my comment # 32, didn’t make much sense, but now we have thankfully got rid of the Socialists we may well start to address the problems of integration.
Things like freedom of expression, to worship the mythical deity of your choice, not to be discriminated against or treated as a second class citizen, or less, on grounds of sex, race, sexual practice etc, etc, etc you mean? Probably.
That is not what I am suggesting at all – and nor have I anywhere. What I have said is that we should vigorously defend our own culture – if people want to live in other ways, let them, but not here.
I don’t think so either – read what I wrote, to whit, “poor, ill-educated, backward and easily led – to their detriment. …
And I think you are in the same place as those who said the same things about National Socialism and Communism. Islam, in its majority manifeatation, is inimical to all of the things that you hold dear,as was, for example, christianity 500 years ago. Many more people are going to die, because of islam.
Bravo.
You said it was a war of cultures and now you are back to religion!
Interestingly you mention National Socialism and Communism, neither are views I have ever supported or condoned, but I have suggested that Islam is the “new” enemy.
Very Orwellian really.
..or scapegoat.
I must stop commenting and cooking. I’m not doing a great job at either task.
Islam is the culture. I have not suggested that you condone either National Socialism nor communism but that the viewpoint you present is of the same ilk as that of the would-be appeasers of those creeds, and of the same practical use. Orwell changed his mind.
Islam is the religion Bravo, and as you well know there are various “brands”. Which ones do you define as “the enemy”?
If you define Islam as the culture then why do you think that the West has any right to impose its own supposedly superior culture on those who follow Islam. This is the very same thing which you are suggesting Islam is trying to impose on the West. I don’t think we have any right to do this, and certainly not by force. I don’t think we have any legal or moral reason to do so.
Orwell changed his mind, yes, but I’m referring to 1984 and the concept that an enemy is always necessary; who the enemy is changes, but it is always a good excuse for suspending the rights of the citizens of that state.
All of them – there is no appreciable difference in the basics.
Do you actually read what I write, Ma’am? I refer my right honourable friend to comment #36, second paragraph. Besides which, wasn’t it your view that the practitioners of female genital mutilation need to be ‘educated?’ Isn’t that a ‘cultural’ practice? So, should we impose that particular cultural value upon others? Is it a “pic ‘n’ mix” deal? (Not from the other point of view, btw. If it ain’t islam, it’a wrong.)
You are describing totalitarian creeds – like islam, for example, or the EU, for that matter. It seems that ‘our’ current position is to be friends with everyone. It ain’t gonna work.
Why can’t I edit ‘it’a’ ? It’s my comment, dammit!
Education dear Sir, yes indeed, and I also said how difficult this is.
Beats dropping bombs though.
Yes, I do read what you write and nothing you have said in comment #36 helps with explaining why Islam religiously or culturally is the enemy as far as you are concerned.
Is Europe the battleground then?
It’s my post though, Bravo so I can edit it but you cannot. It’s irritating, but them’s the rules. 🙂
Actually, I’m wrong. It’s Zen’s post so he is the only one able to edit the comments.
Well Boadicea, Bearsy and Soutie also can.
I’m guilty of taking over the post, so I may continue this at a later date, Bravo.
Interesting, but we shouldn’t go over old ground perhaps, but I am interested in where and how the battle should be fought.
I don’t actually think any one here has said that imposing the West’s culture on Islam is ‘right and proper’. OK – so our governments seem to think we should be in Afghanistan imposing Western-style democracy on that medieval excuse for a country – how many people-in-the-street actually agree with that? I would wager very few.
How many people living in Islamic countries agitate because the laws / culture of that country do not fit in with their religion / culture – and just what would be the response of those countries if they did? Try walking around in Western-style gear in the villages of Indonesia and they won’t smile and say ‘pretty pair of shorts’ they will pick up stones to hurl at you.
Yet the West bends over backwards to change laws / customs and god-knows what else to accommodate every religious / cultural crack-pot notion demanded by people who have willingly chosen to live in the West.
Yes, the battle-ground is Europe… and anywhere else where the Western culture of equality of race, religion and gender is respected. If people want to follow a different culture – let them choose a country where they can do without changing the laws of that country to suit them.
You may be happy to live in a country where a large number of males are taught that God made women are second-class citizens – I am not. We finally managed to throw the Christian teachings about women out, so why are we now allowing another religion to promote the same attitude?
Boadicea.
Is the suppression of women a cultural or a religious issue? I think there is a confusion here, at least in my mind.
Why do you think with regard to Europe that we are allowing another religion to promote the same attitude?
Religion is a tool, and a cloak but underlying this most religions actually do not in themselves advocate suppression of women.
Indeed, very few people in the street, but nevertheless that is exactly what our governments are doing.
But why? Isn’t this exactly my point. We are guilty of trying to impose our Western ideas of democracy.
Araminta, you asked:
I don’t, and the comment to which I referred said so. Your ‘educate’ implies imposing ‘our’ values you do not agree that ‘we’ should do that, or…?
Burkas. Muslim schoolgirls. Segregated facilities. discrimination in the display of superstitious symbols, different treatment in the way the law on capital gains applied to real property is applied. And so on, and so, interminably, forth.
But we are, Bravo, see my comment #48.
So you don’t believe in education but you deplore the ignorance which leads to horrendous abuse of women?
Burkas and etc. Sharia law is purely a mediation process and there is still recourse to the English legal system if we are talking about the UK.
With regard to the rest, then see my comment #32.
Well, it’s not a simple subject and definitely not easy (at least for me) to suggest a all-covering analysis.
But this is not easy beacuse which ground or reference will we use to compare them. For example hpw would we define success? There are many things which will sound bad to me whereas they will sound good to a westerner.
I think we have to start with colonialism. West, has enjoyed dominance of the world, by taking the advantage of their industrial (=scientific) earnings. Did they have the right to “import” natural sources of other lands? Could they be that “succesful” if they didn’t take the sources? Is making some 20% people of the world happy while leaving 80% miserable a success? Don2t they owe anything to the rest?
So many points to lead.
I believe if we take USA as an example, they rise on wars. (of course not only wars). And they need an enemy, like Araminta said, after the fall of communism, they needed to create another one and they did. Please remember Taliban were presented as heros when they were fighting against USSR.
Like Rick, I too believe it’s always about power. And like Bravo said, ignorance is easily led, and by invading their countries, they are given enough reasons.
But then again, Islam is not at war with anyone. There are groups, some of them were founded byy USA itself formerly, who declared war. But not Islam.
By demonising whole religion, or implying, or by some snob or arrogant attitude, they are pushing ordinary muslims to the extremism.
It’s a long subject, but I2m too sleepy. I have repeated too many times but again:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/levent/levent/9999176/Reaction_Of_An_Old_Woman/
Thanks Levent for the link.
I’ve just read your post, and I obviously commented, but since my account was deleted, I really cannot remember what I said.
It is good to see things from the other side of the coin though.
Araminta, you bend what I say. I did not say that I don’t agree with education, merely point out that you are selective in what imposition you oppose. Saying that we are guilty of something does not, btw, make it so. What are we guilty of, and how? And this,
is an evasion. I said nothing about sharia law but was describing preferential treatment under UK law. That is why it is appeasement. And Sharia law is not a mediation process, it is a legal system applying in some jurisdictions – nothing to do with law in the UK. Calling a spade a manual earth removal and transference system does not change its characteristics.
Levent, you put the cart before the horse. The growth of western empires was a consequence of advances in science, technology and the social development they brought. You might better ask why the islamic empires – and the colonialism they also imposed – faded from their dominant positions and allowed the rise of the ‘West.’
Whether or not Shari’a law is a “mediation process” or not is irrelevant. If that is how Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Malaysia choose to live so be it. In the United Kingdom, Germany, or Canada there should be only one law and one standard. Whenever there are different standards for different groups the risk of balkanising grows exponentially.
Christopher, I have made this point before.
Well, at least I provoked a healthy debate. I see that Obama has this morning given a huge slap in the face to the majority of Americans over plans for a mosque close to Ground Zero. It will be the death knell for his political career.
Within the English legal system, with regard to civil law there is and always has been a recognition that individuals are free to come to some sort of private agreement within the framework of the law as it stands.
Mediation or arbitration is one of the processes which is more accessible and avoids taking the matter to court if disagreement occurs If both parties agree to be bound by that decision then further action is unnecessary.
Sharia courts in the UK mediate on civil matters. They are just another form of mediation.
http://www.matribunal.com/index.html
And I have no beef with that, Araminta – anything that keeps lawyers out of the picture is fine by me. But you are using a politician’s trick* to avoid the matter under discussion which is, I repeat, discriminatory treatment under the law of these Islands.
*Answering a question that was not asked.
Zen, President Obama’s administration is dead in the water. The next 18 months are going to be nothing but a long-drawn out administration of the last rites, starting in November.
I was merely clarifying matters with regard to Christopher’s comment regarding “one law”.
Discriminatory treatment under the law of these Islands, Bravo I addressed in my comment #32. I agreed with Zen.
Call it a draw! Thank you everyone.
Thank you, Zen. 🙂
Well, that was not clear, and the introduction of sharia law into the discussion is, in any case, something of a red herring. The point remains, that the argument that ‘we’ are imposing ‘our’ values on others is on shaky ground given the concessions, discriminatory under the law, that are continually being made to those same others. Such concessions are not made, I would add, to ‘others’ in islamic societies. Try entering Saudi Arabia wearing a cross or carrying a bible – or wearing a short-sleeved shirt in the street. (That last is, of course, not applicable to me as I am of the superior sex – according to the local culture, that is.)
Too many words.
Only good one is a dead one!
Load for bear.