The Middle East, Islam & Israel: Where do you stand?

[Theobald]

By the way, Aprtangr, if you oppose interventions against Albania, Bosnia, Turkey and Algeria, which you name "imperialistic", why did you vote for this option ?

Europe should not get involved in any actions against Islamic countries outside its borders, only get rid of Islam at home and take preemptive/preventive actions (political or military) to ensure that Muslim trojan (Albania) and neighbouring (Chechnia, Maghreb, Turkey) countries do not represent a threat now or in the future.

That is not what I would call a coherent opinion.

[Caesar Princeps]

I chose
Europe should not get involved in any actions against Islamic countries outside its borders, only get rid of Islam at home and take preemptive/preventive actions to ensure that Muslim trojan and neighbouring countries do not represent a threat now or in the future. Also, Europe should support Islam against America and Israel. Political action should be directed to weaken America and Israel's position in the Middle East.

I think that a possible portfolio of interesting solutions could be:
Expulsion of all Muslim immigrates, apart from a few chosen valuable individuals (in an assimilable number) disposed to convert to Christian faith and European cultures and traditions.
Eradication of Fundamentalism, and favour of Christian proselitism in Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia, Russia, Bulgaria.
Support and creation, through strenuous diplomatic action and limited military peacekeeping missions, of National-Socialist or Nationalist, Islamic (not Islamist) countries in Maghreb and Middle-East as buffer states and commercial and political partners of Europa.
The same for Turkestan ex Soviet countries (with Mongolia and Afghanistan).
Establishment of Lebanon and Syrian coast as a Christian Arab state, with strong European ties (similarly to Cyprus).
Turkey in this European orb of influence, with free Cyprus, free Armenia and free Kurdistan, Hatay to Lebanon and maybe Thracia to Bulgarians and Greeks.
War of Arabs and Europeans, with Sunni Islamist OK, against the strongest Islamic power (Iran), and establishment of Persian state, without free Baluchi, Kurds, Arabs of Lorestan, Gilaki and greater Azerbaijan.
Israel state should be destroyed (if possible) and transformed in Palestina with European enclaves (Christian Holy Land: Christian Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, etc.) inhabited by Christian Arabs, with European military presence .
Elimination of Sionist influence, along with policies of protection and respect of Jew community all around Europe and allies.

I am not speaking of Eurabia, anyway, simply a strong alliance, which preserves cultural heritage and ethnic composition both of core Europe and partner countries, as well as enforce this new superpower able to resist against US and China Axis of Evil.

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Caesar Princeps

Expulsion of all Muslim immigrates, apart from a few chosen valuable individuals (in an assimilable number) disposed to convert to Christian faith and European cultures and traditions.

Why? And who would that be?

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Theobald

Of course the Europeans themselves are the main responsibles for Europe's decline. I do not blame everything on America and Israel like you said (actually I do not blame anything on Israel in this matter). But American policies and cultural Americanisation of Europe were also important factors.

I see. But it is the Europeans craving for American "life-style" and products. Someone hardly can blame Americans for European decadence. I agree, American policy is completly directed against any other interest.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Of course we should first target our own regimes and get rid of Islam at home. But in this thread we were dealing with a hypothetical future, in which Europe is free of foreigners and ruled by nationalists and in which our main concern is our external security. And I was merely explaining what would be my ideal European foreign policy in this situation. I did not state that the destruction of Israel would solve all our problems...

Facts, fictions and likelihoods. The problem I saw in your post was the idea someone could ally with Islam in order to pursue own interests. The USA/West tried this before, and the result was, in the eyes of USA/West, a catastrophy.

Originally Posted by Theobald

There were no Black people in France proper before 1945. Or insignificant numbers. Therefore there could not have been any intermixing in France before 1945.
[...] Your point is just wrong and - I guess - has been influenced by NS propaganda.

Unfortunately no sources apart of NS sources are available. Fact remains the large ammount of French colonial soldiers on French soil caused much intermixing.

Originally Posted by Theobald

By the way, on the other hand you can see in ex-French Algeria an example of an Apartheid-like segregationnist colony.

Colonialists usually are more racist.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Tell this to the Serbs.

Well, the Serbs did in the past what we are doing now: sitting idle and watch foreigners breeding in masses on our soil.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Do you seriously think that nationalist failures in Europe are only linked with their opinions about the Middle-East ? Is this a joke ? Nationalists cannot succeed in Europe merely because they are often a bunch of inefficient people.

Sympathy rallies for retarded 3rd world dictators and dictatorships are part of this inefficiency. At least here in Germany and in France many NS/nationalists made intensive propaganda for Islamic states and organizations, it caused much more harm to the national movement than you imagine.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Ever thought about the fact that France owns nuclear weapons as well ?

I am well aware.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Ever thought about the fact that a large-scale nuclear attack on such a small country as Israel would wholly destroy it ?

Of course, but what would be left of France after Paris and some other cities have been nuked. Let's better avoid these thoughts.

Originally Posted by Theobald

If you have not, I am pretty sure that Israel strategists have.

They have, and France is considered as hostile state and possible danger.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Israel would not dare to attack another nuclear power, merely because they would not survive a nuclear attack. They do not have any strategical depth and they know it very well. That is why Israelis would do everything to prevent Iran from getting nuclear warheads, even attacking alone.

Why should any Middle Eastern state nuke Israel? This is unlikely, since the territory of Israel is claimed for the Palestinians.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Anyway I did not say that Europe should militarily do anything against Israel. Therefore your comment is just... pointless.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Since Israel is in its very nature an American stronghold, the destruction of the Zionist State is a necessity.

Tell me, what conclusions should someone draw after reading this?

Originally Posted by Theobald

And so what ? Germany allied the Ottomans because of strategical common interests. Just like France did earlier. Where the hell is the difference ?

The French alliance was made to gain superiority over Occidental Europe.

Originally Posted by Theobald

I have never understood why many European nationalists are so eager to point the finger at France while in the same time Germany is forgiven for everything.

Germany is not forgiven everything, just ask a Pole or Russian. Why this many point their finger on France is the French hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Theobald

When the French ally the Ottoman Empire they are a backstabbing treacherous Nation, but when the Germans do exactly the same thing they are heroes fighting for the greatness of the European civilization. Few Nations in Europe can say they never allied an anti-European power. I guess it is linked to Francophobia.

When France allied with the Ottoman Empire it was a flourishing empire, when Germany allied with them it was just a shadow of it's own - the ill man of Bosporus. I agree, both nations deserve to be criticized, but it is a difference making an alliance to occupy foreign territories like France did with Alsace and German Lorraine, or for defense reasons. No Francophobia from my side - everyone likes a

Originally Posted by Theobald

By the way, Aprtangr, if you oppose interventions against Albania, Bosnia, Turkey and Algeria, which you name "imperialistic", why did you vote for this option ?
That is not what I would call a coherent opinion.

Measures and interventions not necessarily have to be of military nature, I should have explained better. Albania; Bosnia alone are no threat. A threat could be Arab or other fighters on their soil. It would be enough to support local forces to deal with that. I think it would make more sense to cooperate with these states, in fact Muslim warriors are not too popular there. An interevention of military nature probably would chage their attitude and make them to heroes. Stability will not be achieved by serious threats towards them, and an attack on us from their side can be dealt with easily.

[Caesar Princeps]

Originally Posted by Ljubomir

Why? And who would that be?

I think that out of 20? 30? (hope no more ) millions of Muslim invaders, there could be some (very few indeed, no more than 1%) either intelligent enough to recognize European superiority and admirate it or willing to integrate TRULY in order to avoid being thrusted out of Europe. They would be so few, they will be absorbed easily in a few generations. Despite being, I think, no particular need for Europe to have them, it could be just to afford them the chance to become Europeans, if they cause no problems.
I actually think, ethnic appartenence can be changed (as Religion, Language, Culture and Traditions do not depend on our genes, and racial peculiar traits can disappear in a handful of generations).
Remember that there are already historical Turk minorances in the Balkans, including Gagauz (Christian Turks), not to speak of Arabic blood in Spain, Portugal, Sicily and Malta. A rate of 5 to 10 out of 10000 integrated is not likely to create any problem.

[Sergius]

Eh, I strongly disagree. If it's possible to send all immigrants back home, why would you keep the most intelligent of them? That makes no sense. Especially not if you consider Europeans 'superior,' as you said.

[Caesar Princeps]

Yes, it is debatable, but I think that this option could as well be discussed. I have no strong argument either against or pro.

[Sergius]

I do.
Against: They do not belong here, no matter how smart, well-educated and integrated they are. No matter if they can name all the Habsburgers while standing on one leg. Still not enough.

[Carnyx]

I agree with Ljubomir wholeheartly!

Caesar Princeps, are we speaking of 20 to 30 millions (!!!) of Muslims to integrate (argh...) ?
That's not "few" to begin with. Then, there has never been so many Muslim invaders in Europe in the past. Such an invasion is unprecedented in European nations history. Last, they can like our culture all they want (and we are pleased foreign people can like our culture very much), but like it at home please.

One cannot think of a worst idea. Such a number of Aliens would never look forward integration, anyway. That's "fantasque"...

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Caesar Princeps

I think that out of 20? 30? (hope no more ) millions of Muslim invaders, there could be some (very few indeed, no more than 1%) either intelligent enough to recognize European superiority and admirate it or willing to integrate TRULY in order to avoid being thrusted out of Europe. They would be so few, they will be absorbed easily in a few generations. Despite being, I think, no particular need for Europe to have them, it could be just to afford them the chance to become Europeans, if they cause no problems.

So basically you are saying that you are an assimilationist and definitely no nationalist. You should have said that before.

Also, you can keep them for yourself. When you say "Europe" you are not refering to one ethnic/national group but to many. I don't want them here.

I actually think, ethnic appartenence can be changed (as Religion, Language, Culture and Traditions do not depend on our genes, and racial peculiar traits can disappear in a handful of generations).

¿Qué?

Main Entry: ¹eth·nic
Pronunciation: 'eth-nik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos national, gentile, from ethnos nation, people; akin to Greek Ethos custom -- more at SIB
1 : HEATHEN
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> b : being a member of a specified ethnic group <an ethnic German> c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>

Any reason why you didn't mention race?

Remember that there are already historical Turk minorances in the Balkans, including Gagauz (Christian Turks), not to speak of Arabic blood in Spain, Portugal

Have a look at genetic studies before speaking of Arabic blood in Spain.

I should also remind you that the Holy Office (the Inquisition) had to deal with the converse (which is what you propose) as they posed a danger to the stability of the nation. Hundreds of years of spilling blood in countless battles followed by some more hundred of years of Inquisition.

If you are a liberal assimilationist, say so. There is no reason why we shouldn't discuss and argue against such views. Everything is debatable, but under its right name.

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Have a look at genetic studies before speaking of Arabic blood in Spain.

I should also remind you that the Holy Office (the Inquisition) had to deal with the converse (which is what you propose) as they posed a danger to the stability of the nation. Hundreds of years of spilling blood in countless battles followed by some more hundred of years of Inquisition.

Not only that, but the invaders never brought with them any Arabs, the foreign genetic/racial influence in Al-Andalus probably did not make up more than a 5% of the total population, and consisted in Berbers, Syrians and Yemenis, no Arabs.

[Caesar Princeps]

I think there should have been some misunderstandment.
First of all, I have never said all 20-30 millions immigrates! I said few (no more than 1%), which drops to no more than 200-300.000 people (1 every 2000 ethnic European).
Second, I clearly said that I think that it is neither a major important nor a necessary measure, but only an option, which could be accepted or refused by European people, as the majority sees fit.
Thirdly, what about the thousands of lesser (in respect to political power and demographic number) ethnies (Silesians, Prussians, Ruthenians, Livs, IstroRomanian, Cornish, Dalmatians, Gauls, and others) that were absorbed by or merged into larger and more powerful ethnic groups during history? It seems that ethnic identity is not maintained forever, if its members are not strongly determined to keep it.
Finally, I am quite sceptical about biologistic concept of race, though it is part of ethnic identity, there are other factors, as you have admitted too. A pure Norwegian-blooded converted to Islam and living as a Turk and speaking Turk is hardly a European.

I hope I have cleared my point of view.

[Menydh]

But, why should it have to be an option at all?

I wouldn't have any problem, for example, with having an Indian friend who I enjoyed to exchange or discuss ideas and experiences, if he lived in India. One, or more than one.

However, what would be the grounds under which I should agree to one staying and the other 1 million to go? That I might consider him more intelligent than the other 1 million? So it would be my bias? Who tells me for sure that the other 1 million are not just as intelligent if not more?

As a guest? as a visitor? Sure, no problem. 1 or 1000.