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

[Theobald]

What is "moral support" exactly supposed to mean ?

I mean, Palestianian freedom fighters have moral support from almost everyone in the world. However without Iranian and some Arabic support there would not be any Palestinian national resistance.

[Marcus Marulus]

I voted for:

Europe should not get involved in any actions against Islamic countries outside its borders, only get rid of Islam at home. No preemptive/preventive actions should be taken against trojan or neighbouring Muslim countries.

The notion of preemptive attacks sounds a bit barbaric and unreasonable to me. It reminds me of the Bush doctrine. No Islamic country possesses any sizable military force that could endanger Europe. Diplomatic actions would be welcome.

Of course, Europe should be militarily strog (now it is extremely weak)...this strength alone should be enough to avert any possible attack if one of these neighbouring countries comes into possession of any sizable military might.

Demography is problem though. An Algerian president (I think it was Ben Bella) once said: "Our women's wombs are our weapon." It is Europe destroying itself with low birthrates. Along with "getting rid" of Muslim immigration, European peoples should adopt a new philosophy of life because if this unhealthy life-style of most Europeans perpetuates itself, Europe will perish even without Muslim immigrants. It will depopulate itself and become prey to immigrants anyway...or it will be a thinly populated and poor region on the level of Africa. People represent riches. European peoples need to reproduce.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by prometheus

Demography is problem though. An Algerian president (I think it was Ben Bella) once said: "Our women's wombs are our weapon."

No, it was Houari Boumédienne in a 1974 UN speech.

"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends.

Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Theobald

I think that there is no need to discuss the fact that we have to get rid of Islam "at home".

Currently the situation is Islam is getting rid of us in Europe.

Originally Posted by Theobald

In the South-Western Mediterranean area, the main threat to us is Algeria and its nuclear ambitions. [...]

That's interesting, you mean Iran's nuclear ambitions are less dangerous?

Originally Posted by Theobald

What kind of preventive actions can we take against Algeria and Turkey ?
In Algeria a pre-emptive strike is necessary so as to destroy their nuclear installations and complexes and much of their military capacity (in particular their air force). We need a reason to intervene there though. This is why we have to support and fund hardcore Kabyle separatists. Then it would not be that hard to find a little something - like the Americans found in Iraq - to crush Algeria.[...]

I opposte this sort of imperialistic interventions, it is up to hem finding a solution for their very own problems. The real thread is not coming from these countries but from inside of ours.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Algeria and Turkey shall never be able to be a threat for Europe again.

It's just a matter psychology, as soon as you show them you are willing to defend yourself they no longer cause any trouble.

Originally Posted by Theobald

As for Turkish allies in Europe, namely Albania and Bosnians, I am not sure of what should be done with them. Probably Bosnia should be divided between Croats and Serbs. As for the Albanian problem, of course Kosovo should be back to Serbia, empty of Albanians, but what about Albania-proper ?

This just would cause a new war in the Balcans. Muslims should have their own state and observed closely.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Also, Turkey being the most dangerous neighbouring country, we shall keep a "cordon sanitaire" around Turkey, through economic, military and political alliances with the Kurds, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Iranians.
Iran in particular. Do not forget that - since the Young Turks' movement - the goal of Turkish nationalism, apart from expansion in the Balkans, has been "Turan" and pan-Turanism, which clearly goes against Iranian ambitions in this region.
Europe should also help the newly created states, Kurdistan and the Kabyle state, in order to strengthen them against possible imperialist views.

It is not Europe's task to shift borders elsewhere, this has be done before - Treaty of Versailles etc. Supportings Iranian Shia imperialism over Turkey's pan-Turan imperialism does not make sense.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Realpolitik.

Not at all.

Originally Posted by Theobald

In this matter I will consider Israel as the 51th American state and make no difference between American and Israeli foreign policies in the Middle East.

That's utterly rubbish. US and Israeli policy differ in various aspects.

Originally Posted by Theobald

American policy was not really about the actual destruction of Europe though, rather her destruction as a world power able to compete with the USA. That is why America has always tried to cut Europe from her natural areas of influence : North Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia.

Natural areas if influence? Are you serious. What next? Irelansd is natural area of influence for GB? Didn't we have this crappy policy long enough? Those areas are natural areas of influence of their own people.

Originally Posted by Theobald

The first step was the decolonization of these areas, started in 1945-46 with the independence of Lebanon and Syria, finished in 1991 with the independence of Central Asian Soviet Republics.

What's wrong with decolonialization?

Originally Posted by Theobald

[...]
The third step was to undermine Europe from the inside, with both mass immigration in Western Europe and Muslim separatist movements in Eastern Europe. The USA has supported any anti-European Islamist movement, from Bosnians and UCK to the Chechens. Push for Turkey's entrance into the EU is also part of this strategy. Like I read in some Spanish newspaper, "it has not gone unnoticed by a United States keen on consolidating its world domination that Turkey holds the key to the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia".

France always played a much more significant role with the destruction of Europe and here values than the USA ever could. There was significant negrification to be found in France long before race-mixing and liberalism occured in USA and brought that via occupation to Europe. USA can be blamed for much, but EU immigration policy is domestic European policy - caused by European politicans following the freemasonic ideals of the French revolution!

Originally Posted by Theobald

Back to our topic. If Europe wants to be a world superpower again, we have to fight against these American policies, especially in our natural areas of influence. And of course in the Middle East.

It's not about being a wordl superpower, it is about how we save ourselves and be strong enough to encounter future dangers. We must keep off the Middle East once and for all times.

Originally Posted by Theobald

That is why political action should be directed to weaken America's positions everywhere, and especially in the Middle East.

Weaken the America's position? You mean with supporting America's enemies?

Originally Posted by Theobald

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

You are not serious, are you? First of all Israel is no toy to play with, I simply presume they would not agree with your points and show they not only have the will but also the power to counter such plans.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Pro-American regimes should then be our main target. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordania. The problem in these countries is that the only serious opposition is Islamist. We could support a new rise of Arab nationalism there though, and then an Islamo-nationalist alliance that would overthrow pro-American governements. Well, actually the fall of these collaborationnist regimes is a necessary step towards Israel's destruction.

"Our" regimes should be the main target- There won't be an Arab nationalism anymore, the times of foreign idelogies for Arabia is over. You are hypocritical, one the one hand you criticize USA for their imperialist policy, on the other hand you would do the same if you had enough power.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Once we got rid of Israel and American influence in the Middle East we should then favor a balance of the powers there, in which no Nation would be able to dominate others, with Europe playing the role of balancer and "referee". Syria would be a counterweight to Iraq, Iraq would be a counterweight to Iran, Iran would be a counterweight to Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia would be a counterweight to Egypt, and vice versa.
Also, Syria being the least powerful of these Nations, it would perhaps be desirable to support projects of a "Greater Syria", including Lebanon, Palestina and Jordania.

Again, it's their lands, not ours. Neither Europe nor USA should usrp to play the role of a balancer or something like that. The only counterwights existing in these area will be Sunni Muslims vs Shia Muslims, and not single states.

Originally Posted by Theobald

To sum it up, if Europe wants her status of world power back, we need an active and agressive foreign policy, strictly practical and without any sentimental illusions, so as to weaken other world powers willing to destroy us (mainly America) and to take back what was stolen to us. A great Middle-East policy is therefore highly desirable.

Erm...Europe never had a status of world power. It were single European imperialistic states having had this status. Where was France's support when the Osman empire attcked Vienna in 1683? Again, France's and Germny's policy, not to mention GB's always has been much more devaststing than any US policy.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Accordingly, an alliance with Islam in these regions - and strictly in these regions - is a necessity.

It is not only no necessity, it is idiocy. An alliance is only possible between equals fighting for the same cause.

Originally Posted by Theobald

I can understand that many nationalists have a moral problem with that. But idealistic notions are highly useless in the real world and in real politics. We need a policy aimed solely to achieve our goals by any means.

Your views are idealistic like those who want to found a great German(ic) empire again.
This has nothing to do with any realism but with pipe-dreams.

[grom]

My view is :Europe for European whites, moslem countries in Levant for Levantine people.We dont have contradictory interests, only zionists want do this.Lefty,liberals and zionists ,,invite" moslems people to Europe because they want do european hate all moslems,even these who are arab nationalists and fight about the same values like we.

Free Palestine

Free Iraq

Free white Europe

[Carnyx]

I hesitate...

How do you make sure Muslim trojans do not represent a threat to Europe?

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.

Europe should not get involved in any actions against Islamic countries outside its borders, only get rid of Islam at home. No preemptive/preventive actions should be taken against trojan or neighbouring Muslim countries.

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.

[Theobald]

I was pretty sure that someone would come with a huge post and argue with me.

Originally Posted by Aprtgangr

Currently the situation is Islam is getting rid of us in Europe.

Did I say the opposite ? You are just trolling with such comments.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

That's interesting, you mean Iran's nuclear ambitions are less dangerous?

Of course. Iran's nuclear power is primarily meant as a Muslim counterweight to Israeli nuclear power, not directed against Europe. Contrarily to what many people think Iranian leadership is not a bunch of shiist fanatics. Most of them, including Ahmadinejad himself, are smart politicians and Iran has a clear geopolitical strategy.

But Algeria's nuclear power would be meant as a threat against France (and Morocco). There is a strong anti-French feeling in Algeria. For instance it is well-known that Algerian islamists are lobbying in the international islamist network for actions against France to be taken. These same islamists who were about to overcome Algerian governement some years ago. And could do it in the next years. If anti-French fanatics come to be in possession of nuclear weapons, with the possibility to wipe all Southern French cities off the map, what do you think they will do ? Play poker ?

"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."
Which parts of this statement don't you understand ?
On the other hand, please, show me one comment of Ahmadinejad or any important current Iranian leader (some mullah of Bandah-e-Busher or Gonbad-e-Kavus is not considered as an important Iranian leader) saying that they want to invade or nuke Europe. I am interested.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

I opposte this sort of imperialistic interventions, it is up to hem finding a solution for their very own problems.

I do not care about the Kabyles or the Kurds. I do not want to find a solution for their problems. I want to ensure French and European security. This is my problem and this is linked to Algeria and Turkey.

Originally Posted by Aprtgangr

The real thread is not coming from these countries but from inside of ours.

I said "once we got rid of Islam at home". Do you seriously think there will not be a revanchist feeling in Algeria or in Turkey and that they are going to keep quiet at home ?

Originally Posted by Aprtangr

This just would cause a new war in the Balcans.

And so what ? Do you believe nationalists are going to take power in Europe peacefully ? I would like it to happen. But it will not happen like that, at least it is not likely.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Muslims should have their own state and observed closely.

Yeah of course. And Turks should have their own Muslim state inside Germany as well. We could call it Deutschlandistan. Or do you prefer New-Turkey ? But of course we would observe it closely! LOL!

Islam does not belong in Europe, that's about it.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Not at all.

How so ? Do you know what is Realpolitik at least ?

Originally Posted by Aptrangr

US and Israeli policy differ in various aspects.

Of course, in various minor aspects. But had I taken it into account my post would have been twice bigger. I said this in order to simplify things.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Natural areas of influence? Are you serious.

Of course I am. If we want to secure our borders we have to see further than the Mediterranean. No Maginot line would be able to stop nuclear weapons. And even with open borders, if there was no problem in the Muslim world there would have been no immigration.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

What next? Irelansd is natural area of influence for GB?

In my idealistic view of Europe I would rather see England as the natural area of influence of Ireland and Scotland. (just joking of course, don't take it seriously...)

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

What's wrong with decolonialization?

The way it was done. I support decolonization as a matter of principle. But we could have done it without losing our influence in our ex-colonies.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

France always played a much more significant role with the destruction of Europe and here values than the USA ever could.

That was not the point here. I was dealing with geopolitical situation and anti-European American foreign policy since 1945.
Anyway I loathe the French Republic, its principles and its influence as much as I loathe America, its principles and its influence. Principles which are not far from each other actually.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

There was significant negrification to be found in France long before race-mixing and liberalism occured in USA and brought that via occupation to Europe.

"Negrification" in France proper before 1945 ? Please, give me some evidences. "Mein Kampf" will not be considered as a serious reference of course.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

It's not about being a wordl superpower, it is about how we save ourselves and be strong enough to encounter future dangers. We must keep off the Middle East once and for all times.

If we want to "be strong enough to encounter future dangers" we shall be a world superpower. And since future dangers are most likely to come from North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East we must deal with these areas before they represent a threat again.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Weaken the America's position? You mean with supporting America's enemies?

Of course, I made it clear many times I think.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

You are not serious, are you? First of all Israel is no toy to play with, I simply presume they would not agree with your points

Of course they would not agree with my opinion! LOL! Just like immigrants here do not agree with our opinions... What a point...
Anyway it is funny to see how you are defending Israel's right to exist like you were defending your very own right to exist...

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

"Our" regimes should be the main target

Of course. Please, show me where I have said the opposite.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

There won't be an Arab nationalism anymore, the times of foreign ideologies is over in Arabia.

Many people also say that there will not be a German nationalism anymore and that Hitlerian times are over.
How is nationalism a foreign ideology anywhere anyway ? It can be used and applied in any Nation.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

You are hypocritical, one the one hand you criticize USA for their imperialist policy, on the other hand you would do the same if you had enough power.

I criticize the USA's imperialist policy because it is anti-European, not because it is imperialist. I only care about French and European interests.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Erm...Europe never had a status of world power. It were single European imperialistic states having had this status.

Yes, by Europe I mean "European Nations acting together", not an united European Empire.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Where was France's support when the Osman empire attcked Vienna in 1683?

Oh yeah those fuckin' backstabbing French ! But tell me, Aptrgangr, where was Germanic powers' support when we - together with the Brits and the Russians - liberated Greece from the Ottoman Empire in 1830 ? Can you also explain how was the German Empire fighting against the Ottoman Empire in 1914-1918, huh ? Or how Nazi Germany with its Bosnian and Albanian SS divisions fought against Islam during World War II ?
We can blame each other without end. It is just pointless.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Again, France's and Germny's policy, not to mention GB's always has been much more devaststing than any US policy.

It is true. But it is also true that under the motto "Divide and conquer" the Anglo-Saxons have always tried to create or to increase animosities between the French and the Germans, France and Germany being the two pillars of Western Europe. They knew very well what a Franco-German alliance, or rather an united continental Europe with Russia, would have meant, and they still know it. We can still see it through Anglo-Saxon foreign policies.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

It is not only no necessity, it is idiocy.

Please keep it civil. We are not arguing over our lives. It is just about different views of European foreign policy. You can disagree with me, but please do it respectfully.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

An alliance is only possible between equals fighting for the same cause.

An alliance is possible between Nations fighting against the same enemies. Were the USA and USSR fighting for the same cause ? Again you are the one being idealistic here. I just want to achieve my goals. By any necessary means.

Originally Posted by Aprtgangr

Your views are idealistic like those who want to found a great German(ic) empire again.
This has nothing to do with any realism but with pipe-dreams.

Then you did not get my point.
From a geopolitical point of view, what do I want ? Europe's security and greatness. I guess you want the same thing. We just have a different view on how to achieve our goal.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Theobald

Then you did not get my point.
From a geopolitical point of view, what do I want ? Europe's security and greatness. I guess you want the same thing. We just have a different view on how to achieve our goal.

You forget that the global superpower in the end of this century is not the US but China. Europe is too weak to stand against China alone.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Theobald

I was pretty sure that someone would come with a huge post and argue with me.

What a boring world we would live in when all people would agree with each other.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Did I say the opposite ? You are just trolling with such comments.

You did not state otherwise. I inherit much sarcasm – that's why I easily make friends with English. Stating a simple fact is anything but trolling but destruction of illusions.

Originally Posted by Theobald

Of course. Iran's nuclear power is primarily meant as a Muslim counterweight to Israeli nuclear power, not directed against Europe. Contrarily to what many people think Iranian leadership is not a bunch of shiist fanatics. Most of them, including Ahmadinejad himself, are smart politicians and Iran has a clear geopolitical strategy.

Iran's geopolitical strategy is not based on creating a counterpart to Israel alone. It is directed in creating the so-called Shia Crescent too, in reaction to the more and more violent Sunni Islam.

Originally Posted by Theobald

But Algeria's nuclear power would be meant as a threat against France (and Morocco). There is a strong anti-French feeling in Algeria. For instance it is well-known that Algerian islamists are lobbying in the international islamist network for actions against France to be taken. These same islamists who were about to overcome Algerian governement some years ago. And could do it in the next years. If anti-French fanatics come to be in possession of nuclear weapons, with the possibility to wipe all Southern French cities off the map, what do you think they will do ? Play poker ?
"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."
Which parts of this statement don't you understand ?

The question is which part did you not understand? Islam is not a card in your poker deck, it is an independent operating force. Arabs are Arabs and behave like Arabs – show them you are willing to punish them hard for threatening you, show a point-blank sabre, give them no chance for backstabbing, and they are friendly and cooperative.
It is interesting you repeatedly talk about „Islamists“. This term was invented by multiculturalist dreamers that want to show Islam is the religion of peace and „Islamists“ are just a violent minority – having nothing to do with peaceful Islam.

Originally Posted by Theobald

On the other hand, please, show me one comment of Ahmadinejad or any important current Iranian leader (some mullah of Bandah-e-Busher or Gonbad-e-Kavus is not considered as an important Iranian leader) saying that they want to invade or nuke Europe. I am interested.

Originally Posted by Theobald

There is no such speech. Shiites have enough to do with defending themselves against the growing Sunni menace.
I do not take hot air for serious anyway.

Originally Posted by Theobald

I do not care about the Kabyles or the Kurds. I do not want to find a solution for their problems. I want to ensure French and European security. This is my problem and this is linked to Algeria and Turkey.

You sounded like you would support any sorts of anti-Turkish etc. movements...
The main problem is neither to be found in Algier, Ankara nor in Tel Aviv, our main problem is directly located in Paris, Berlin, Brussels etc.pp. Always looking for foreign reasons for our mess is paranoid. Let's clean up out mess at home.
Winning the hearts and minds of our own people, that's th only way for our survival.

Originally Posted by Theobald

I said "once we got rid of Islam at home". Do you seriously think there will not be a revanchist feeling in Algeria or in Turkey and that they are going to keep quiet at home ?

There already is a revanchist feeling.

Originally Posted by Theobald

And so what ? Do you believe nationalists are going to take power in Europe peacefully ? I would like it to happen. But it will not happen like that, at least it is not likely.

A Coup'd Etat would be