I'd like to share with you a chain email I got sent today. I'm not a fan of chain emails anyway, as the guy who sent it to me well knows. He also knows I'm generally a leftie, so he likes to send me things he thinks will annoy me - he's good to me that way



The snipped cartoon featured an old Jewish man sat on a park bench with a little girl, who sees his concentration camp tattoo and asks him about it. It finishes with her asking "So, you kept it to remind yourself about the dangers of political extremism?", and him saying "No, my dear. To remind you". Pithy and quite moving, but I'm not sure if it entirely fits with the sentiments in the chain mail it came with. (I haven't posted it here because I'm uncertain of the copyright provenance - I doubt the originators of the email had permission to reproduce it, and I won't break rules by repeating that.)

Some of the sentiments are mundane, and not hard for most people to agree with (the Holocaust was a terrible thing). Other are more contentious (the implication that Muslims are on a course to carry out the next one).

Both sets of views have been laid out here before, by moif among others.

I take a contiguous but contrary view - the way Muslims treat, and are treated by, European society does indeed risk provoking a new Holocaust, but I think that it is a risk that will likely be averted, and that, in any case, the greatest potential risk is that Muslims will be the victims and not the perpetrators (despite some common ideas in modern extremist Islamic and Nazi ideologies). To me, the anti-Muslim stance exemplified in this email - that Muslims are some alien and hostile other set on twisted "our" society and culture to "their" ends and on outbreeding "us" - has greater and more worrying echoes of the European anti-semitism that gave birth to the Holocaust than anything that Muslims themselves say or do. While I certainly agree that certain aspects of Islam (even some aspects of the mainstream) need to change to avoid or minimise unrest, I think anti-Islamic rhetoric has an equal or greater need to change, for the same purposes.

Questions for debate

How grave a risk is another Holocaust in Europe, or elsewhere?

If such a terrible event were to take place, who do you envisage would be the victims and the perpetrators, and why?

How grave a risk is another Holocaust in Europe, or elsewhere?

I can't see it happening, not in the way this poll asks, or how it is hinted at in the e-mail. A Holocaust would require a regime ruthless enough to carry it out and I don't see anyone in Europe with that kind of ruthlessness at the moment. I'm not unconvinced that if Europe 'turns Muslim', the Jews won't suffer for it, but I'm not convinced it will be in the form of a Holocaust.

I think what we're in far greater danger of, is war. War in the manner we've seen in Lebannon and the Balkans and which we're seeing the first signs of in the numerous 'riots' that have taken place across Europe in recent years. As the Muslim enclaves in Europe grow larger, they will attempt to gain autonomy and eventual armed independence in the manner of Hizb'Allah. At some stage this will lead to armed conflict and I believe the slaughter of innocents will probably occur as a result.

I have no doubt that other countries will intervene if the conflict gets out of hand, but in doing so they will seek a compromise (Kosovo style) that favours the Muslims, for they will be seen to be the oppressed, as happened in Bosnia.

How grave a risk is another Holocaust in Europe, or elsewhere?
The is a very grave risk of genocide, but another Holocaust no.

There is genocide going on in Darfur. The world ignored genocide in Rwanda, and Kampuchea.

The world ignores the Arabs routine calls for genocide of the Jews, even when they do from the podium at the United Nations. We have people on this board like Vladimir that proclaim their support for Arabs’ quest for genocide. So that is not the issue. It has happened, is happening right now, and will most like happen again in the future.

The issue is the Holocaust. It was far more than merely the murder of millions of people by the Nazis. Yes they murdered millions, but they first robbed them of all that they possessed, then they enslaved them, then they murdered them, and afterwards took even their remains. Did they do this in a bubble? No they did not. It took the rest of the world to aid and abet in the Nazi goals by denying the victims any sanctuary. Even after they knew what was going on, England sent back boat loads of Jews to be exterminated, to appease the Arabs. Today many anti-Semitic groups claim that the Holocaust never happened and that they are going to finish what Hitler started, usually in the same sentence.

Today Israel exists to make sure that there is a sanctuary. Not one country in the entire world prevents the immigration of Muslims; they even have 56 countries that have Islam as a requirement for immigration.

So no there will not be another Holocaust. Not as long as places like Israel exist.

If such a terrible event were to take place, who do you envisage would be the victims and the perpetrators, and why?
Genocide is going to happen as long as the world continues to appease thugs. The most likely perpetrators are the ones that routinely proclaim that is their intentions. The Arabs have stated and will continue to state “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people”.

They believe that they have not only a right, but a religious obligation to subjugate the rest of the world.

In most religions there is a sect of extremists that believe that their religious tracts are literal commandments from their lord. Mostly a small minority, in Islam those are estimated to be about 70% of the people. Hardly a minority.

This will continue until the world has had enough, will it before countries like Iran get nuclear weapons? I have no idea, but would be willing to bet that the moderates will continue to ignore the problem.

How grave a risk is another Holocaust in Europe, or elsewhere?
The careful network of post-war alliances in the West makes such a thing unlikely to nearly impossible.

I like Samantha Power's A Problem from Hell which backs my own view that genocide thrives on the "not my problem" attitude of the international community.

The growth of the EU directly opposes that trend.

We see a good trend towards internationalism in Africa as well, though it's still in it's infancy. Still I have hopes that once countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Ethiopia, etc. get on their feet in the way that India is working on now.

We'll see the back end of the days when no one will pipe up about Sudan or Zimbabwe.

I think the blanket statements about "the Arabs" are largely unwarranted.

Not least because the Iranians aren't Arab.


...but also because they are not all bent of the extermination of Jews
If such a terrible event were to take place, who do you envisage would be the victims and the perpetrators, and why?[/b]
The places that people care about least, Africa and parts of Asia.

..but my finger are crossed for nobody.

No it doesn't. The EU stood by whilst the massacres in Kroatia, Bosnia and Kosovo took place. It is the EU which urges European nations to take in ever increasing numbers of Muslims and which has done deals with the like of Ghaddafi, the Syrians and Hizb'Allah.

Quote Samantha Power's book if you wish, but the fact is the EU has done nothing to prevent genocide except talk about its noble intentions.


Perhaps, but given the bleak future of an over populated planet peopled by an ever growing number of religious fanatics all squabbling for an ever dwindling supply of fresh water, I some how doubt it.


Neither were all the Germans. Litte consolation that was to the dead at Auschwitz. Not all Muslims in France are Jew hating murderers either, but thats no consolation to Ilam Halimi. How far do you extend the benefit of the doubt when there is scant evidence that moderate Muslims can, will or ever have been a moderate influence on their fanatical co-religionists?

I meant the growth of the EU specifically. I wouldn't imagine the Eu would stand by and watch genocide occur in an actual member state.

Lest ways I hope not... that's sort of what alliance means.


Perhaps, but the fanatics in turn have very limited influence in governments, and then typically when an underlying political motive coincides.

The Arab world is land of the dictators more than the fundamentalists. I happen to think there's a happier medium to be found in political liberalization.

I see. So what is meant by 'growth' in this regard? Geographical expansion or the accumulation of ever further reaching political power? For it seems to me that the latter is a far more likely candidate for tyranny than what we have today.

The EU has been labelled as 'the Fourth Reich', the 'New Soviet Union' and the return of the 'Holy Roman Empire' by various critics and whilst I don't subscribe to such notions, yet, I do recognize the dangerous potential for political domination posed by the EU.
Frankly I don't see any need for the EU except as a means of consolidating power, and if there is one thing to be learned from European history, then it is the danger of consolidating power where it can corrupt and fester.

The EU today will not intervene if genocide should occur in a member state because it has no means to do so and the EU of tomorrow will not intervene, because having the means to do so, it will be the EU, having fallen into corruption which will be responsible for the genocide.

There is no appetite for mass murder in Europe. There never has been. Even the Nazi's did their utmost to hide their appalling crimes. Unfortunately, there is little appetite for confrontation either and, as in 1936, the Eurocrats prefer to turn a blind eye to the truth and leave the mess for the Americans to deal with. That is the lesson of the Balkans.


Arab and Muslim are not the same thing as you already said yourself to Loreng so why are you making the same mistake?

The Muslim world may be dominated by dictators, but lets not lie to ourselves. These people are western backed. Musharref, Mubarek, the King of Jordan and the Turkish military elite, these and those like them are all propped up by connections to the west and access to western military hardware. Give Muslims the vote and we can see in Palestine, Malaysia, Iran and Turkey what eventually happens. Secularism wanes and is replaced. Chaos and represseion of minorities follows.

The former, giving unstable former soviet states a stake in a peaceful Europe and relations with the West to improve their economies., the Poland effect.

With all its requisite inconveniances.


I don't follow, was speaking specifically of the Arab world here. Complete with it's proximity to Europe.


Palestine I agree with, though it pleads special circumstance.

Malaysia is a bit iffy, being closer to one-party state unfree pseudo-democracy.

Iran is less of a democracy that that, total farce no one has any vote that counts

Turkey I think is a bad example because the "Islamists" there have been trying their darndest to be friendly with the West... the oppression of minorities is a legacy of the army and their secularist (and typically nationalist) allies.

Actually moif has it correct. Every single one of the Muslim states could not be considered a democracy in any shape or form.

As for Turkey the oppression of minorities is a legacy of Turkish majority. It occuried under the Ottoman, the army and the Islamists.

I find it ironic that the members here that live in the EU disagree with the leftist Americans on the value of the EU government. I for one feel that those people living in the EU have a far better understanding of the effect than those of us that live in America. But go ahead and correct them, you obvious have some sort of superior insight.

First that's not what moif claimed.

Second that's not true of Turkey or Indonesia or Bangladesh and likely Krygyzstan etc...


I could argue back about their comments on the US, but I find all Ad hominems of the sort rather pointless.

Just the facts....

I see. Yes, I'm undecided on this aspect of the EU because I don't know how well Poland and the other Eastern European states would manage if they were not in the EU. The way I see it, its a two street with both sides, East and West enjoying benefits which do not depend on the EU.

The real issue with EU expansion however, is Turkey. Whether or not the EU is, or will be responsible for the stabilization of Eastern Europe bears little on the question of whether or not the EU would be able to accomidate Turkey. I find your claim that the "Islamists" in Turkey have been trying their 'darndest' to be friendly with the West to be in total contradiction with all I have seen and heard in the European media with regards to the Turks. Time and again, we've been told that the religiously minded Turks do not wish to renounce anything in favour of EU membership. They are not willing to end their illegal occupation of Cypress for example, claiming instead that Northern Cypress is a state, though no other country but Turkey recognises it as such.

Like all expansionist entities, the EU wants Turkey to join. The EU leadership is sick with the thought of gaining control of Turkey, the Black Sea and greater access to the Middle East. There are billions of Euro's to be made catering to the desires of rich Arabians and that is what the EU is really about. Money.

You can forget all the other stuff about human rights and intervening to prevent genocide. Like as not the weapons being used are supplied by European companies and paid for by Europe's tax payers. We give millions upon millions of our money in 'donations' to the Middle East and as the British lately demonstrated. Nothing, not even naked corruption in Europe's corridors of power will be allowed to interupt the flow of income into Europe's coffers.

You need proof? Look at the CAP. I know you know what I mean! Money talks in the EU, not morality.


Sorry. I assumed you were also refering to the Turks (with their greater proximity to Europe) and the Iranians


How good their democracies are is beside the point, so in that respect Loreng is in the right of what I said. I'm not saying these country's are 'democratic', what I'm saying is, once the Muslims took control from which ever western backed tyrant you care to mention, they turned on all others around them.

It doesn't even have to be by means of a ballot box either. Though Iraq has had elections, the disproportionate violence being carried out in Iraq against non Muslims mirrors that being carried out every where Muslims feel they can act as they wish:
Link.

You can hide your eyes like the monkey who sees no evil, but that doesn't stop the evil taking place. For every Muslim nation on Earth I can find you stories of people being raped, brutally murdered, tortured and ethnically cleansed for no other reason than that they were not Muslims.

To the people who voted for the option which would see Europeans murdering Muslims, I challenge them to find footage of a Mosque being treated like this in Europe by Europeans. I'm sure the Balkans is to blame for why so many people distrust Europe with regards to Muslims, but it should be understood that the Balkans was not a one sided conflict. The Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo were every bit as guilty as the Serbs and Kroats. No one side had a monopoly on victimhood, despite the way the conflict was portrayed in the media.
Link.

Excluding births to foreign born ( mostly muslim ) parents the german birth rate is 1.36 per worman...

That number is staggering when you think about it ...

european culture as i have said before is on the way to the end and they are quickly hastening their own decline.

the gentrification of western europe will make it an easy target for muslim extremists in 15-20 years

the muslim population will continue to grow but the natively european one will sharply decline in the next 20 years

this is a good article on the trend.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fello...nar20030301.htm

on my wifes side of the family only one cousin has any children and she just has 1, two of her cousins are "career women " with absolutley no time for kids... they are too self-indulgent. and frankly they are miserable with their "family life" they have both been in long term relationships ( 10+ years) but wont consider marriage because it would tie them down...

I wish they were alone in their thinking but they are not ...

to have more than 2 children you are considered "Asozial" or AZI = asocial = red neck = white trash etc... europe got rich, fat, dumb, and happy ... and their societies will pay for it when they are destroyed, under the weight of sharia law ...

GuardianAngel

Well, I know several couples with more than two children and I've never heard any one use the term 'asocial' to describe them, maybe its a German thing?

There are two things you have to remember with regards to Europe's decline fertility rate. First, and this is paramount. Europe is heavily over populated, look at Europe from space and this quickly becomes obvious. Second, Europe is a very expensive place to raise a family.

Coupled together, these two factors would justify the declining fertility rate if there were no exterior threat from Islamic immigration into Europe. Basically whats happening in Europe seems to be a natural reaction to people crowded together and sharing finite resources. The population drops to re-establish an equilibrium which was disrupted by two world wars and the subsequent baby boom in the late 1940's.

Link.

Taking into account that this is still just speculation and the actual number may be far less (or more if Turkey is granted EU membership) the danger posed by Islam in Europe is not that the Europeans become out bred, after all, the fertility rates will most probably rise again once the baby boomers (who currently sit on the majority of wealth in Europe) start to die off. The real problem will be enclaves of Muslims attempting to establish local authority in defiance of national identity. We can currently see this happening in Kosovo as it already happened in Bosnia. The natural outcome of this tendency towards Islamic authority is always conflict with non Muslims.

Muslims in Europe are not a problem unless their demands for political power are accomidated and this is true of all religions. Religion has NO place in politics. Their ideology is a social problem, for all kinds of reasons, but so long as these remain unpolitical in nature, then they can and will be tolerated.

Very few Europeans believe Muslims will out breed us. The common consensus is that they will gradually be assimilated, whether they like it or not, into the European identity so long as they do not suffer persecution for their belief's. Unfortunately, those fire brand clerics and jihadi's amongst the Muslims of Europe who desire to see the return of the Great Caliphate actiively cultivate a sense of injustice amongst Europe's Muslims and this meme has taken root amongst a great many immigrants who came here because of the freedoms they now complain about. If this mentality continues to fester as it has in the last two or three decades, then as the Muslim population grows, it will unleash the same types of conflict as we see in Lebanon.

My own opinion is that the jihadi's are given far too much leeway by Europe's leaders. More often than not an imam who openly defies European values is subsequently given a voice by the media and politicians, especially in the United Kingdom. I believe accomidating these radicals in the name of tolerance is in fact helping to establish an Islamic counter culture in Europe which believes itself to be under threat from 'xenophobic Europeans and their hated freedoms'. As far as I can see, this trend is leading us straight towards conflict and even war as Muslim enclaves reach sufficient size and strength to challenge national governments who will be unwilling to use military force in Europe's heart lands after so many decades of (American guaranteed) peace. Such conflicts will prove the lie of multiculture and threaten the fabric of European society and so the politicians will do all they can to prevent armed conflict. They will appease the radicals and back down and the jihadi's will take heart from this as we see them doing in Kosovo, Lebanon and Palestine.

The only way to deal with the jihadi's is to remove them from their popular support and remove their popular support from them. Current policies of appeasement do not do this. Currently an imam who urges jihad is only rarely punished, and almost never banished from Europe.

How grave a risk is another Holocaust in Europe, or elsewhere?

Although one can never be certain about what could happen in the future, I do not foresee another Holocaust (as in the way it was carried out in the 1940's) in Europe. I do however more or less agree with your assertion that Muslims in Europe can become the victims of large scale repression and agression.

To explain this view one needs to focus to the rise of new nationalistic political movements across Europe and the fact that their mostly one-issue stance resonates with a considerable part of society. Many times followers of these political parties are extremely negative (towards the point of unreasonable agression) towards especially the Muslim community. It is almost near impossible to have a normal and informed discussion with followers of these parties (as far as I can tell from my experiences in Holland with PVV supporters). They generally have a really simplistic, generalistic and often agressive stance towards everything that smells and looks like Islam or Muslim.

This is a serious and dangerous social process that is often overlooked.

The debate between Moif and Turnea is quite interesting, but as far as it relates to the question at hand, a moot point.

Genocide will not, in the current climate, happen in Western Europe because neither America -- Western Europe's closest ally -- or Europe itself has shrunk into a such a nationalistic posture.

To even take it to the Balkans, I would argue that Clintons response to that crisis was far faster than any american response to any foregn ethnic cleansing, ever, including Clinton's responseto Rwanda, even including Clinton's response to Haiti. And Bosnia is hardly to America what England, France or even the Netherlands is or are.

Can any of the 40 percent of responders who saw the next genocide unfolding in Europe -- either at the hands of muslims, or white europeans -- honestly imagine that unfolding? The response of the rest of Europe, let alone America, would be swift and uncompromising. Those nations are seriously important, crucial trading partners, and genocide makes terrible economics. I might even argue Britain's colonial 'daughter nations' in Africa would break up a british genocide -- if only to save their neo-colonial, dependent economies -- faster than England would do the same for them.

The next holocaust, if you want to use that term instead of genocide, will happen (or is happening) in Africa, Asia, in any country which possesses little economic or cultural intrigue to the world's most able militaries. I think we would all agree there.

If we want to prevent this genocide we need to empower agencies like the African Union to manage these problems; and we need to present third world economies with an opportunity to diversify their trading partners and enter into a less one-sided path towards industrialization than history has offered.

Back to Europe:



My own opinion is that diffusing serious tensions is about fostering a flexible, adaptable 'mainstream' culture, that engages intolerance, and even borrows cultural signifiers.

We've talked about this in similar posts, about how muslims standing in the shadows of the world trade center -- or what's left of it-- are exposed to far less intolerance -- and tend to expouse far less intolerance -- than their counterparts in Europe.

I'm not going to tell the British what they're doing wrong, or how to handle terrorism: they've suffered it from the IRA for centuries, and in many ways the British response to recent events has been extraordinarily civil.

But having said that, America is doing something right, better than its European counterparts -- no one on here can tell me London is any less packed with Islamic Immigrants than Queens or Brooklyn or any North Eastern city -- and I might chalk it up to the economic and historical pre-conditions.... in other words, it's a cultural thing, and it seems to me that Western European culture is being asked to open itself up in a way its never done before. E.g., in France how often do you hear politician explicitly address the 'muslim community'? The universalism of French politics exludes the very possibility. That's a serious taboo that's going to have to break, it seems. For more info, check this book by Malian-French Manthia Diawara, "We Won't Budge" http://www.eruditor.com/exec/books/item/97...en?currency=USD

Funny,

I know quite a few german couples here in the states... at least one of whom is independantly wealthy and so the cost of raising children is of no concern.....

besides the tax breaks the german government PAYS people to have kids Kindergeld is 154 euro per child per month and 179 euro for kid # 4 or more... thats $210.68 at todays' (7/31/07) exchange rate for #1-3 and $244.88 for # 4+ plus "free" child care and a host of other benefits

I know it doesnt pay for everything but good god if i got an extra $600 from the german government ... darn, i think i am going to apply, my kids are german citizens until they reach 18 ... an extra $7200 / year would definately help.

Drewyorktimes


I think it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of Islamic migrants arriving in Britain (something which has been happening for generations, especially from Commonwealth countries such as Pakistan) have assimilated peacefully and made a better life for themselves in Britain. In this respect, many British migrants are very similar to American equivalents - in particular, they are often professionals (doctors, lawyers etc) or have a decent education that allows them to assimilate into British life - and crucially earn a living here.

However, the last 5 / 10 years have seen a large increase of Islamic migrants to Britain from far poorer African countries and often lacking in any qualifications whatsoever - which happens far less frequently in the US, as, if you are a dirt poor African, getting to the US is actually quite difficult. The nearest US equivalent to the current wave of Islamic immigrants coming into Britain would really be Mexicans, whom the US are (arguably) not assimilating particularly well.


Of course, this may be a moot point - the July the 7th tube bombers in Britain were middle class, third generation migrants (and, as I recall, the 9/11 bombers had - by all outward appearances - assimilated into US culture) - so possibly the degree of assimilation of Islamic migrants is unconnected to terrorism.

Actually the Mexicans are assimilating into Western American society fairly well. There are issues (mainly the language issue) that still need resolution, but that would be one of the few.

Your recall of the 9/11 bombers is totally incorrect. None were immigrants at all, they were in the US on student and tourist visas. They did not assimilate into our culture in any way, shape or form.

I will agree that assimilation is unconnected to terrorism. Richard Reed is a British subject born, raise and yet he went the way of Jihad. So the issue can not be assimilation, that leaves the mosques, and imams, doesn't it?

My apologies, I had meant that the 9/11 hijackers gave the appearance of having assimilated into US culture - rather than being wild-eyed jihadists they were well-educated and , whilst living in the US, did not give anyone cause for alarm. I think that the decision to commit terrorism is unrelated to how well someone appears to fit into a particular culture, so much as people's personal beliefs - which may well be affected by mosques and imams.

I would say that the current furore about Mexican immigrants into the US would suggest that, on some level, they are not assimilating well at all - otherwise, why do people worry about them? Language problems can be a fairly big barrier to assimilation - although I accept that other than a language problem there isn't much that makes it difficult to assimilate into the mianstream US culture - but then the same is true of the UK - the vast majority of migrants, islamic or otherwise, assimilate well.

Certainly in the UK, Muslims - in general - get quite upset about the war in Iraq and worry that it may represent a deeper level of Islamophobia amongst Western countries, but address these concerns within the established framework of British society through voting or petitioning Parliament.

I think broadly I don't really see much of an 'Islamic fundamentalist' problem in the UK. I see a lot of concerned Muslims worried about our general approach to the Middle East and I see a lot of (for example) Muslim Somali migrants to London who struggle with the language and find it harder to rise up the socio-economic ladder through lack of education - and we do try to address that - but there just isn't really much of a general problem with Islam here - or at least - no more so than any country with relatively open borders that supports US foreign policy - would face.

I see that you have mistaken the term 'assilimilate'. The 9/11 hijackers came to the US to carry out a mission. Much as spies do, not to be part of the culture.

The 7/11 bombers on the other hand were people that immigrated to England, and the offspring of immigrants. That is were the issue of assimilation comes in.

Culturally the Hispanic community and the Anglo community have assimilated to each other. We have far more in common culturally than say Americans and English. We enjoy each others foods, we enjoy the same sporting events (surprise at that) like baseball, American football, and rodeos (a Hispanic event). We even celebrate each others holidays (no surprise there, more Americans celebrate Saint Patrick's Day than Irish do). Maybe that one isn't a good comparision since Americans like to celebrate everybody's holidays.

The only issue is really on the part of 'do-gooder' Americans that condensendingly imply that today's immigrants are not as intelligent as previous immigrants and that they must be taught in their native languages instead or learning English. Though the two languages have managed to share a fair percent of their vocabulary as well.

I for one do not believe that the issue is foreign policy or the support of US foreign policy to be the issue. The violence in France sure isn't because France supports the US, and there is not many countries in Europe that are more supportive of every Arab cause than France. So that can not be the issue at all. Maybe the issue isn't just the West, but the intolerance of the Muslim community that needs to be addressed.

Ok, that's fair enough - for some reason I had thought that they had been living in America for some time? (I could have got that wrong though). Anyway, there is clearly a difference - in which case that would suggest that we might be able to learn something from America when trying to assimilate immigrants - because I am assuming then that you haven't had any problems with second or third generation Muslim immigrants - whereas Britain has.



I am not sure if I agree with you about Americans having more in common with Hispanics than the English! I've meant lots of English (I'm not one myself) people and lots of Americans (spent a few years living in the US) and it struck me that Americans from the north-eastern and north-western parts seemed culturally very similar to the English. However the further south that I went, latino culture was far more evident. But - hey, that was just the impression I got.
I am suprised that any migrants would not want to learn English upon arriving in America. I do some volunteer English teaching to Eastern European migrants turning up in Britain (I live in Inverness) and they make an enormous amount of effort to learn the language (although admittedly, more than a few do so with the hopes of later moving to the US). If only Scots were half as keen to improve themselves.....




The violence - rioting - in France is generally economic in origin - the unemployment rate for men aged between 18 and 30 is around 10% and 25% if you are a French Arab - it doesn't have any roots in Islam so much as an economic system that is out of date and far too much rigidity in its labour laws - having said that, Sarkozy seems keen on improving things. Germany has a very large population of Turkish immigrants who are Muslim and they seem pretty happy living there.

I would certainly agree that Europe contains Muslim communities that are intolerant (and yet still they come...) - but I think they are a problem that can be easily dealt with - ideally by the wider Muslim communities within Europe. At the end of the day, life in Western Europe is far better than life in most of the Middle East or Africa - and most Muslim communities know this and are happy to accept that European countries are historically Christian countries with a firm (if not always perfectly upheld) belief in freedom of expression, religion etc.

I'm glad that somebody mentioned Africa. Holocausts have been happening there for some time, if a "holocaust" is defined as an attempt at genocide.

I don't want to dodge the question, but I just don't have an idea of how things are going to turn out with the strife going on between Muslim and more settled populations in First World nations. Even peaceful people, when pushed, will defend themselves. Nobody wants to feel backed up against the wall.