Translate

Sunday, September 12, 2021

9-11 From one Swedish Perspective

Hat tip Katarina Magasin. Translation by Fousesquawk.


Here is an article from the conservative Swedish blog, Katarina Magasin. The editor and the author of the below article is Katarina Janouche. Here she looks back on 9-11 and deplores the advances and victories of the jihadist extremists, particularly in Sweden.

 https://katerinamagasin.se/tjugo-ar-efter-9-11-kan-du-bli-atalad-om-du-kallar-en-islamist-extrem/

20 years after 9-11, you can be charged if you call an Islamist extreme

September 12, 2021-12:39 pm

I didn't write anything yesterday on the 20th anniversary of terror in the USA when Islamist terrorism claimed thousands of lives and forever tore open a bottomless wound in the free Western world. Social media still simmered and boiled filled with memories and reflections, mainly what people were doing themselves when news of the planes hitting the Twin Towers like an exploding suicide belt on all the information channels. Perhaps, I myself remember most clearly the feeling that it couldn't be true.  That it was a bad joke. And that the day after, we awoke to something that could be most described as a  huge hangover, anxiety, and sadness. What strikes me today, 20 years and one day later, is how quickly the Islamization of Europe, in Europe in general and Sweden in particular. is going. Islam is gaining more ground, and with the argument of "religious freedom", it advances its positions-though Islam primarily is a political ideology and a legal system, where religion is mostly a facade. Churches are proposed to become mosques, minarets are built, calls to prayer are permitted. More and more girls and women go around dressed in full-covering Islamic dress. In more and more areas, sharia trumps Swedish law. Imams decide, not Swedish courts. But worst is the mental breakdown of freedom of expression. Court proceedings against former Social Democrat politician Ann-Sofie Hermansson in Gothenburg is a clear symbol that Islamists use our own democracy to suppress and obtain the right to exercise their anti-democratic ideology.  As I write this, I am thinking: Can I be reported for blasphemy?
You can read the background of the trial against Ann-Sofie Hermansson here:
In short, it can be said that Hermansson called extemists extremists. There is no other way to say it. And here is where it becomes difficult. Should we not be allowed to criticize a political ideology that in many ways goes against principles that all humans have equal value, equality before the law, freedom of speech, and our freedom to criticize ideologies and religions? I think that these positions (being) advanced are an extremely destructive and unfortunate development. Particularly when Swedish Public Service- which should be objective, non-partisan, and neutral-actually takes sides against Ann-Sofie Hermansson and thinks it is right that her right to express her opinion must actually be tested. "A blessing," they write that this, that the question be judged in a higher instance. Perhaps, Public Service wants that we can no longer call extremists extremists.? That it should be criminal?
We already find ourselves on a slippery slope in Sweden. Islam is already a sensitive issue that cannot be discussed in any way because then comes the fabricated term, Islamophobia, like a letter in the mail, and you are hit in the head by critics. In 2021, 20 years after 9-11, IS terrorists return to Sweden, together with their brainwashed children, and (are welcomed) in Swedish society at the  Swedish taxpayers' expense. Prisoners in Swedish prisons are offered halal food. Children in schools have the right to demand special diets based on Islam. We have small children who are forced to cover themselves with veils in preschools to hide themselves from men's lustful looks. We have thousands of women who cannot participate in Swedish society because their Muslim-believing men view this as "haram" that is, against the Koran. We have child marriage though it is forbidden, polygamy, genital mutilation, and naturally, so-called honor violence where young people are injured or killed after they are perceived to have brought dishonor upon their family. We have large clashes between different immigrant groups in society, where the religious motive sometimes is the cause. We also have Muslim prayers conducted outdoors, something Swedish society is faced with. Islam is advancing, and now we also have Nyans, a Muslim political party that has its sights set on the Parliament. 
The Taliban in Afghanistan declared, when they took over the country, that their goal was a caliphate. But not just in Afghanistan, but the entire world. Radical Muslims in Sweden also have this ambition, something they don't exactly keep secret. Islam means submission-and they see it as their absolute right to demand submission also in the country to which they have come as refugees. Many have warned of this development but were dismissed. Now we see how extremists legally oppose free speech. How critics must bow while extremists celebrate new triumphs. That Soffan Hermansson  is standing trial at all is a scandal and a shame for a democratic country like Sweden. Islamists here must never be allowed to set the tone. Not in debates or anywhere else. But here we have come, 20 years after Islamist terror's biggest triumph and war against the West. The war is in full swing, and the kind and naive Swedish democrats have already become its victim.


5 comments:

D Cripps said...

While ‘democracy’ may have some weight against depredations by a self-appointed tyrant, using the word “democracy” as a ‘stand-alone’ seems to blind some non-Muslims to act as though it is the pinnacle achievement of western civilisation. Without qualifying adjectives such as “secular”, “liberal” (e.g principles like critical thinking, fact-based reasoning, broadly unitary (rather than crudely dualistic) ethics, counter to much of Islam) before the word “democracy” (as in “secular, liberal democracy”) and safeguarding these principles, it is the pinnacle for idiots, I regret to say… With the appropriate demographic, “democracy” can vote in theocracy and sharia-law. Hell, yes! With ‘democracy’ alone idolised as the highest achievement and philosophy, this short-sighted behaviour means that, if Muslims were to outnumber others in a country, they ‘should win’ and others ‘should concede’, for it is the winners’ ‘democratic right’. Moreover, some non-Muslims also seem to go so far as to think it is somehow the ‘democratic right’ of Muslims (or others), regardless of their values, to be let into secular, liberal, western civilisations so that they can have this ‘democratic opportunity’ to take over a country. How very, truly ‘democratic’. Do people really think this is something to be praised? Honestly, I think that some feel they have done their noble duty if they act on this vision, but a country that values only ‘may the majority win’ has nothing positive in the longterm to recommend it. Only with some clarity about other values, and prudently safeguarding these, can people be trusted with one person one vote. ‘Democracy’ can give away nations.

claude balls said...

ALL muslims in the western world should be deported to Crapistan.

Gary Fouse said...

Claude,

What are you going to do with those that were born here and are US citizens? We have an entire younger generation of them.

claude balls said...

Gary...if they were born here, but committed serious criminal acts, I'd strip them of their citizenship and dump them somewhere in the muslim world. I know that no one is allowed to be "stateless", and it's doubtful that they would be given citizenship to either of their parent's home countries, so Libya comes to mind...drop them in international waters, in a dinghy with just enough gas to make it to shore. Libya has no functional government, so there's nothing they can do about it.
This may sound like a harsh solution, but America needs to stop being the dumping ground for all the losers of the world.

Gary Fouse said...

Claude,

It's nice to wish, but it won't happen. They are going to have to be dealt with by the criminal justice system. I would favor those who are naturalized and who went jihad being stripped of their citizenship. It can be done on the grounds that they lied on their immigration and or naturalization papers. My wish is that Western countries would put a halt to Islamic immigration as a matter of public safety and self-defense. That might require declaring a moratorium on immigration in general in order to get the border under control and allow assimilation to catch up with immigration. Again, wishful thinking, though it was done in the 20s, and though I have always heretofore favored immigration. In fact, I'm married to a Mexican immigrant, but our immigration system has gone off the rails.

I have also suggested that France reinstitute the guillotine and Devil's Island. Again, wishful thinking.

As I have said before, one thing I do not support is violence against innocent Muslims, but depending on how you define the term, Islamophobia is perfectly understandable.