Anti-jewish Rally In The Hague

[lapis]

You may already have read about Jewish shops being smashed and synagogues attacked in Paris, or about the Maccabi Haifa football team being physically assaulted on the pitch in Austria, but I don't think this has been reported in foreign media so I'll write something about it. This is about a 'pro-Palestine' rally in the city of The Hague in the Netherlands that took a few days ago; I'm putting the term pro-Palestine between quotation marks because it might be better described as a pro-ISIS or anti-Jewish rally. The scene is as in the picture below: about 100 pro-ISIS loons waving al-Qaeda flags (although this includes a few eight-year-olds with flags) and a lot of TAKBEER! *Allahu Akbar* and "TAWHEED! *La ilaha illa Allah*"; one guy - I think it's Abou Moessa, a known al-Qaeda/ISIS sympathiser and recruiter from The Hague - is holding speeches. The location is a predominantly Moroccan neighbourhood in the Schilderswijk in The Hague nicknamed the Sharia Triangle because of its large population of ultra-orthodox Muslims.

While all of this might seem to be a nice exercise in free speech up to this point, it turns rather sour when the crowd starts yelling anti-Semitic chants in Arabic. All of this is actually caught on tape. As pointed out in the Youtube comments, it starts at 1:30 with a "Those who don't jump are Jews" *people start in jumping* in Dutch, but it gets way more nasty around 2:30 when some guy start chanting "al-mawt, al-mawt, al-mawt lil-yahood" (death, death, death to the Jews) - soon, a handful have joined him. The guy holding speeches in the middle ignores them initially but then starts a variation of the chant "Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahood, jaysh Muhammad saya`ood" (Khaybar, Khaybar you Jews, the army of Muhammad will return), except the "Khaybar" bit is replaced with something that I don't recognise.

There were six policemen at the scene, but they did not intervene because they thought that the rally stayed within boundaries; one of them spoke Arabic but said he din't hear anything illegal. A female reporter from a local blog attracted the ire of the protesters when she took pictures, which led to her being threatened with rape and mobbed in a Tahrir square-like fashion before being relieved by the police - instead of cracking down on her assailants, they escorted her to a police car and drove her away because she was "causing unrest" (a full report can be found here if you can read Dutch or want to run it through Google translate).

The hard core of the rally are maybe about 100 al-Qaeda flag wavers, but as you can see in this report, it also attracted ad hoc sympathisers near the peripheries of the rally. I think one of the reasons that the police didn't break up the rally is that when they get in a scuffle with the protesters, the locals will take the latter's side. One of the problems in the Dutch (Moroccan) Muslim is the fact that even though only a minority may openly sympathise with al-Qaeda, the ones that do largely act with impunity. They get kicked out of moderate mosques if they start to express ideas that are too radical, but there are three mosques in the vicinity of the Sharia Triangle (two basically on the edge) that are deemed 'Salafi', which is probably euphemistic.

What's your opinion about this? Just a handful of idiots that will die out like Communist radicals before them or a serious long-term problem? Even without having to express an opinion about it, it's important to know that this is happening. And although I've only mentioned France, Austria and the Netherlands in this post, I think it's safe to say that something like this could just as well have happened in the UK, Belgium, Germany, Norway or Sweden.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Religion of peace? more like savages.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/27/14 09:19 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Religion of peace? more like savages.

Oh, grow up.

[lapis]

At 7/27/14 09:19 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Religion of peace? more like savages.

I should point out that there are was also a Muslim anti-ISIS rally in The Hague about a month ago (source) that drew a bigger crowd (150) than the rally that's the subject of this thread (100). I don't think it undermines my point about al-Qaeda sympathisers acting with impunity, though: these anti-ISIS ralliers are mostly Kurds and/or Iraqis, and their rally didn't take place in the Moroccan neighbourhoods but near the political centre of the city and was clearly aimed at politicians and not specifically at other Muslims. Still, I don't want the thread to degenerate into indiscriminate Muslim bashing.

sidenote: I misspelled 'lil-yahood' in the Google translate link so that's why it says 'death to Jews' rather than 'death to the Jews'

[Korriken]

There will always be idiots and the uninformed who will do dumb crap like this.

Of course, the most ironic thing would be those in the LGBT community supporting Hamas.

Why in the hell would you support a group who would have you hanged, or shot, or stoned?

It's about as ironic as paying $20 for a Che Guevara shirt, who, if he was still alive today would murder you for being a dirty capitalistic pig.

[Warforger]

Wait, it's illegal to be sympathetic to Al-Qaeda? Is the Netherlands one of those countries which bans Anti-Semitism and jails people for denying the Holocaust?

I guess what I'd ask is what they're doing in the West to begin with. There may be several reasons for this, these people may be native born to the Netherlands but like in other countries face unusually high unemployment and lower economic conditions relative to other peoples. Even though their parents probably fled their countries to escape radical Islam, they turn to radical Islam because they feel rejected by this society and so want to embrace their country of origin to its purest extent and join the side that's against their country of birth.

I recall this happening with some Somali's, their parents fled Somalia from Al-Shaqqib and went to America I think, but their children grew up wanting to be part of Al-Shaqqib precisely for the reasons I listed above.

Everyone's saying that Radical Islam is on the decline, but as I've said in other threads I don't see it on the decline. I feel in that end it's underestimated, even when ISIL had taken the Anbar Province in Iraq no one really cared, it wasn't until they took Mosul and were approaching Baghdad did people care.

Here's an article from the guardian from 12 years ago claiming radical Islam is on the decline

So I'd argue on the contrary, radical Islam was a seed planted back in the power struggle between the various ideologies post-WWII, and after Pan-Arab nationalism subsided radical Islam bloomed and took its place and as of now there doesn't seem to be much that will be able to replace it.

[24901miles]

Is anyone familiar enough with all of the various "death to ___" chants to explain exactly what meaning is implied by "al-mawt al ___"?

Would this be a non-literal translation the same way that "marg bar __" means "down with __" rather than the English transliteration of "death to __"?

Any Persian, Farsi, or Arabic speakers on NG?

[Th-e]

From what I am hearing, part of the reason for all of this is the immigration of Muslims to Europe, particularly those in the radical segment.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4515/paris-kristallnacht

This article focuses on France in particular, which has had problems with Muslim extremists over many years. Among the quotes:

"The attitude of French politicians reflects the sorry state of French society. All the riots that erupted in France during the last decade were the result of minor incidents, but showed that France is on the verge of a large-scale explosion. French politicians want to avoid a large-scale explosion. They are scared and paralyzed.

French politicians also know that France's Muslim population now amounts to 15% of its total population and that radical Islamist organizations are particularly well established. The Union of Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the main French Muslim organization; it attracts tens of thousands of people in each of its annual meetings and openly lends political support to Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. French politicians do not want a confrontation with the UOIF.

French politicians also know that more than 750 neighborhoods in France are considered "no go zones" by the police, and that the authorities have lost control of them.

They also know that 70% of all inmates in the French prison system are Muslim , and that self-proclaimed imams and gang leaders have taken over many prisons. They know that these prisons have been transformed into recruiting centers for jihadists, and that regaining control of these prisons is an almost impossible task. Mohamed Merah and Mehdi Nemmouche, the Brussels Jewish Museum killer, became jihadists while in French prisons."

Looking at that, I can see that:

1. The French are cowards...not surprising. But they cannot even defend their own country.
2. Most of the people targeting the Jews are the same brand of Islam as those controlling much of Iraq and Syria.
3. Similar cases of open access for Islamists in Europe have led to radical influence in Europe.

[satanbrain]

Not very surprising.

At 7/27/14 06:04 PM, 24901miles wrote: Is anyone familiar enough with all of the various "death to ___" chants to explain exactly what meaning is implied by "al-mawt al ___"?

The death to the ____. The word 'mawt' is derived from the canaanite god of death, Mot.

[Warforger]

At 7/28/14 06:21 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: I know it sounds ignorant, stereotypical and what not but honestly the whole of the muslim world is infected by a disease called Salafism/Wahhabism. This disease has to be stamped out internally, we can defend ourselves from it effectively but no amount of bombs or bullets can cure it. The people of the Muslim world have to rise up against this if they want to have. Stable future.

My issue with this is that Islam has not lost its backbone as Christianity has in the West. In the West abandoning beliefs from your religion with contradict secular values (i.e. gay marriage or evolution) is seen as virtue rather than a lack of belief in religion. It's interesting to watch as Christians and Jews retreat from their more controversial beliefs, there are even Catholics who openly go against the Pope. Muslims in the Middle East however are proud of their religion. They're very devoted to it which is why telling them that what they should do is be less pious and forsake their beliefs because secular society doesn't like them seems a little ridiculous to me.

[Lumber-Jax12]

At 7/29/14 01:12 AM, Warforger wrote: My issue with this is that Islam has not lost its backbone as Christianity has in the West. In the West abandoning beliefs from your religion with contradict secular values (i.e. gay marriage or evolution) is seen as virtue rather than a lack of belief in religion. It's interesting to watch as Christians and Jews retreat from their more controversial beliefs, there are even Catholics who openly go against the Pope. Muslims in the Middle East however are proud of their religion. They're very devoted to it which is why telling them that what they should do is be less pious and forsake their beliefs because secular society doesn't like them seems a little ridiculous to me.

Im not entirely sure what your trying to say with this, the meaning that is. I agree with the assessment that the older religions have certainly folded on many issues in Western Society. although quite personally I attribute that to culture more than anything, Europeans have never been a particularly pious bunch, even the crusades where highly motivated by politics more so than religion and the protestant reformation was nothing more than a way for the various monarchs to assert their authority/independence over the pope and his pawns in the HRE.

But, and correct me if im wrong here, you almost seem to say that Muslims are less willing to change than most. I was simply saying their radical elements are much more apparent today and have ben allowed to spread across this society and they must be greatly reduced. I hope you weren't insinuating that violence is some how integral to Islam.

Every religion at one point or another has been manipulated by madmen seeking their own personal gains, it just happens to be Islam currently at the moment, as quite frankly judaism and christianity's influence has waned.

Id like to believe the first step to righting this wrong is stabilization of the Middle East, and while a controversial view, I believe allowing the Kurds to become independent and set an example to the other nations of a moderate and successful government will help. I don't trust the Sheiks of the Arabia to be our friends, nor do I consider Pakistan an ally to anyone either.

[aviewaskewed]

I apologize that this thread now won't quite read as well as it should. This is because Uncle Avie has taken off the "nice" hat and is done with some of the particularly noxious trolls on this board and is beginning to clean up their naughty handiwork where I find it. Unfortunately some of you smarter posters are responding to it. Making good posts even. Please do not lower yourself to do so. Next time I take the good with the bad and you'll just have to deal with it. Don't feed the damn trolls and they'll go away.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter, please do not reply to this message (unless it's in a PM to me personally) and post in the thread as normal. Off topic responses to this "break in" message will be deleted.

[Warforger]

At 7/29/14 11:00 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Every religion at one point or another has been manipulated by madmen seeking their own personal gains, it just happens to be Islam currently at the moment, as quite frankly judaism and christianity's influence has waned.

Well let's start with a good quote from the Bible:

"Praise be to the Lord my Rock,
who trains my hands for war,
my fingers for battle."

-Psalms 144:1

Alot of people like to argue context, the context here is the book of Psalms which is a collection of a whole bunch of songs that were sung in various parts of the Bible. This one in particular is for the exploits of King David. In the Abrahamic tradition King David is one of the holiest figures next to Moses or Abraham. He is an example of putting your trust in God and overcoming your enemies. Mohammad is a comparable figure in this sense. The issue though is that the sole thing King David is noteworthy for is warfare. He doesn't do anything for the poor, he doesn't establish some strict moral code other than emphasizing strict obedience to God.

He's not just revered in Judaism, he's also revered in Christianity and Islam. This poses a central question; how can these religions preach peace when one of their holiest figures is solely known for war? David isn't an isolated case, Joshua, the successor to Moses, is also known mainly for his genocidal practices in Canaan in the Old Testament as is Moses.

This is my issue; anyone who says any of these religions are "religions of peace" have alot of explaining to do.

That's just one example in terms of war and religion. The main difference I was trying to talk about was that in Christianity people ignore alot of the Bible. Even some books of it are completely disregarded like Leviticus because they're "written by man". No one seems to know the origins of many of their beliefs, the belief in one man one woman marriage isn't a belief that originates from the Bible. The Bible itself either encourages Polygamy or celibacy. The way the "one man one woman" concept became religious canon was when the Catholic Church laid down Papal Decree's designating such marriages as the only sanctioned by Christianity (and reading the explanation the Catholic Church gives is kind of weird considering they're, by consequence, condemning pretty much every Old Testament figure as a sinner) yet no one seems to intensely study these things to bring them up, just saying the "Bible" is the source of their morals.

In the Middle East it's the opposite; people intensely uphold the tenets of their religion. The stuff mentioned in the Qur'an is law in these countries, even Polygamy is still legal in most ME countries. Hadith's, which are quotations by Mohammad outside the Qur'an which are treated as additions to it, are intensely studied and practiced across the Islamic world. There are a couple limits, like no slavery, but for the most part people take every trace of their religion more seriously than in the West who forsake much of their Holy Book. This is where much of what we don't like about Islam comes from, and so I don't see the solution to radical Islam just to tell people that they should take their religion less seriously, especially when they take so much pride in it.

[Lumber-Jax12]

This topic is gonna digress into a religious debate, but let me say this religion or not, this behavior is intolerable.

If stripping the middle east is what you feel necessary to bring some semblance of peace than so be it, but really thats an extremely simplified idea, and without further digressing into the religious aspect of it, that is not the cause of all this unrest.

MENA has always been a turbulent region, At least since the fall of the Ottomans. Blaming religion its too easy, and disregards the underlying reason for conflict. There are millions of muslims here in the US, and it is only a select few who have gone on to devout themselves to jihad. If religion truly bred such hate and Aggression ISIS would be millions strong, and not simply several thousand disillusioned social rejects flocking to the only entity they feel truly appreciated in.

[Warforger]

At 7/30/14 02:47 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: This topic is gonna digress into a religious debate, but let me say this religion or not, this behavior is intolerable.

If stripping the middle east is what you feel necessary to bring some semblance of peace than so be it, but really thats an extremely simplified idea, and without further digressing into the religious aspect of it, that is not the cause of all this unrest.

MENA has always been a turbulent region, At least since the fall of the Ottomans. Blaming religion its too easy, and disregards the underlying reason for conflict. There are millions of muslims here in the US, and it is only a select few who have gone on to devout themselves to jihad. If religion truly bred such hate and Aggression ISIS would be millions strong, and not simply several thousand disillusioned social rejects flocking to the only entity they feel truly appreciated in.

I'm not blaming religion for the entire conflict in the Middle East, like you said that would be too simplistic. What I'm saying is that there are aspects of Abrahamic religions which are fundamentally violent and dedicated to war, and to say that someone is manipulating religious texts in order to motivate people for war is assuming you have to manipulate them in order to interpret them as being pro-war. Muhammad himself lead many wars against rival Arab tribes in order to unify them. Yes there are Muslims who are against war and the more controversial aspects of their religion, some Muslim women don't even wear a Hijab, and there's nothing wrong with them. But to argue that they're the pious Muslims and are interpreting their religion correctly whereas anyone who supports Polygamy is not is ridiculous.

Now you talk about ISIS, but the issue there is that even though most Muslims don't support them (although Gulf Muslims do), most Muslims support more radical aspects of their religion across MENA. In Algeria for example even though the government abolished the death penalty for apostasy, the vast majority of Algerians support the death penalty for apostasy.

Which is what I'm saying. People who change the values of their religion to conform to secular values are esteemed in Western society and those that stick to them are considered backward and stupid.

[Lumber-Jax12]

Fair enough I'll agree with that sentiment.

Now how do you feel about government restriction on such protests? Its my understanding some European governments have been limiting these demonstrations. My other concern is that I hope intelligence agencies have infiltrated or are monitoring some of these cliques.

Now obviously the majority of these demonstrations are relatively peaceful, but I hope as soon as that black flag is raised intelligence outlets are keeping tags on just who it is holding it and screaming death to jews.

[lapis]

At 7/27/14 01:12 PM, Warforger wrote: Is the Netherlands one of those countries which bans Anti-Semitism and jails people for denying the Holocaust?

No, but incitement to violence and sowing hatred are. Chanting "death to the Jews" is widely considered to be part of both categories. Holocaust denial isn't illegal per se, but I've heard of a guy who sent pamphlets denying the Holocaust to Jewish schools and institutions, and was fined under laws banning discrimination.

but like in other countries face unusually high unemployment and lower economic conditions relative to other peoples.

Meh. Not more so than blacks, yet blacks aren't out on the street chanting for the death of other ethnic minorities.

Everyone's saying that Radical Islam is on the decline, but as I've said in other threads I don't see it on the decline. I feel in that end it's underestimated, even when ISIL had taken the Anbar Province in Iraq no one really cared, it wasn't until they took Mosul and were approaching Baghdad did people care.

Just to check: do you have someone particular in mind when you say this, apart from that guy from The Guardian? On this forum, people (including me) didn't downplay ISIS' capture of Anbar province because they thought radical Islam was on the decline, but because they were at the time getting a beating from other rebels, which would include the Islamic Front (of which, for example, Ahrar ash-Sham administers lashings to civilians for not observing Friday prayers), and Jabhat an-Nusra, the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.

At 7/27/14 06:24 PM, Th-e wrote: Looking at that, I can see that:

1. The French are cowards...not surprising. But they cannot even defend their own country.

I'm not sure if this was supposed to be a joke, but the situation in, for example, the UK is only marginally better, with areas like Tower Hamlets in London or the districts in Birmingham affected by the Trojan Horse plot are in a situation comparable to the French banlieues.

At 7/30/14 02:15 AM, Warforger wrote: David isn't an isolated case, Joshua, the successor to Moses, is also known mainly for his genocidal practices in Canaan in the Old Testament as is Moses.

Fair, but that factlet meaningless by itself. Judaism was a religion that was in control of the lands in which it was dominant, and in such a situation the example of Joshua made sense. But when Judaism become a religion of subjects, most importantly at the hands of the Greek and Romans, it simply had to transform, and it did, through the Talmud. For example, while the Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for a whole range of offences, the Talmud nuances those sentences to death, giving a whole list of conditions that must be met before someone can be executed for adultery, making it unrealistic that the sentence is ever mandated by a Halachic court. On the other hand, Christianity started as a religion of the oppressed and the letters of Paul in the New Testament reflect that. Even Shia Islam spent entire centuries struggling to survive among Sunni or even Mu'tazili oppression, and I think the general attitude of Shia Muslims reflects that to an extent.

Sunni Islam on the other hand has been a religion of conquerors and oppressors ever since Muhammad had his armies march on Mecca and revealed the 9th Sura of the Qur'an. Sharia law uncontroversially stipulates the moral and legal superiority of Muslim over non-Muslims and this went unchallenged for most of the 1300+-year history of Sunnism. Again, I believe this is reflected in the attitudes of its adherents. These Sunni Muslims in Europe aren't protesting to support ISIS because they face "high unemployment and lower economic conditions"; a lot of other ethnic minority groups in Europe do as well, yet you don't see them backing al-Qaeda or an equivalent. I think one reason for their fury is the cognitive dissonance resulting from the fact that the moral, legal and societal superiority that they believe they are entitled because of their religion doesn't correspond with their actual status. The Hindus and Chinese also came to Europe without much to fall back on, and blacks and Roma gypsies also have societal problems of their own, but their attitudes don't correspond to those of the guys at the rally of the OP.

The ironic thing is that Sunni Islam had a chance to reform at the end of the 19th Century thanks to figures such as Muhammad Abduh, but his movement did not just bleed to death but was actively taken over by the first Salafis. In the next few decades, Islam will have to reform; if that fails, at least the governments of other countries have to realise that there's a problem with Islam and not get lost in a form of political correctness that disallows any form of differentiation between religions.

[Warforger]

At 7/31/14 03:15 PM, lapis wrote: Sunni Islam on the other hand has been a religion of conquerors and oppressors ever since Muhammad had his armies march on Mecca and revealed the 9th Sura of the Qur'an. Sharia law uncontroversially stipulates the moral and legal superiority of Muslim over non-Muslims and this went unchallenged for most of the 1300+-year history of Sunnism. Again, I believe this is reflected in the attitudes of its adherents. These Sunni Muslims in Europe aren't protesting to support ISIS because they face "high unemployment and lower economic conditions"; a lot of other ethnic minority groups in Europe do as well, yet you don't see them backing al-Qaeda or an equivalent. I think one reason for their fury is the cognitive dissonance resulting from the fact that the moral, legal and societal superiority that they believe they are entitled because of their religion doesn't correspond with their actual status. The Hindus and Chinese also came to Europe without much to fall back on, and blacks and Roma gypsies also have societal problems of their own, but their attitudes don't correspond to those of the guys at the rally of the OP.

Admittedly I don't know how these people were brought up, but I was talking about how they identify. Yes Africans and Asians face many of the same obstacles, but what I was saying was that they as a result identify more with the country which they parents migrated from than they do with the country they were born in. With the Arabs this consequently turns towards Radical Islam as they are the most foreign of the ideologies to the country they're in. I'm not as much saying that they're Radical Muslims because of their economic conditions, but that they're radical Muslims because they identify more with their home country and embrace the most anti-nationalistic ideology they can, and that ends up being radical Islam. And they identify more with the country which they or their parents migrated from because of economic conditions.

This always happens, some immigrants like it in their new country and assimilate, some don't care that much and some hate their new country and identify with the country from which they ancestors came from. One example that came to mind were a Polish family that migrated to the US in the late 1800's. They were disillusioned with the country and decided to migrate back to Poland and have a child there. Their child would grow up to be the Communist Dictator of Poland Wladislaw Gomulka. Other examples are Mexicans who live in America but go to the American soccer stadium and boo the American soccer team when they're playing Mexico. It's not necessarily only a result of economic troubles that they boo the Americans, it's because as a result of their disillusionment that they identify with the least American identity that they can, and that ends up causing it, whereas say a Canadian in the same situation wouldn't react the same way.

[SadisticMonkey]

Just more prove that diversity is a strength. We need more of these people in the western world.

[lapis]

There was another anti-ISIS rally in The Hague today, this one organised by a marginal Dutch Nationalist movement called Pro Patria; it was attended by about 150 people. They intended to march through the Schilderswijk, but they were met by about 50 Salafi protesters - the rally was diverted, but riot police had to move in when local Muslims started pelting the Pro Patria protesters with stones. Police officers were called 'kankerjoden' (roughly translates to 'fucking Jews') by the assailants. Another picture here. The story is still developing, a local news site only has a placeholder article with two paragraphs here.

[lapis]

Video of a journalist of a major national newpaper being chased away by the ISIS sympathisers.

[Feoric]

I don't think I'll ever understand how you can become an ISIS supporter when you live in a first world country. These guys are in the same league as the Khmer Rouge. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be more radicalized than them.

[Lumber-Jax12]

At 8/10/14 01:18 PM, Feoric wrote: I don't think I'll ever understand how you can become an ISIS supporter when you live in a first world country. These guys are in the same league as the Khmer Rouge. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be more radicalized than them.

I equate it to just social rejects asserting dominance or some other such belief.
I sincerely believe there to be no difference between men like Adam Lanza, James Holme, etc and these IS thugs. The only difference being these men felt lost and angry searching for a reason to project this pent up anger and coming up with their own convoluted reasons.

Then despicable men like Al Baghdadi, cunning enough to manipulate such feelings offer some sort of support group for like minded guys wanting to unleash their violence.

[Ranger2]

At 8/10/14 01:18 PM, Feoric wrote: I don't think I'll ever understand how you can become an ISIS supporter when you live in a first world country. These guys are in the same league as the Khmer Rouge. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be more radicalized than them.

My own guess is that it's more anti-Westernism than pro-ISIS sentiments. A major reason why ISIS is growing is because it has beat out other options for Sunnis of Iraqi and Syrian descent. ISIS's radical beliefs are more rhetoric than causus belli. Radicalism didn't really take off in Iraq and Syria until after the wars started, and even then they took awhile. Until late 2003 for Iraq and late 2011 for Syria, there was hope for genuine democratic reform. But things didn't get better for the people and as a result radicalism forms. Perhaps some of these First World radicals support ISIS because they see it as the best (using it relatively) option for their countrymen overseas.

[lapis]

At 8/10/14 01:18 PM, Feoric wrote: I don't think I'll ever understand how you can become an ISIS supporter when you live in a first world country. These guys are in the same league as the Khmer Rouge. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be more radicalized than them.

They're all over Europe.

Attack in Germany by IS Sympathizers Worries Yezidis

Apparent Islamic State (IS/ISIS) sympathizers assaulted a group of Yezidis in the German city of Herford this week, police said, a repercussion of the war in Iraq a continent away.

The assault led to a larger clash, forcing police to send in reinforcements and use pepper spray to calm the situation.

Police said the assault on the German Yezidis was perpetrated by six men from Chechnya, who are apparent IS supporters.

The incident reportedly happened after the Yezidi owner of a pizzeria hung a poster in his restaurant window to support a demonstration against IS attacks in Iraq.

According to police, six Chechens provoked by the poster tried to forcibly remove it, beginning a scuffle with the owner and four other Yezidis. The 31-old owner and a 16-year old student were slightly injured by knife wounds.

follow-up

[Lumber-Jax12]

Seriously what is with these people. I don't think I've ever heard a single positive thing about Chechens, they always seem to be in the headlines doing god knows what. It's hard to sympathize with them, sure the Russian have been world class pricks to them, but come on its hard to feel sorry when your people are one of the more notable mercenaries. Its bad enough a good portion of then wage jihad in the Caucasus and middle east, but then they're in the ukraine (as if the jihadist version was bad, the prorussian Kadyrovites are worse).

Then offourse we have the wonderful Tsarnaev brothers.

[lapis]

Meanwhile, in London, slick pro-IS(IS) leaflets are being handed out in busy shopping streets.

[Ranger2]

At 8/22/14 01:58 PM, lapis wrote: Meanwhile, in London, slick pro-IS(IS) leaflets are being handed out in busy shopping streets.

Leaflets like that make me want to vomit.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 8/22/14 03:53 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 8/22/14 01:58 PM, lapis wrote: Meanwhile, in London, slick pro-IS(IS) leaflets are being handed out in busy shopping streets.

Leaflets like that make me want to vomit.

Didn't the Germany do this to England before they bombed them in 1939? They tried to break their spirit before breaking their body.

[lapis]

At 8/22/14 07:15 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Didn't the Germany do this to England before they bombed them in 1939? They tried to break their spirit before breaking their body.

Are you referring to Lord Haw-Haw and Radio Hamburg? I think there are several phases in the German propaganda effort during WW2. Before the war, it wasn't that hard to find people in the British conservative establishment that sympathised with Hitler. The Daily Mail did nothing to hide its affection and, if I'm not mistaken, Churchill also expressed some level of admiration. Then in the first months of the war (September 1939 to May 1940) when basically nothing happened, the political establishment had turned against the Nazis but large sections of the British public were still open to English-language German propaganda. Finally, after the war turned sour (the German bombing campaign in Britain didn't start until September 1940), people had largely lost sympathy and only listened to these broadcasts to hear about the fates of Brits captured in Germany. At this final stage the only real purpose of these broadcasts was probably demoralisation, as reports of British PoWs were usually in between exaggerated reports of German victories.

There's a difference though; judging by the language, these leaflets are solely aimed at British Muslims and although I doubt that anyone is going to be swayed into performing hijra to the IS territories directly because of them, their aim seems to be to fix the idea of the IS caliphate into the minds of British Muslims. I don't think that the non-Muslim British public is the intended audience, while these German broadcasts definitely had ordinary Brits in mind.