(Cite by originator of this message) This is by far the best
explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His
references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read.

The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected
psychiatrist.

A German's View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II,
owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many
German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our
attitude toward fanaticism. "Very few people were true Nazis," he
said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more
were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the
Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let
it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had
lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost
everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that
Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of
Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified
assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff,

meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish
the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one
of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who
systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout
Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.

It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour- kill.

It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.



It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape
victims and homosexuals.

It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the
"silent majority," is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace,

yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people.

The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered it s way
across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the
systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by
sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it
not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all
our posers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated
of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.



Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't
speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one
day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs,
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and
many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak
up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the
only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just
deletes this without sending it on, is contributing to the
passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on!

Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before
it's too late.


Emanuel Tanay, M.D.

Thanks Vince, that's pretty much it in a nutshell I'm afraid.

I want to give the Man who wrote this article a friendly clap on his shoulder for his simple but yet informative article.

And i thank you Vince for posting this! Good Article

I want to give the Man who wrote this article a friendly clap on his shoulder for his simple but yet informative article.

And i thank you Vince for posting this! Good Article

Can we condemn the fanatics without condemning Islam?
Can we condemn those fanatics that shoot doctors in planned parenthood clinics without condemning the Christians?
Remember that fanaticism has no boundaries. It infects a small minority in every culture, religion and ethnic group.

Just remember that we don't have to condemn the group to prosecute the fanatics.

Sage words Paul...very sage indeed mate.

I think a lot of people loose sight of the fact that it is militant fanatics that give any group or organisation its notoriety. In the vast majority of cases the "average Joe" of any group is a reasonable peace loving individual.

It is unfortunate that the militant fanatics, by virtue of their overbearing, extroverted personalities, extreme beliefs and actions, overwhelm the majority, making the group or organisation seem to be bad or threatening to others.

Cheers, Vince

PaulS wrote:

Can we condemn those fanatics that shoot doctors in planned parenthood clinics without condemning the Christians?

Difference is as Christians we may be against abortion, but we also condemn the act of murder of another human without due process. And generally the shooters will get charged for murder whether or not the believe of the Christians in the jury agreed with his motives or not.

Islam and countries who are Muslim do not do much if anything about the fanatics using their country as a home base in general. So by doing nothing they are supporting the fanatics cause.

Dimitri

PaulS,

The people in these fringe groups have to be in the forefront when it comes to “condemning.” Otherwise, you will end up with the fringe nuts ruling the country and the general population that they are engrained in, paying the price, i.e. Hitler and the Nazis in Germany.

Cary

I would dispute that 'mainstream Muslims' have remained silent. Unfortunately, the media (in Australia anyway) doesn't give air time to statements of condemnation, favoring for the far more graphic and popular bomb blast scenes, destroyed buildings, blood, etc. I know a large number of Muslim friends through school and university, all of which completely condemn all of the violent and terrorist actions of 'extremists.' It is completely unfair (and racist) to brand these individuals with the same brush as the murderers responsible for terrorist attacks (if only by their supposed inaction).

What do you want mainstream Muslims to do??? The reality is they have no more influence than you or I over the actions of extremists, they (we) can jump up and down as much as we want but at the end of the day, nothing changes.

Dimitri wrote:

Islam and countries who are Muslim do not do much if anything about the fanatics using their country as a home base in general.

This is absolutely untrue in many cases, take for example Pakistan. The President was recently the victim of an assassination attempt by extremists for trying to rid the country of them. The fact is, only a small number of governments such as Iran use the hatred of the US and Israel and the support of terrorists as a power base.

OntheLasGallinas wrote:

Otherwise, you will end up with the fringe nuts ruling the country and the general population that they are engrained in, paying the price, i.e. Hitler and the Nazis in Germany.

Keep in mind that the US actually placed many of these 'fringe nuts' in power providing things such as funds, weapons, training; Iran, Iraq, the Taliban, the list goes on. Surely the CIA and US Government has far more ownership over the current terrorism issues than mainstream Muslims.

Dave

Claymore wrote:

This is absolutely untrue in many cases, take for example Pakistan. The President was recently the victim of an assassination attempt by extremists for trying to rid the country of them.

Right by not stepping foot in their badlands to police the extremists, which by the way is where the majority of extremists are located and use it as their Base of Operations for attacks in Pakistan and training and reorganizing for attacks on Coalition Troops in Afghanistan. Never mind their financial and moral support to the Taliban and other extremists through the years.

Dimitri

Dimitri, keep in mind that this is very much a mess of the US's making. They provided the cash, weapons and training to allow the Taliban to effectively fight the Soviets. Why then is it the Pakistan president and citizens job to die trying to clean up the mess that the CIA made, then be criticised for 'not doing enough?'

Have a look at the area on google earth and see how easy it would be to police the area, both from an access perspective, but also how defensible it is against an 'invading' police force or army (eg. FOV for snipers).

We should be looking to support and assist the efforts of those trying to make a difference, not criticise and undermine them when they are less effective than would be hoped.

Claymore wrote:

Dimitri, keep in mind that this is very much a mess of the US's making. They provided the cash, weapons and training to allow the Taliban to effectively fight the Soviets.

The Taliban didn't exist in the Cold War and the ones who formed the Taliban later on were not the only ones fighting the Soviets nor were they the only ones to receive of American aid, most of it by the way was not directly given to the Afghans and the guerrillas, but instead given to Pakistan who did the actual distribution of funds to avoid a bigger war with Russia at the time. Go re-read some history.

Claymore wrote:

Have a look at the area on google earth and see how easy it would be to police the area, both from an access perspective, but also how defensible it is against an 'invading' police force or army (eg. FOV for snipers).

Wars are not fought on 2 dimensions anymore. Have not been for a while actually.

Dimitri

Dimitri, the Taliban is just a new name for the Mujahideen (which actually is a translation of people engaged in 'Jihad'). Granted they have recruited some additional followers along the way, but they have the same leaders, same weapons and the same assets as the former Mujahideen. That makes them the same organisation in my books (same bloke, different hat if you will).

Whilst some aid was sent to Pakistan to assist the ISI and SSG, much was also sent to Afghanistan (the mujahideen). When you say Pakistan was 'distributing' the funds, they had no authority over where the funds were allocated.

Dimitri wrote:

Wars are not fought on 2 dimensions anymore. Have not been for a while actually.

I am wondering which 'dimension' you would employ to destroy the strongholds. We don't know where the strongholds are, this rules out air strikes. The ease of hiding makes air searches (and satellite searches) ineffective (and dangerous due to the ease of concealing SAM's and other AA weapons). The area is inaccessible to vehicles. Intelligence has had limited effectiveness at best. That leaves slow moving and highly vulnerable ground patrols being the primary means of locating targets.

Also, keep in mind that Pakistan does not possess the technology and military hardware of the US. Unless the the west wants to either provide them with adequate resources, or do the job for them, we are in a pretty weak (hypocritical?) position to criticise the efforts currently being made.

I find it interesting that the "liberals" blame the US for creating the Taliban and al Qaeda by supposedly abandoning the Afghans after helping them beat the Russian invasion. Now their “solution” to the current problem in the Middle East is to abandon the Iraqis.

The following was taken from the Wikipedia article on al Queda:

“Gulf War and the start of U.S. enmity.
Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi's most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait, and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent. In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory.

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked. His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.”

Seems Bin Laden was pissed off because the US came to the aid of yet another Muslim country...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda