http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/preview-far-right-rally-in-denmark-eyes-pan-european-reach I wonder if this event would have taken place had Breivik not asked for it and I love how the media is shielding this fact. He is a terrorist and this is a meeting of terrorists, no ands, ifs or buts about it. If anti-Muslim violence is isolated and fragmented, then it is clear from this article that these people are trying to change the isolated and fragmented nature of it.
Absolutely. Mathloom would rather point fingers at others, but the threat from his fellow people with Islamist leanings is much more serious at this point. That is not to say that one should not be wary of neo-nazis, but they are much more of an isolated fringe group, with much less of a joint ideological base with a larger group of people than militant Islamists.
Yes it is idiotic to only point fingers at ones self or only at others. The rational human being way of doing things is case by case. We try to avoid prejudice, not embrace it. It's clear from your post you might derail the thread early by resorting to personal attacks. If that's the case, please open a thread for that purpose, this is not the place to attack my beliefs. Please let us know what you think about the actual people and the actual event and the context of the article if you are interested. Regarding your post, these are not neo nazis, these are full-blown Nazis but they are not in charge of much legislation, military or police and they are legally barred from communicating many of their beliefs due to restrictions on hate speech. That means what we hear is just what they are allowed to say. I urge you to take the matter more seriously and not be so lukewarm about a serious matter. As with all thngs not ant-islam, we will obviously require more evidence, but that doesn't stop us from discussing the problem. So what does it mean if all of the people who met have a common religion? Is it still isolated?
Please explain what you consider the difference. As I already explained to you previously, the only difference is that "neo"-nazis are the ones who came after 1945. They don't. It's not a religious motivation. Basically, they are a bunch of uneducated, hateful, dumbass freaks who are looking for attention. Like Islamists, they need to be observed and punished by the law when appropriate (i.e., when they turn violent). The big difference is that Islamists have a joint ideological basis with regular Muslims (even though, fortunately, most regular Muslims would reject how far Islamists go), whereas these neo-nazi dumbasses don't have a joint ideological basis with anyone but themselves. I trust that the world has at least learned from history as far as Nazism is concerned. Therefore, the potential recruiting pool is much larger in one case over the other nowadays. P.S.: Your sensationalist thread title is ridiculous. That's as if every time some dumbass Islamists meet in some goat-****er tent in the desert, someone would start a thread called "Islamist Caliphate for world domination: Beginnings".
You see, the new politicians like Wilders, Le Penne, and also public figures such as Sarrazin and so on are providing the bridge between the populace and the extremists. This is their role, and this was the role of those types of people in the Islamic version of the same problem. FYI, I reject the distinction of nazis and neo nazis which you presented even if in the dictionary or wiki, I've made that clear to you in the past. Having said that, according to wiki a neo nazi can be someone seeking political or social movement to revive Naziism or some variant and this definition seems to e more realistic than yours. A nazi is a nazi and a neo nazi is a neo nazi. We probably differ in between those two terms. For me, someone whose beliefs are the modern equivalent of Naziism and would engage in modern Naziism if permitted by law and other circumstances is a Nazi. They don't need to wear the clothes or have the moustache or use the same weapons or use the same catch phrases. For me, the person who is a nazi today and engages in the same acts as if teleported from the dark past... this person does not qualify as a nazi anymore, in 2012 we can't classify that kind of person as a Nazi anymore. In 2012, we have to classify those people as terrorists. We tend to forget that bigotry and racism and naziism develop just like any other ideology. They will not keep getting caught in the same way, they will not always believe the same things, they will not always do the same things. But they all have the same principles which link them to their ideological human-killing brethren. This is what binds them, and this is what should unify everyone else.
I don't think so, I think some of them voice legitimate concerns. It cannot be taboo to point out the threat of an intolerant ideology being imported into liberal societies. On the contrary, it is important to warn of these dangers. That doesn't make someone an extremist. A populist, maybe, but not an extremist. I don't agree with everything Sarrazin says, but he is far from an extremist. I don't even understand what difference you are trying to explain here. It's not like a neo-nazi is anything better than nazi. Not sure where your lack of understanding of the terms comes from. A terrorist is someone who is involved in committing violent acts, I'd say. If it is done out of a racist/nazi ideological attitude, someone can be a nazi and a terrorist. Not sure what differentiation you are trying to make there. Blah. Yeah. Water is wet.
The thread title is absurd, Mathloom. It undercuts anything you might say in the rest of the OP, big time.
