EU takes bold stand against…the word “jihad” Update: The UN HRC agrees

posted at 10:01 am on March 30, 2007 by Bryan

Tough hombres, today’s modern metrosexual European Unionists. They know how to cowboy up:

The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements. Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers “non-offensive” phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist”.

The word “jihad” is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life. One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term “Islamic terrorism” to be replaced by “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”. An EU official said that the secret guidebook, or, “common lexicon”, is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe.

There are no words…because the EU keeps banning them.

Update: The UN is on board with the EUnuchs.

Presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the resolution on combating defamation of religions that was adopted noted with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 9/11.

The resolution recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion.

In addition, it expressed concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief.

The resolution strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of religious symbols.

It urges states to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence. (emphasis mine)

In the name of human rights, we’re getting a sharia-based speech code rammed down our throats on a global scale. Is it just me, or the 21st Century shaping up to suck mightily?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Can you still say sissies? Cheese eating surrender monkeys? It would be more helpful if they just went ahead and cataloged the list of all banned speech.

BelchSpeak on March 30, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Europe is being “Islamisized” (I can still say that, can’t I)so these guidelines are no surprise.

Yellow stars on thier flag is no surprise either.

CliffHanger on March 30, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Everyone repeat after me: dhimmis. And again: dhimmis.

amerpundit on March 30, 2007 at 10:14 AM

This is wonderful news!

If they keep it up, Mrs. Hendersons 3rd Grade class can invade them.

They need to accept their US Overlords. We pay for them anyways, lets make em pay taxes!!!

Ringmaster on March 30, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Note to EUers: Start weaving your prayer rug of choice…now!
Alternate plan: Find a nice sword-sharpener. It’ll go faster if it’s sharp.

lan astaslem on March 30, 2007 at 10:20 AM

The EU members are so scared of what radical Islamists terrorists who abusively invoke Islam will do to them that they’d much rather roll over.

It reminds me of my two dogs… the older one will take the puppy’s ball; after the puppy makes a few half-hearted attempts to take it back he’ll roll over and stick his paws in the air.

When you hear anything like this in the future, just picture a puppy surrendering.

dalewalt on March 30, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Mrs. Hendersons 3rd Grade class has more common sense. They at least know if someone throws sand in their eyes, to throw sand in his eyes.

amerpundit on March 30, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Can someone explain to me why we bothered to save these pussies from the Nazis?? I realize that hindsight is 20/20 but we couldve saved a select few and let the rest savor the the fate they so desperately deserve.

Viper1 on March 30, 2007 at 10:23 AM

to be replaced by “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”.

Or how about, “Bad Bad Naughty Naughty peoples who take part in terrorism, and just happen to be Islamic, but are not actually doing it as part of their religion”?

amerpundit on March 30, 2007 at 10:24 AM

This is a job for… CAPTAIN EURO!

Do not $@#& with Captain Euro. Captain Euro pwns your ass.

saint kansas on March 30, 2007 at 10:26 AM

So EU members are not allowed to quote the statements made by the jihadists or show their videos anymore?? That is what this means right? What kind of world is it if you are not allowed to repeat or quote accurately the wrods of somebody else?

LakeRuins on March 30, 2007 at 10:27 AM

It’s fitting their flag resembles a bullseye.

TheBigOldDog on March 30, 2007 at 10:30 AM

The EU is like a car that someone left with the keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked, with the alarm system disengaged. Anyone want a continent? It’s free for the taking!

aero on March 30, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Also, please use these substitute phrases…

Appeasement: Strategic accommodation to the disaffected and justifiably disgruntled.

Coward: One who’s moral superiority disinclines them toward unnecessary violence against aggressors.

Kidnap: Providing hospitality to unsuspecting guests.

Europe: A once great continent made vastly better through the enlightenment provided by islamic domination.

pistolero on March 30, 2007 at 10:34 AM

And the EU follow-up statement reads:

“Durka durka. Durka durka durka!”

Anton on March 30, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Good lord.

CP on March 30, 2007 at 10:35 AM

‘Was I not born in this realm? Were my parents born in any foreign country? Is there any cause I should alienate myself from being careful over this country? Is not my kingdom here?’- Queen Elizabeth I

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 10:37 AM

There are no words…because the EU keeps banning them.

Sure there are. Just blame it all on the nefarious Some Guy.

As in, “I was just standing there minding my own business when Some Guy just punched me for no reason…”

Now the headline can read, “Islamic Terrorist Some Guy Detonates BombExpresses Himself, Killing 12 Witnesses Silent

Seriously though, by obfuscating the truth, they are blatently saying the citizens they serve are not intelligent enough to make a decision based on the details, thus must be fed only the information that will lead to the “correct” decision.

taznar on March 30, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Banned terms are said to include “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist”.

Other terms banned were, “backbone”, “courage” and “truth”.

Europe is lost. Half of America is lost. Terrorists are laughing.

fogw on March 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Reminds me of this 1/2 hour news segment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rU78_d8UEQ

Coming to a network near you!

CrazyFool on March 30, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Can you still say sissies? Cheese eating surrender monkeys? It would be more helpful if they just went ahead and cataloged the list of all banned speech.

BelchSpeak on March 30, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Those are words of high honor in the pEU. They must be uttered in reverent respect (sort of like saying “Thuh Revrund Shackson”.)

Seriously, the pEU speech code will be the same as Sharia law in about 3 years.

steveegg on March 30, 2007 at 10:46 AM

I’m not sure Europe is lost. It may be that civilized Europe is lost. But given that continent’s cyclical descents into savagery, I’m anticipating a lot of bloodshed sometime in the future.

These people riot and kill over socccer games. I don’t know where the breaking point will ultimately be, but does anyone seriously doubt that race riots are in Europe’s future?

The only question is whether demography will decide who is the ultimate victor in such riots.

Anton on March 30, 2007 at 10:53 AM

“This is a job for… CAPTAIN EURO!
Do not $@#& with Captain Euro. Captain Euro pwns your ass.
saint kansas on March 30, 2007 at 10:26 AM”

Funny, I always thought that Captain Euro would look something like this: http://bestweekever.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/david_hasselhoff.jpg

But seriously linking Islam and terrorism is very irresponsible. We all know that the two have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. I mean, terrorists tell us that they have attacked, are attacking and will continue to attack all non believers until the world is governed by Islamic law but is that really enough information to be able to link the two together? We really must ban a series of words so that people wont be tricked into believing such nonsense. Oh what I wouldn’t give to have people in positions of power with at least a mild grasp on reality.

Zetterson on March 30, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Does this mean Muslims can’t use the word “jihad?”

Connie on March 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM

There are no words…because the EU keeps banning them.

hahahahahahahaha

Allah, do you do stand up? Because your one-liners can be soooo FUNNY!!

Troy Rasmussen on March 30, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Sorry I meant Bryan.

Troy Rasmussen on March 30, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Because of course, once we stop using those words to describe reality, that reality will cease to exist. Why didn’t we think of that earlier?

tikvah on March 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM

I don’t even know how to characterize this anymore. This goes beyond just simple spinelessness and denial. Is there a word for malicious denial? Aggressive spinelessness?

thirteen28 on March 30, 2007 at 11:16 AM

So, we’re back to “1984″ (the book, not the year) and the EU is busily creating its own “Newspeak Dictionary”.

The brilliance of Orwell’s insight on this point, of course, was that by restricting the number of words available to describe a subject, the state could control the range of thought available by which to conceptualize it. It was/is a subtle means of thought control.

It is hard not to wonder if we are not seeing this nightmare, incrementally, come true.

Blaise on March 30, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Remember this:
It is far worse to OFFEEENNND someone than;
Behead
Stone to death
Honor Killing
Sexually mutilate young women
This, according to the Religious Cult known as Political Correctness.

mountainmanbob on March 30, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Yep, this is why I’m “peace out” of here after completing my program in a year and not choosing to stick around with my current Dutch university.

A nice little example of this utter dhimmitude in the Netherlands, was at a “forum” or “symposium” my university sponsored back in December that I attended with other students where we had a British woman come lecture us on the dangers of how easy it is to get tricked into becoming a “terrorist”. For you see, she had become a member of the Mujahadeen back in the 80′s in London and actually lived in a “sleeper cell” before she went to Iraq to help fight the Iranians in their war. The funniest and most horrifying thing of the whole 1.5hr lecture though, was not one single mention of the world Islam or even any vague reference of how a religion played a part into her radicalization of becoming a terrorist. It was the biggest farce and evasion of reality I have ever seen in my life. The Holy Warriors for Chrissake! However, I almost don’t blame her though since sitting at least 20 strong (maybe only 100 of us in attendance) in the front row were many Dutch-Moroccan and Turkish Muslims who were making several anti-American and anti-Jewish comments whenever they could “ask a question” to the speaker. I would have spoke up, but honestly…I didn’t feel safe, even though I know at least half the Dutch students were just as outraged and frustrated as I was that the whole root cause of her becoming a terrorist was left out. So this is the state of Europe…intimidation does work, and occurs all the time.

But people haven’t given up completely. The tragic story from 3 weeks ago of the riot in Utrecht demonstrated how locals were finally “fed up” after a native Dutch man was shot and killed by police after trying to protect a young pregnant Dutch woman who was being harassed by a large group of Muslim “youths” in their neighborhood where safety didn’t use to be a concern. Still though, these incidents are far and few between, and a tipping point is coming soon…

So..moral of the story: Don’t trust your football mates or your cribbage club friends, because you never know when you’ll be infiltrated and brainwashed and become a holy warrior. It could happen to anyone, I swear! Hell I’m nervous. It sounds like this whole Mujahadeen thing is as easy to catch as a cold, I better watch out! (sarc/ON)

Roark on March 30, 2007 at 11:20 AM

taznar on March 30, 2007 at 10:41 AM

That’s exactly what happened to the Utrecht riot stories. Completely white washed and sanitized for the general public so no one would get offended. One of the stories I read only stated that a man was killed because he was threatening the police officers with a knife. No reference to the events before, or how they would be connected to a hundreds of white Dutch people actually rioting in the streets. Complete Newspeak. It was double minus good. Didn’t you hear? They’re making the 10th edition of the Newspeak dictionary, I’m double plus happy about these events. The destruction of words, such a glorious endeavor, for he who controls the past, controls the future;)

Roark on March 30, 2007 at 11:28 AM

I have a new word, in place of”

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers “non-offensive” phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist”.

Use……… Toilet Paper!

PinkyBigglesworth on March 30, 2007 at 11:36 AM

European military capability as a whole is weak as it is and now even their language against terrorism is weaker still.

Yakko77 on March 30, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Allah, do you do stand up? Because your one-liners can be soooo FUNNY!!

Very true, but check the by-line….

Bryan on March 30, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Ugh. As someone who lives under the Dictatorship of the European Commission (they’re unelected) this kind of thing makes my blood boil. A couple a years ago I voted against the Nice Treaty and the No vote won. So what did they do? Held another referendum with a few slight changes. The most insulting thing was the insinuation that the No campaigners had connections to Neo-Nazis (wooohhh they’re fascists!!)

I’m going to campaign against the EU constitution. I think if I can convince a lot of people that it basically scraps Irish soverignity (it does) then patriots (i.e. everyone) will vote No and it’ll be another bloody nose to the wole EU apparatus. Death to the Not-so-Great Satan!!

aengus on March 30, 2007 at 11:41 AM

wole=whole

aengus on March 30, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Just so long as they don’t ban my beloved “souless goat eating murderous bastards.”

spd rdr on March 30, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Wow. Why don’t they just surrender now and start paying Jihasists the jizza tax? There would be a lot less bloodshed. Steyn is so right – America will be alone.

JustTruth101 on March 30, 2007 at 11:44 AM

If they wanted tot euphemise I would have settled for “medieval clericalism” but I suppose that’s still too aggressive for these idiots.

aengus on March 30, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Remember when there were ‘cripples’?

It was deemed cruel to describe them thus, so we started calling them ‘handicapped’. But eventually, people figured out that word meant the same thing, so we needed a new name.

Ah, how about ‘disabled’? That worked for a while. But again, people know what it means. I believe the current term is ‘differently-abled’….

When we hear about rioting ‘youths’ in France, who do we think they’re talking about? How long before they have to come up with a new euphemism for that?

This is all symptomatic of those who assert the primacy of consciousness over existence. They think that changing what they call something changes its identity. It does not. It only confounds people’s ability to reason.

Meanwhile, the jihadis use words like ‘Jews and Crusaders’. They identify exactly who their enemies are. That gives them the advantage.

The Monster on March 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM

F-word A-word B-word C-words. J-word N-word J-word I-word F-words.

Wade on March 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM

The Eu are faggots!!

/Ann off

omnipotent on March 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Can someone explain to me why we bothered to save these pussies from the Nazis?? I realize that hindsight is 20/20 but we couldve saved a select few and let the rest savor the the fate they so desperately deserve.

Viper1 on March 30, 2007 at 10:23 AM

I think the problem is that we wanted to reform Europe from a constant breeding ground of war into a peaceful continent. And we succeeded: Since 1945, Europe has enjoyed its longest period of peace since the Pax Romana nearly two millenia ago.

But just like the Romans, it appears that we did too good a job. We didn’t just breed the militarism out of them, we seem to have eliminated the survival instinct as well. Just like the provinces of the Western Roman Empire became so accustomed to peace that they lost the will to fight against barbarian invaders, today’s Western Europeans have lost the will to fight against a rising tide of Islamism.

Appeasement: Strategic accommodation to the disaffected and justifiably disgruntled.

Coward: One who’s moral superiority disinclines them toward unnecessary violence against aggressors.

Kidnap: Providing hospitality to unsuspecting guests.

Europe: A once great continent made vastly better through the enlightenment provided by islamic domination.

pistolero on March 30, 2007 at 10:34 AM

Very well put.

Spurius Ligustinus on March 30, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Banned terms are said to include “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist”.

“Fundamentalist” used to be their favorite word when referring to Christians. Now they are letting it be known that they used the word for the purpose offending Christians.

Perchant on March 30, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Remember when there were ‘cripples’?

It was deemed cruel to describe them thus, so we started calling them ‘handicapped’. But eventually, people figured out that word meant the same thing, so we needed a new name.

Ah, how about ‘disabled’? That worked for a while. But again, people know what it means. I believe the current term is ‘differently-abled’….

When we hear about rioting ‘youths’ in France, who do we think they’re talking about? How long before they have to come up with a new euphemism for that?

This is all symptomatic of those who assert the primacy of consciousness over existence. They think that changing what they call something changes its identity. It does not. It only confounds people’s ability to reason.

Meanwhile, the jihadis use words like ‘Jews and Crusaders’. They identify exactly who their enemies are. That gives them the advantage.

The Monster on March 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Exactly right. Kind of like how liberals started calling themselves progressives. I was talking to a liberal friend of mine the other day who preferred the term progressive. I poked fun at her with a few questions. I asked her if there was a difference between liberals and progressives. She thought about it for a minute and said “no I don’t think so.” I chuckled and then asked a three questions, 1) why did liberals feel the need to change what they call themselves? 2) Why don’t Conservatives feel this same need? 3) If there is no difference between the two why do you prefer one over the other?

Zetterson on March 30, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Eurabia indeed.

WisCon on March 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM

The word “jihad” is to be avoided altogether

But the islamists “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam” can still use it in their struggle, right? I would hate for them to feel restrained in their right to free speech.

Rick on March 30, 2007 at 12:10 PM

Sigh…. bad week folks…

Problem here is that if you cannot accurately name somthing, you can have no debate about it. If you allow one side to control the words used, then you allow them to set the terms of debate.

Soon, these terms will be considered HATE Speech, by the EU, which will then allow them to start to stymie Free Speech on the Net…

As Courts in Europe, following our stupid precedent, now consider themeselves to have jurisdiction everywhere, they can, and I believe soon will, try to go after Americans for Hate Speech ordinances….

Romeo13 on March 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Meanwhile, the jihadis use words like ‘Jews and Crusaders’. They identify exactly who their enemies are. That gives them the advantage.

The Monster

During Clinton’s Balkans War, the word “ethnic” was always used in place of “muslim”. I guess the word means “other than Christian” because when the muslims invaded the Christian villages and slaughtered the inhabitants, it wasn’t called “ethnic cleansing”. The Christians have pretty much been “cleansed” from that contested Balkans regions and are being cleansed by the “ethnics” in Lebanon and parts of Africa.

Perchant on March 30, 2007 at 12:32 PM

In the name of human rights, we’re getting a sharia-based speech code rammed down our throats on a global scale. Is it just me, or the 21st Century shaping up to suck mightily?

There will be at least one benefit of that; we won’t have to vacuum anymore.

Oh wait, we’re on the other side of the brushes?

steveegg on March 30, 2007 at 12:35 PM

It urges states to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence.

Too bad the EU didn’t have the balls or insight to direct that quote to the jihadists and Islamic terrorists. It is more appropriately applied to them.

The jihadists couldn’t take over Europe in the Middle Ages. The EU is making sure they give them a running start in the 21st century.

Mallard T. Drake on March 30, 2007 at 12:43 PM

In the name of human rights, we’re getting a sharia-based speech code rammed down our throats on a global scale. Is it just me, or the 21st Century shaping up to suck mightily?

It’s not just you.

Everyday we hear excessively negative stories from Iraq, Iran practically declaring war and stories like the ones you posted above that show much of the “free world” to be absolute appeasers and dhimmis. Believe me, I too am very concerned about the fate of our nation and the world. It’s enough to make me wish I were still physically able to be in the military to at least contribute something to the effort against these threats.

I do what I can. I try to support the troops in my own little way through care packages. I vote for those politicians who are pro-victory. I try to keep informed and spread the word (thanks in large part to HA) but I often wonder if it’s enough. I’m so often bombarded with stories that make me feel that I’m on the losing side.

Yakko77 on March 30, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Banned terms are said to include “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist”.

There is a terrorist group that refers to itself as “Islamic Jihad”. It will be a double whammy to ever mention this group.

Perchant on March 30, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Because of course, once we stop using those words to describe reality, that reality will cease to exist. Why didn’t we think of that earlier?

tikvah on March 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Can we work on banning terms like “global warming”, “carbon nenetral” and “Al Gore”?

Maybe they too will cease to exist!

LonelyMassRepublican on March 30, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Seems like socialism and Islam dovetail nicely.

Is it just me, or the 21st Century shaping up to suck mightily?

Bryan, your analysis is flawless I fear. Plan on spending your European vacations elsewhere. I hear Yosemite is nice this time of year. Montreal is a lot like old Europe, but it is Canada.

Can you imagine Europe 10 years from now? Men and Women, required to wear beards and burqas. I will miss beer and bangers.

Kini on March 30, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Exactly right. Kind of like how liberals started calling themselves progressives. I was talking to a liberal friend of mine the other day who preferred the term progressive. I poked fun at her with a few questions. I asked her if there was a difference between liberals and progressives. She thought about it for a minute and said “no I don’t think so.” I chuckled and then asked a three questions, 1) why did liberals feel the need to change what they call themselves? 2) Why don’t Conservatives feel this same need? 3) If there is no difference between the two why do you prefer one over the other?

Zetterson on March 30, 2007 at 11:57 AM

I love that one too. Why is it that liberals seldom want to admit to being liberals? Could it be because liberalism has a (well-deserved) negative connotation in the minds of normal people? Hmm, maybe all that killing of babies, burning of American flags, spitting on the troops, supporting of murderous dictators (especially if they’re Communist), government expansion, creeping Socialism, and raising taxes had consequences after all.

ReubenJCogburn on March 30, 2007 at 2:01 PM

NEWSPEAK!

Someday they wont let you, now you must agree
The times they are a-telling, and the changing isn’t free
Youve read it in the tea leaves, and the tracks are on tv
Beware the savage jaw
Of 1984

Kevin M on March 30, 2007 at 2:21 PM

One other key point with regard to “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”.

The EU goofed up badly on this one because…if anyone remembers…we also cannot, MUST NOT, use the word “terrorist” (ask Reuters). How could they have forgotten the new mantra: “One man´s…oops person’s “terrorist” is another person’s “freedom fighter” “? So, “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam” is out.

What now? “Individuals who are differently based morally who abusivey invoke Islam” ….

Maybe Ahmadinejab is right. Maybe we ARE doomed.

Blaise on March 30, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Europe is lost. Half of America is lost. Terrorists are laughing.

fogw on March 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Missed you fogw – you can say so much with few words!

“Hurrah, we capitulate” – EUnuchs’ new slogan.

Thank you Bryan for the “EUnuchs” – I will now use it forever.

The very fact that this is a “classified handbook” is the most ironic thing of all…How do these ‘leaders’ sleep at night? Delusional!!!

Entelechy on March 30, 2007 at 2:53 PM

I’m going to campaign against the EU constitution. I think if I can convince a lot of people that it basically scraps Irish soverignity (it does) then patriots (i.e. everyone) will vote No and it’ll be another bloody nose to the wole EU apparatus. Death to the Not-so-Great Satan!!

aengus on March 30, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Bravo!

Connie on March 30, 2007 at 3:05 PM

The very fact that this is a “classified handbook” is the most ironic thing of all…How do these ‘leaders’ sleep at night? Delusional!!!

Entelechy on March 30, 2007 at 2:53 PM

The Right Ordinary Horatio Jackson said to the Sultan, “Please, we been through this before. Now sign the surrender.”

Sultan, “But we’re winning!”

Quoth from The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

Kini on March 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Ah, Kini, how appropriate to bring him up. Baron Münchhausen was sent to fight the Turks, twice. Long noses relate to him, and many others of today.

Entelechy on March 30, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Entelechy, I think you got my ironic point. Seems much of the EU are capitulating as a offset (can I say that?) not to anger their muslim welfare state whilst not addressing the problem head on (while they still have their heads). The irony is in the denial of the culture clash and economic problems brought on by both, the EU and the immigrants jihadies. It’s what the movie by Terry Gilliam so poignantly outlines.

Kini on March 30, 2007 at 8:30 PM

The EU is so Revelationtastic.

- The Cat

MirCat on March 30, 2007 at 10:33 PM