Europe Shall Bleed, Once Again

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=2

Europe Shall Bleed, Once Again

  
Friday, 23 May 2008
Me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother, and my cousin against the other. This is an old Muslim saying and Muslims live by this motto. To be sure the people of the-religion of peace-find the world full of “other,” to oppress and kill, both within as well as without the Islamic Ummah.Civilized peoples’ idea of the “other” is the exact opposite of that of Muslims. All over Europe, for one, people have been singing the praises of multiculturalism; the idea that everybody should bend over backwards to accommodate the different in society. However, the different in this case are the hordes of invasive Muslims, with their rigid medieval ideas about every aspect of private and public life.
To Muslims, anyone who doesn’t toe the line of Islam, as each sect defines it, is the “other” and fair game as kafir (blasphemous; unbeliever in Allah). The “other” covers a broad spectrum: the six billion or so people of the world who are not Muslims, including the Jews and Christians who are considered Dhimmis. Every one of the numerous sects and sub-sects of Islam consider every other sect and sub-sect as “other” to be punished and even eliminated.Centuries old Sunni-Shiite bloodletting is only one glaring example of the Islamic unceasing animosity for the “other.” Yet, these devotees of Allah never lose sight of the most important objective: destruction of everything non-Islamic and imposition of Islam on everyone and every land. Just recall what the Taliban did to the statues of Buddha, among other things; what the Wahabis are doing throughout the world; and, what the bomb-seeking Shiite mullahs of Iran are doing to the Baha’is in Iran in relentless race to dominate the region, destroy Israel, and later rule the world.

The sword that Muhammad wielded to kill all those who didn’t see things his way has never been sheathed by his followers. As soon as Muhammad died his devoted adherents carried on with his practice of killing. Killing gets merit points for Muslims. The Commander of the Faithful, Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, was knighted by none other than Muhammad for beheading, some 600 unbelievers in one day with his own sword, assisted only by one other killer. Ali’s blood-drenched sword had its own title, Zulfaghar.

The Muslims’ killing campaign did not end with their defeat at the gates of Vienna. Their eviction from Spain was a temporary forced retreat. But now the Muslims have, in huge numbers, penetrated the gates of every city and town of Europe without yet having to use their swords.

The Islam in Europe blog
reports on the numbers and percentages of Muslims in many European cities. Here are some of the statistics:
Marseilles – 25% (200,000 of 800,000)
Malmö – ~25% (67,000 of 270,000
Amsterdam – 24% (180,000 of 750,000)
Stockholm – 20% (>155,000 of 771,038)
Brussels – ~20% (some say 33%)
Moscow – 16-20% (2 million of 10-12 million)
London – 17% (1.3 million of 7.5 million)
Luton – 14.6% (26,963)
Birmingham 14.3% (139,771)
The Hague – 14.2% (67,896 of 475,580)
Utrecht – 13.2% (38,300 of 289,000)
Rotterdam – 13% (80,000 of 600,000)
Copenhagen – 12.6% (63,000 of 500,000)
Leicester – 11% (>30,000 of 280,000)
Aarhus – ~10%
Zaan district (Netherlands) – 8.8 percent
Paris – 7.38% (155,000 of 2.1 million)
Antwerp- 6.7% (>30,000 of >450,000)
Hamburg – 6.4% (>110,000 of 1.73 million)
Berlin – 5.9% (~200,000 of 3.40 million)

In the West, an unholy coalition of mentally-deranged suicidal-homicidal liberals; together with self-selling Islamic apologists; are doing their level best to assist the Islamists in the destruction  of the existing order of freedom and liberty.

In Europe, the gullible, self-indulging native non-Muslims have welcomed the arrivals as a source of cheap labor to serve their needs for a life devoted to self-gratification with little concern for the future. Europe is living on credit. And the creditors are hordes of Muslims who have already started delivering their bills.

Many affluent Europeans who see the handwriting on the wall are packing and moving to North America, Australia, and other seemingly safe lands. Yet, the Muslims’ bills, with compounded interest, shall continue to be delivered to those who remain behind. In response, politicians will keep bending backwards to placate the evermore powerful creditors by gradually instituting the Islamic Shariah as the law of the land. Before very long, Europe will have to turn its deed over to the new Islamic invaders or rebel and fight block by block, city by city. That’s when Europe shall bleed, once again.

Advertisements

Political Islam – a ‘European’ ideology?

Political Islam – a ‘European’ ideology?

Created 2008-05-14 15:34
An article written in December 2007 and published online in January 2008 has just attracted the attention of the spokesman for Islam, Integration and Extremism in the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The article is by the Grand Mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mustafa Ceric, and two things are remarkable about it at first sight. The first is its title, “The challenge of a single Muslim authority in Europe” (more on this in a moment); the second is the place of publication.
 
The article, which can be read online here, advocates the creation of a single global authority to regulate the religious and civil life of Muslims all over the world. It argues that the best place to start constructing such an authority is Europe itself.
 
The journal which has published this piece is European View, the journal of something called the Centre for European Studies, a mouthpiece of the European People’s Party (EPP), the parliamentary body in the European Parliament grouped around the German Christian Democrats. There is no doubt about the political affiliation of the journal: its editor, for instance, has an EPP e-mail address.
 
According to Kristina Köhler, the CDU spokesman on such matters, the article advocates extremism. On 12 May, she told Die Welt that the author was arguing that all Muslims in Europe should live under a common political and spiritual leader and under sharia law, and that the state should guarantee this parallel jurisdiction by treaty. “This would mean a European caliphate,” she said.
 
Ceric makes no bones about the fact that Muslims must obey shariah law. “The Islamic convenant, the shari’ah, is perpetual, it is not negotiable and it is not terminable,” he writes. According to him, “a European Muslim imamate” should be established “as a way of institutionalising Islam in Europe”. (By ‘imamate’ he means the application of shariah law in practice.) The author says that the two great strands of Islam, Sunnism and Shiism, should unite “with the objective of creating a global Muslim authority”. Ceric argues that Europe is specifically the best place to start creating such a global authority. He writes,

It is not enough that Europe recognises the presence of Islam on its territory. Muslims deserve more than that. They deserve that their presence be legalised in the sense of creating a political and economic climate in which European Muslims can represent themselves through the institutions that should have both governmental support and public acceptance.

This is the part of his text which Köhler attacks as implying “a parallel jurisdiction” and she is right. In a sense, we should not be surprised that such a call should come from a Bosnian. Bosnia precisely did have such parallel jurisdictions under Ottomon rule, with courts for Muslims and courts for non-Muslims. To some extent, the paraphernalia of minority rights, which became a centrepiece of the 1974 Yugoslav constitution and which continues to bedevil Bosnian politics to this day, is a hangover from that period: both stand in marked contrast to the English and French traditions of centralised statehood.
 
But what is really striking about the article – and what the Christian Democrat official naturally overlooks – is that the rise of a Muslim political identity (and even perhaps of a Muslim parallel jurisdiction of the kind which the Archbishop of Canterbury seemed to call in a recent and very controversial speech) is precisely made more likely by the weakening of national identity caused, in part, by the anti-national pan-European ideology of which the German CDU is one of the main propagators.
 
Ceric himself sees the link between Europeanism and political Islam very clearly. After a few concluding sentences which border on the threatening – European society is still too “immature” to realise the advantage of a single Muslim authority, yet it will come whatever the European political establishment now thinks – he concludes with this sentence:

A single Muslim authority in Europe will come sooner or later because of need by young European Muslims who are capable of seeing their Islamic identity as prior to their ethnic or national identities and who are comfortable with their European identity coexisting with their Islamic upbringing. [my emphasis – jl]

Elsewhere in the piece, the author makes the link between Islam as a “universal” religion and Muslims as “global citizens”. There is, in other words, a specific link between the proposal, which amounts to the creation of a global caliphate although Ceric does not use this term, and the general cosmopolitan ideology of globalism of which European integration is a key part. To put it bluntly, the stronger national identities, the weaker Islamic identity – and vice-versa.
 
Robert Dreyfuss makes the point, in his arresting work Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, (New York: Henry Holt, 2005) that British and later American secret operatives deliberately supported pan-Islamic radicals in order to weaken nationalist leaders in the Arab world. The more such people were committed to the ummah, the less they would be interested in creating strong nation-states. Ceric seems to have the same view, since for him the need for a Muslim political authority rises as national identities weaken, whereas European “identity” is no threat to it at all. Could there be a clearer indictment of the suicidal nature of the EU’s project of dissolving national identity in Europe today? 


Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement

Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement

Created 2008-04-06 14:13

An American friend of mine has proposed that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement. I have hesitated with supporting this because it sounded a bit too extreme. However, in more and more European cities, the native population is being pushed out of their own neighborhoods by immigrant gangs. The natives receive little or no aid from their authorities, sometimes blatant hostility, when faced with immigrant violence. In an age where the global population increases with billions of people in a few decades, it is entirely plausible, indeed likely, that the West could soon become demographically overwhelmed. Not few of our intellectuals seem to derive pleasure from this thought.

Bat Ye’or in her book about Eurabia has documented how the European Union is actively allowing Muslims to colonize European countries. The next time EU leaders complain about China’s treatment of minorities, I suggest the Chinese answer the following: “Yes, we represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to subduing the indigenous people of Tibet, but you represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to displacing the indigenous peoples of an entire continent.” There is no love lost between me and the Chinese Communist Party, an organization responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its citizens, but even Chinese authorities do not actively seek to displace their own people with violent Muslims. European authorities do.

In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn’t open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it’s one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as “racism and hate speech.” To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it’s as if we don’t even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having “democratic” governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why?

At the Daily Telegraph, Simon Heffer suggests that the mass immigration encouraged in particular by the Labour governments of Blair and Brown in Britain is not happening out of incompetence, but is part of “a doctrinally driven determination by the new Government in 1997 to destroy our national identity and to advance multiculturalism.” I agree, but this policy of state-sponsored population replacement is far from limited to Britain.

Numbers discussed in 2008 showed clearly that mass immigration has had no positive effects on the economy in Britain, and I have seen similar calculations from France, Denmark and Norway, among others. On the contrary, it is a drain on the finances of the native population, and that’s even if we don’t count the wave of terrorism, insecurity and street violence which is sweeping Western Europe, from Sweden via Germany to the Netherlands. On top of this, the costs of destruction of national cohesion and weakened cultural legacies are incalculable, yet mass immigration continues as if nothing has happened. In April 2008, a report indicated that Spain needed over two million new foreign workers just until 2020, many of whom are likely to come from Muslim North Africa. The authors of the report would call upon the Spanish government to adopt a new law on immigration “to facilitate the legal entry, take advantage of the new arrivals and encourage integration.”

I have earlier toyed with the idea of giving native Norwegians the legal status as indigenous people in Norway. A large proportion of my ancestors have lived here since the end of the last Ice Age, for as long as this country has been habitable for humans. The original settlers, who came from Central Europe (Germany and the Czech Republic), have been supplemented by other Europeans. Genetic traces from peoples of Near Eastern origins who spread agriculture to Europe are detectable, but until recently most Europeans were overwhelmingly the descendants of men and women who had lived in the region for tens of thousands of years.

Genetically speaking, native Europeans have thus lived longer on the same continent than have Native Americans. Many Southeast Asians are descendants of southern Chinese settlers who displaced or eradicated the original, dark-skinned inhabitants of the region in early historical times, just as many of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa are Bantu invaders who displaced or eradicated the indigenous Khoi-San peoples throughout much of Africa. Modern-day Japanese have lived in Japan for a shorter period of time than Europeans have lived in Europe. Yet a Scottish councillor, Sandy Aitchison, was chastised for using the term “indigenous” about native Brits. Why is it considered ridiculous or evil if Europeans assert our rights? Is it because we are white? Everybody’s supposed to keep their culture, except people of European origins? Is that it? Why is colonialism bad, except when my country, which has no colonial history, gets colonized by Third World peoples?

Western Europeans have in recent years accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than any society has ever done peacefully in human history. If we want a break we have the right to do so. What we are dealing with is not “immigration” but colonization, and in the case of Muslims, internationally organized attempts to conquer of our countries. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization then so do Europeans. Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all. The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turkish Muslims, who have a thousand years of brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are hardly any Britons in Pakistan today, so why should the Brits allow huge numbers of Pakistanis to settle in Britain? And if the Algerians can demand independence from France, why can’t the French demand independence from Algerians?

I like cultural diversity and would hope this could be extended to include my culture, too. Or is Multiculturalism simply a hate ideology designed to unilaterally dismantle European culture and the peoples who created it? If people in Cameroon or Cambodia can keep their culture, why can’t the peoples who produced Beethoven, Newton, Copernicus, Michelangelo and Louis Pasteur do the same? As Rabbi Aryeh Spero points out, European elites insist “on the primacy of indigenous cultures and religions when speaking of other faraway regions, yet find such insistence arrogant when it concerns the indigenous culture of its own lands.”

Yes, a little immigration from compatible cultures can be absorbed, and can be beneficial on certain terms. But what we are dealing with now is not from compatible cultures, and it certainly isn’t little. My nation runs a very real risk of being demographically wiped out during this century, as do the other Nordic countries. We will go from being among the most successful societies in human history to being eradicated in the space of a few generations if current levels of mass immigration continue. Do I have the right to worry about this, or is that “racist”?

The author Gore Vidal once stated: “Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species.” Thomas Jefferson said that “The law of self-preservation is higher than written law,” and he was right.

As I wrote two years ago: “By any standards possible, we’re one of the most successful cultures in the world, our largest flaw, which could eventually bury us, probably being our naivety. So why on earth should we quietly watch while our country is subdued by the most unsuccessful cultures in the world? The most basic instinct of all living things, even down to bacteria level, is self-preservation. In 2006, you have a natural right to self-preservation if you are an amoeba, but not if you’re a Scandinavian. Maybe the solution then is to argue that Scandinavians are indeed a species of amoebas, and that we need special protection by the WWF. We could showcase some of our finest specimen of Leftist intellectuals and journalists to prove our point. Shouldn’t be too hard.”

For simply suggesting that I would not enjoy being turned into a persecuted minority in my own country, I have been accused of being a “white nationalist,” which says a great deal about how demonized people of European ancestry have become. What about Koreans or Japanese? If they were gradually being displaced by, say, Nigerians and Pakistanis and were harassed in their cities by people who moved there out of their own free will, would they be denounced as yellow nationalists if they objected to this? In fact, why do the terms yellow nationalist, brown nationalist and black nationalist hardly exist, whereas the term white nationalist does? Isn’t that by itself an indication of a double standard?

I started out initially writing almost exclusively about Islam, and I still write predominantly about Islam. However, I have gradually realized that we are dealing with an entire regime of censorship that needs to be removed before we can deal with Islam. I will in any situation highlight and support the struggle of Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is, Jews, African Christians, Chinese Taoists etc. against Islamic Jihad, which is a global fight. I always have and I always will. The one thing I will not do is surrender my land, which is not mine to give. I do not see anybody else quietly accept being turned into a minority in the country where their ancestors have lived since the end of the last Ice Age, and I cannot see why I should have to do so, either. I don’t care if white Westerners are “scared of being called a racist.” I will not leave a ruined land behind to my descendants because I was afraid of being called bad names. If you think it is “racist” for Europeans to preserve their heritage and protect their children from abuse, then I’m not the bigot here. You are.

I hereby propose that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement, on behalf of the traditional majority populations of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark etc., inspired by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The European Indigenous People’s Movement should support the right of Europe’s indigenous peoples to preserve their self-determination, traditions, sovereignty and culture as majority peoples in their own lands.

The list of goals and objectives should include:

1.) The right to maintain our traditional majorities in our own lands, control our own sovereignty and our own self-determination. We do not wish harm or ill-feeling toward any other peoples on earth, but we assert the right to maintain our own majorities in our own lands without being accused of “racism.” We reject current trends which preach that we have no right to oppose, control or lessen unlimited immigration from non-indigenous cultures.

2.) The right to teach our children our cultures, languages, historical interpretations, religious celebrations and traditions unimpeded. We reject educational trends which encourage our children to forget or despise their culture, traditions, religious practices and history in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

3.) The right to maintain, cherish and practice our own indigenous religious holidays and celebrations. We reject out of hand current trends which preach that traditional indigenous European religious or cultural celebrations such as Christmas are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” and therefore must be “downgraded,” “renamed” or otherwise de-emphasized or eliminated in order to avoid offending non-indigenous European residents or citizens. We reject current policies which establish that our indigenous cultures are somehow deficient and therefore are not complete until they are “enriched” by other, non-indigenous cultures.

4.) The right to maintain, cherish and display our own indigenous religious, national, ethnic and cultural symbols. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that our national flags or ethnic symbols of centuries standing are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

5.)  The right to maintain, cherish, protect and display our own indigenous cultural expressions such as music, artwork and sculptures. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that indigenous European cultural expressions such as statues of boars, folkloric tales about pigs or dogs, paintings with Christian or Classical pagan themes, war memorials with a Christian theme, etc., should be removed from public view, banned, destroyed, modified or otherwise threatened in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

6.)  The right to maintain, cherish and protect indigenous burial sites, structures, buildings, churches, museums and other public works and structures from destruction, modification or other changes. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which establish that indigenous public works and structures must be changed or modified to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens, or to “make way” for structures or public works that benefit non-European residents or citizens (i.e. digging up indigenous graves that are centuries old in order to “make room” for non-indigenous cemeteries, removing external Christian symbols and statues from churches, etc.)

Mr. Franco Frattini of the EU Commission, the unelected and unaccountable government for nearly half a billion people, has stated that Europeans should accept further tens of millions of immigrants within a generation. The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the EU should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. This is part of an organized attempt to surrender Europe to Islamization that has been going on for decades. Since the European Union involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims and other non-indigenous peoples at a time when native Europeans fear for the survival of their civilization and feel like aliens in their own cities. Meanwhile, Ernst Uhrlau, the president of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, warned about the rising assertiveness of violent Jihadist organizations in North Africa.

Based on this evidence, the European Union can hardly be seen as anything other than a criminal organization dedicated to the demographic dispossession and cultural marginalization of the indigenous peoples of an entire continent. Consequently, the EU should be immediately and totally dissolved. Native Europeans should demand that we have an interim period with public de-Eurabification, where the lies propagated by pro-Islamic Multiculturalists should be removed from our history books, and a proper respect for European cultural traditions should be restored. Those officials on senior levels who have participated in the creation of Eurabia should stand trial for crimes against their civilization.


European Leaders Agree to Create Eurabia

European Leaders Agree to Create Eurabia

Created 2008-03-05 11:26
Bat Ye’or in her book about Eurabia documented how European leaders have for years been quietly planning to merge Europe with the Islamic world. This has been denounced as a “conspiracy theory.” Only a few months ago the British Foreign Minister David Miliband said openly that the European Union should expand to include the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. Now French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are saying virtually the same thing. The greatest betrayal in European history is fact, not fiction. And to think that many people supported Sarkozy because he should “halt” Islamization. Now he is speeding it up:

Merkel and Sarkozy Find ‘Club Med’ Compromise (Der Spiegel, 4 March 2008)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced jointly that they had reached a compromise regarding Sarkozy’s proposed Mediterranean Union. At a press conference held jointly with Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel added that the ensuing outcome should be called the “Mediterranean Union” and that it “should be a project of all 27 (European Union) member countries.” Merkel was referring to her position that any deal to create a union with the Mediterranean states that border the European Union should be negotiated and drafted in conjunction with all EU member states – not just those that border the sea, as Sarkozy had initially proposed.

The Eurabia Code

How was a project as big as the creation of Eurabia pulled off? I have thought a lot about this question, and come to the conclusion that it succeeded precisely because of its size. St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. “How dare you molest the sea?” asked Alexander. “How dare you molest the whole world?” the pirate replied. “Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor.” It’s a matter of scale. If a small group of people sideline the democratic process in one country and start imposing their own laws on the public, it’s called a coup d’état. If they do so on an entire continent, it’s called the European Union.
 
The European Union and the Islamization of Europe

The British Foreign Minister David Miliband in November 2007 stated that the European Union should work towards including Middle Eastern and North African countries. The EU involves the free movement of people across borders. If it expands to the Middle East, hundreds of millions of Muslims will have free access to Germany, Italy, France, Britain, Sweden and the Czech Republic. If Turkey becomes a member, it means that Greeks, Bulgarians and others who have fought against oppression by Ottoman Turks for centuries will now be flooded with Muslims from a rapidly re-Islamizing Turkey. The same goes for Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and others who fought against Muslims for centuries. Appeasement of Islam is so deeply immersed in the structural DNA of the EU that the only way to stop the Islamization of Europe is to dismantle the European Union. All of it.

The Euro-Arab Axis Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis
Author: Bat Ye’Or,Bat Yeor
ASIN: 083864077X

Europe is a dying continent

Major Shift

Created 2008-03-02 23:22
A quote from Yale Daily News, 29 February 2008

Europe is a dying continent. I say this not as a criticism, but rather as a statement of fact. In Europe, an acute failure to produce the next generation has created a looming demographic crisis. […] Given present trends, within about a century, Europe will cease to be a white, Christian continent.

No one wants to talk about racial or religious issues, but it merits consideration that the vast majority of immigrants to the European Union are Muslims from North Africa, the Middle East and Turkey. By the year 2150, barring a major shift in either native European fertility rates or immigrant nationality, Europe will be a largely Muslim continent with whites and Christians as minorities composing less than 20 percent of the population. Much of Europe has come to terms with that possibility, but a significant portion of the population is uncomfortable about the prospect of a change in Europe’s continental character, warranting wider spread support for xenophobic political parties across the continent.


EU to strengthen surveillance of terrorist websites

EU to strengthen surveillance of terrorist websites

This sounds great, but note carefully this message from Fjordman: “I’ve seen signals from the European Union that they will step up control with ‘illegal websites.’ But since they recently passed pan-European anti-racism laws that ban incitement of hatred against ‘religious groups,’ this could potentially make Islam-critical websites illegal, too. Keep that in mind while reading this.”

“EU to strengthen surveillance of terrorist websites,” by Helena Spongenberg for the EU Observer, with thanks to Fjordman:

The European Union wants to strengthen its monitoring of militant Islamic websites, saying the internet plays a major role in the running and communication network of terrorist organisations. EU ambassadors gathering for their weekly meeting in Brussels on Wednesday (30 May) decided that a newly established online police portal “needs to be further strengthened” to combat terrorism, according to press reports. The European Union wants to strengthen its monitoring of militant Islamic websites, saying the internet plays a major role in the running and communication network of terrorist organisations.EU ambassadors gathering for their weekly meeting in Brussels on Wednesday (30 May) decided that a newly established online police portal “needs to be further strengthened” to combat terrorism, according to press reports.

The high-security portal – named “Check the Web” – was launched earlier this month and allows the 27 EU states to pool data on Islamist propaganda and internet chatter at the European Police Office (Europol) in The Hague.

Commissioner Speaks Tough: Illegal Is Illegal

Commissioner Speaks Tough: Illegal Is Illegal

A quote from EU home affairs commissioner Franco Frattini at EUobserver, 25 May 2007

In terms of illegal immigrants currently present [in the EU territory], we have to encourage them to return and follow procedures for legal entrance. This can be co-funded via European projects. […] Illegal [immigrants] must remain illegal. You cannot make something illegal legal.