Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fitna - have you seen it? Any comments?
Comments
-
I never said holding that singular views make him far right, just that it could give the impression that he is one.
His other views however, certainly make him seem like a typically right winger and his genocide denial certainly seem pretty far right to me.
No, thats just twisting the facts to make it look the way you want it to look. His rebuttal to such ludicrous claims:There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempts to prevent it, which were not very successful. Yes there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain but a million may well be likely, ...[and] the issue is not whether the massacres happened or not, but rather if these massacres were as a result of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government... there is no evidence for such a decision
Yet you try to make him look like David Irving. You must face up to the reality that some people, like Bernard Lewis, can look at the demographic trend in Europe and say that it may become Islamic by the end of the century. That does not make said person a fanatical xenophobe.0 -
daithifleming wrote: »No, thats just twisting the facts to make it look the way you want it to look. His rebuttal to such ludicrous claims:
Yet you try to make him look like David Irving. You must face up to the reality that some people, like Bernard Lewis, can look at the demographic trend in Europe and say that it may become Islamic by the end of the century. That does not make said person a fanatical xenophobe.
His rebuttal is a very bad joke. It was a genocide and he is denying it. As for there being no evidence, take a look at Taner Akcam's (a Turkish historian) book "A Shameful Act", which provides plenty evidence. So the comparison is apt in my opinion.
When someone start repeating the same rubbish as "fanatical xenophobes", its hard not to associate him with them. Then there are his other views as I mentioned earlier. Simply put the demographic argument has been made about plenty of other minorities in the past, all by the far right. The current argument is exactly the same.0 -
His rebuttal is a very bad joke. It was a genocide and he is denying it. As for there being no evidence, take a look at Taner Akcam's (a Turkish historian) book "A Shameful Act", which provides plenty evidence. So the comparison is apt in my opinion.
Well I don't know enough about the subject to have a strong opinion on the events, but Bernard Lewis does not have a history of fascist leanings. Quoting a couple of controversial comments is not going to change that. In fact, I regard Lewis' documenting of Islamic history from a Western perspective to be very progressive.When someone start repeating the same rubbish as "fanatical xenophobes", its hard not to associate him with them. Then there are his other views as I mentioned earlier. Simply put the demographic argument has been made about plenty of other minorities in the past, all by the far right. The current argument is exactly the same.
This assertion that Europe could be populated by a Muslim majority within a century is not complete fabrication, and it is not exclusive to fascist circles, sorry to disappoint you. I suppose if I went and shaved my head tommorrow, does that make me a neo-nazi because they tend to have shaved heads as well? Of course not, people can discuss similar issues but can have entirely different agendas. I think the demographic argument is a valid one, and is unique compared to others due to the nature of white european reproduction patterns today. I have no agenda in believing this, I'm just looking at the evidence presented.0 -
daithifleming wrote: »Well I don't know enough about the subject to have a strong opinion on the events, but Bernard Lewis does not have a history of fascist leanings. Quoting a couple of controversial comments is not going to change that. In fact, I regard Lewis' documenting of Islamic history from a Western perspective to be very progressive.
Well, he is considered to be a Orientalist by many, so progressive would be a stretch imho.daithifleming wrote: »This assertion that Europe could be populated by a Muslim majority within a century is not complete fabrication, and it is not exclusive to fascist circles, sorry to disappoint you. I suppose if I went and shaved my head tommorrow, does that make me a neo-nazi because they tend to have shaved heads as well? Of course not, people can discuss similar issues but can have entirely different agendas. I think the demographic argument is a valid one, and is unique compared to others due to the nature of white european reproduction patterns today. I have no agenda in believing this, I'm just looking at the evidence presented.
The argument presented isn't unique. Its the same old thing. Btw, there a "White" Muslims. Not all Muslims are non-White, what does colour have to do with anything in anyways? Strange that you mention colour at all, isn't it? As I said earlier, same old argument, just with a new coat of paint.
**EDIT**
An interesting review of the Book America Alone By Mark Steyn, reviewed by Joahnn Hari. The review, raises several good points about this topic.0 -
Well, he is considered to be a Orientalist by many, so progressive would be a stretch imho.
The argument presented isn't unique. Its the same old thing. Btw, there a "White" Muslims. Not all Muslims are non-White, what does colour have to do with anything in anyways? Strange that you mention colour at all, isn't it? As I said earlier, same old argument, just with a new coat of paint.
**EDIT**
An interesting review of the Book America Alone By Mark Steyn, reviewed by Joahnn Hari. The review, raises several good points about this topic.
Ah you know what i meant. It has nothing to do with colour. Interesting review, btw, but America is hardly the last bastion of western values. If anything, that is the very place where they are being eroded.0 -
Advertisement
-
daithifleming wrote: »Ah you know what i meant. It has nothing to do with colour. Interesting review, btw, but America is hardly the last bastion of western values. If anything, that is the very place where they are being eroded.
Alright fair enough
.
I don't think everyone who holds the view is necessarily far right.
Steyn, seems to pop up whenever people mention this particular argument, hence why I taught the review would be appropriate. As from what I seen, quite a few people in Europe refer to the guy and his book.0 -
Anyway.
Fitna = **** film.0 -
I'm resisting the feeling I should watch it, just because life is too short and I have a feeling it will be tripe. On the other hand, I have read a book by Bernard Lewis and, in fairness, he does actually put in the legwork in terms of his research. My impression was that he would be on the right - but not an extreme right ideologue. His work is actually within the realms of decent and meaningful discussion.daithifleming wrote: »Anyway.
Fitna = **** film.
That said, I think Malise Ruthven best manages to write about Islam in a way that makes you feel he is employing as much objectivity as a human is capable of.0 -
Alright fair enough.
I don't think everyone who holds the view is necessarily far right.
Steyn, seems to pop up whenever people mention this particular argument, hence why I taught the review would be appropriate. As from what I seen, quite a few people in Europe refer to the guy and his book.
Steyn is on the money. Personally, I don't think he's correct about Israel and Jews, they are swine, IMHO, {Zionists, not all Jews} who are bullies too. But on immigration, and the threat posed by immigrant muslims and their offspring, he is 100% correct. I mean, one way to prevent a Catholic Democrat Irish-American president would have been to keep the Irish out, right??
How long do you give this Dutch guy to live???0 -
Hero Of College wrote: »I mean, one way to prevent a Catholic Democrat Irish-American president would have been to keep the Irish out, right??
Or to assassinate him when either is elected and/or running for nomination.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hero Of College wrote: »Steyn is on the money. Personally, I don't think he's correct about Israel and Jews, they are swine, IMHO, {Zionists, not all Jews} who are bullies too. But on immigration, and the threat posed by immigrant muslims and their offspring, he is 100% correct. I mean, one way to prevent a Catholic Democrat Irish-American president would have been to keep the Irish out, right??
How long do you give this Dutch guy to live???
Well, the problem with Steyn, is that he doesn't actually have a clue what he's on about. He is hardly an expert in demographics. Basically he is trying to predict the future (considering he has no expertise to make an educated guess on future demographics).0 -
I'm on holiday. Haven't read the thread but have taken note of the reported posts. If the thread isn't behaving by the time I look at it again I'll start my usual banning. So as usual, charter, stay on topic, etc.0
-
What posts were reported?0
-
daithifleming wrote: »Or to assassinate him when either is elected and/or running for nomination.
Well, thats not likely to succeed in the long run. The source is still there, all you have done is block up the mouth. Eventually the pressure will build and blow the blockage away.0 -
Well, the problem with Steyn, is that he doesn't actually have a clue what he's on about. He is hardly an expert in demographics. Basically he is trying to predict the future (considering he has no expertise to make an educated guess on future demographics).
How much of an expert does one need to be to know that the first mosque was built in Bury in 1893 and that there are now 1.5 million muslims in Britain with 75% of their adherents under the age of 30??
How much of an expert do you need to be to know that there are Clerics {like the one who accosted John Reid} who are quite happy to refer to certain parts of London as "Muslim Areas".
Its not Rocket Science man. Just common sense.
In 1893 wholescale Islamic terror a la Glasgow Airport, a la Londo Tube bombings, a la the Rice/Peroxide attempts, a la the liquid Airline bombers, would have been a pipe dream. Not because Britain was not in "Muslim Lands" {which it was, as well as a whole lot of other lands} but because the numbers were too small, PC was non existant and the means, perhaps, were not there.
If there were 3 catholics in England in the 1600's what chance do you think Guy Fawkes would have had of crawling under Parliament with barrells of gun powder? None.
As the numbers rise, the "reason" rises with it, and the ability to disguise and mingle with the crowd does too. Safety in numbers.
As the song {Kaiser Chiefs- Angry Mob} goes, " And its only cos you came here with your brothers too, if you came here on your own you'd be dead"
It's pretty obvious that degrees and dotorates in quantitative statistics are not required to figure out that the numbers game is a pretty serious one.
If there were NO Irish in England in 1974 how many attacks do you think the IRA could have carried out. Its no surprise the cops got the wrong Irish in Guildford. The IRA made deliberate use of sympathies in the Irish community under which they could conduct their operations, like a fish in a shoal, they felt that bit safer.
Same again when the Americans rounded up all Japanese in America and held them over the course of the war.0 -
Hero Of College wrote: »Well, thats not likely to succeed in the long run. The source is still there, all you have done is block up the mouth. Eventually the pressure will build and blow the blockage away.
I was referring to the Kennedys. How many Catholics have run since then?0 -
daithifleming wrote: »I was referring to the Kennedys. How many Catholics have run since then?
I know who you were referring to.
Well Regan had Irish roots and was Episcopalian. Not a dyed in the wool Catholic, but not a million miles off it.
They are saying the same about Barack Obama. What chance does he have of election if he is the only "black" man in America?? They also say he will be shot, why, I don't know, because he poses no threat to the system.
Anyways...off topic.:eek:0 -
Hero Of College wrote: »How much of an expert does one need to be to know that the first mosque was built in Bury in 1893 and that there are now 1.5 million muslims in Britain with 75% of their adherents under the age of 30??
One would have to be an expert to take the current population information and trend and use them to make a estimate of future trends. Anyone can state past/current information, trying to make an estimate on future trends needs some knowledge of demographics, statistics and Maths.Hero Of College wrote: »How much of an expert do you need to be to know that there are Clerics {like the one who accosted John Reid} who are quite happy to refer to certain parts of London as "Muslim Areas".
Its not Rocket Science man. Just common sense.
You have proven nothing here once again. The words of a single man mean nothing whatsoever in trying to estimate future population trends. In fact the incident your talking about has nothing to do with demographics, but a rambling idiot screaming at someone.Hero Of College wrote: »In 1893 wholescale Islamic terror a la Glasgow Airport, a la Londo Tube bombings, a la the Rice/Peroxide attempts, a la the liquid Airline bombers, would have been a pipe dream. Not because Britain was not in "Muslim Lands" {which it was, as well as a whole lot of other lands} but because the numbers were too small, PC was non existant and the means, perhaps, were not there.
Which has no bearing on future populations trends once again.
You also leave out the Iraq war, seeing as home grown Islamic terrorism in the UK has a massive boost after it.
Regardless of that, what you said once again, has no bearing on estimating future population trends.Hero Of College wrote: »If there were 3 catholics in England in the 1600's what chance do you think Guy Fawkes would have had of crawling under Parliament with barrells of gun powder? None.
As the numbers rise, the "reason" rises with it, and the ability to disguise and mingle with the crowd does too. Safety in numbers.
Again, no bearing on estimating future population trends. A polemic and estimates of future population trends are 2 very different things.
Also, in the case of Catholics of England, I think the persecution of Catholics had something to do with Guy Fawkes actions.Hero Of College wrote: »As the song {Kaiser Chiefs- Angry Mob} goes, " And its only cos you came here with your brothers too, if you came here on your own you'd be dead"
Once again no real relevance to estimating future population trends.Hero Of College wrote: »[/B][/I]It's pretty obvious that degrees and dotorates in quantitative statistics are not required to figure out that the numbers game is a pretty serious one.
If you consider the number game to be serious, would not expect those peddling predictions to be qualified to do so? Steyn can say as he please, but at the end of the day, I can point out he is full of it and has no expertise on what he's talking about. His book is a fantasy and thats being nice about it.
Your own current argument has nothing to do with estimating future population trends btw.Hero Of College wrote: »If there were NO Irish in England in 1974 how many attacks do you think the IRA could have carried out. Its no surprise the cops got the wrong Irish in Guildford. The IRA made deliberate use of sympathies in the Irish community under which they could conduct their operations, like a fish in a shoal, they felt that bit safer.
One could also say that if the UK didn't cause a big old mess in the North, there would have been no trouble.Hero Of College wrote: »Same again when the Americans rounded up all Japanese in America and held them over the course of the war.
Yeah, a pretty terrible and racist thing that they officially regret and are ashamed of now.
Still almost nothing you said has no bearing on future population trends. You went on a rant about that Muslims living in the UK are the problem, while ignoring the fact, the UK did not experience suicide bombing until after they decided to engage in an illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Thats also a case that can be easily made.
Regardless, almost nothing you said supports Steyns demographic arguments at all. In fact you completely ignored that topic and instead decided to have a rant about various different situations that have nothing to do with estimating future demographic trends.0 -
Hero Of College wrote: »Its not Rocket Science man. Just common sense.
It is not exactly using logic either. A negative event doesn't automatically prove the opposite. Also correlation does not imply causation.a la the liquid Airline bombers
Actually the liquid attack was a total hoax and has been known for some time. It is only the UK/US that appear to disallow liquids on the plane.but because the numbers were too small
Sorry but that is total BS. Terrorist attacks normally hit soft targets. Lack of people with overlapping beliefs (or perception of) doesn't mean more terrorism will happen.
Terrorism happens when a person has no other recourse against what they believe is an unjust superior force. When we are on their side we call them freedom fighters and resistence. When we are against them we they are terrorists.
The only way to combat terrorism is to combat the reasons that the particular terrorism exists. Northern Ireland for example the IRA only really came into power during the UK civil rights abuses against Catholics. Once civil rights were restored the support and structure stopped.As the numbers rise, the "reason" rises with it, and the ability to disguise and mingle with the crowd does too. Safety in numbers.
At the risk of pulling a godwin, prehaps we can apply your comments to pre-WWII Germany?If there were NO Irish in England in 1974 how many attacks do you think the IRA could have carried out.
The exact same amount of attacks. Not all IRA members were Irish or Irish born.Same again when the Americans rounded up all Japanese in America and held them over the course of the war.
Which just means you have no knowledge of that event. I recommend you go read up on it, you will see how a travesty it was and has no bearing on what you are going on about.
If I was you I would also go and read up what happened when the UK rounded up Catholics into camps and held them without trial during the 60's. Terrorism actually increased.
This forum is also not to discuss that material unless you can form it in relation to the objective of this forum.
In regards to the OP. I haven't seen the movie, but I can only say this. Never take any documentry at face value (tend to be more docu-dramas these days). Research it. If the writer of the documentry is any good they would of given links to the research material.
Also in future (to all) if your going to post wide reaching statements you better back it up with a reputuble source.0 -
One would have to be an expert to take the current population information and trend and use them to make a estimate of future trends. Anyone can state past/current information, trying to make an estimate on future trends needs some knowledge of demographics, statistics and Maths.
People do it all the time. MORI polls do it all the time. The Markets do it all the time. Auctioneers do it all the time. Estate agents do it. You take current trends and make projections. They are usually there or there abouts. If an Estate agent tells me that my house will be worth 10% extra in 1 year the information he is relying on is present and past combined, and is usually accurrate. Sure, its not failsafe.wes wrote:You have proven nothing here once again. The words of a single man mean nothing whatsoever in trying to estimate future population trends. In fact the incident your talking about has nothing to do with demographics, but a rambling idiot screaming at someone.
Of course. The words of this man indicate the manifestation of the present trend based on the past trend. Of course, its convenient to dismiss him as a loo-la, thats par for the course, but the statement he makes today could not have been made 60 years ago. Is it unlikely or likely that regions and sectors of major cities will continue to become "dominated" by people of a predominantly Islamic persuasion?? Yes or no?? Evidently, there is some past trend there, otherwise our nutty friend could not make the "outrageous" claim he makes today.....and I see no reason how that past trend is likely to be upset anytime soon.Wes wrote:Which has no bearing on future populations trends once again.
Past trends are always influencing future trends. Always.wes wrote:You also leave out the Iraq war, seeing as home grown Islamic terrorism in the UK has a massive boost after it.
Sure. The Iraq war turned these rational decent folk into killers. They weren't like that already.:rolleyes: What heinous acts did Canda commit to warrant a plot to behead its PM??? What heinous acts did Australia commit to warrant a threat/plot to bomb nuclear facilities?? Is China in Iraq too?? Please.....The Iraq war has merely precipitated a dormant sentiment, allowed it to sprout a bit faster.wes wrote:Again, no bearing on estimating future population trends. A polemic and estimates of future population trends are 2 very different things.
Do you KNOW what "Polemic" means. Population is going up, not down. GET WITH THE PROGRAMME. HOW THE FCUK is my suggestion that the Islamic population of GB is rising a "polemic"...don't get thick with me Wes.Wes wrote:Also, in the case of Catholics of England, I think the persecution of Catholics had something to do with Guy Fawkes actions.
Fawkes tried to use that as an excuse alright. Really what Fawkes wanted to do was install a Catholic monarch. Political motivations passed off as a plea for justice and fairness. Sound familiar?? And besides, you missed the point...Fawkes machinations were possible as he hid behind Catholic apologia to effect his means. Notice that Irish Catholics, who had a far worse deal, were not behind the plot and were of no concern to Fawkes.Wes wrote:If you consider the number game to be serious, would not expect those peddling predictions to be qualified to do so? Steyn can say as he please, but at the end of the day, I can point out he is full of it and has no expertise on what he's talking about. His book is a fantasy and thats being nice about it.
How qualified is an Estate Agent who can tell me that my house will be worth X in a year, and gets it right? How qualified is a used car salesman that accurately guesses what a punter will pay for a motor??? Again, its not rocket science.Wes wrote:One could also say that if the UK didn't cause a big old mess in the North, there would have been no trouble.
Do you know how the UK caused a mess??? It planted Ulster with Scots-Protestants who came to constitute a majority of population, quite quickly, a situation which is persistent to this day. Sound familiar? Or is the Protestant majority in the 6 counties another "fantasy" sir????:rolleyes:Wes wrote:Yeah, a pretty terrible and racist thing that they officially regret and are ashamed of now.
It wasn't racist. They won the war. They did what they thought necessary in the circumstances. And the world is better for it. Fight fire with fire. Love it or leave it.wes wrote:Still almost nothing you said has no bearing on future population trends. You went on a rant about that Muslims living in the UK are the problem, while ignoring the fact, the UK did not experience suicide bombing until after they decided to engage in an illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Thats also a case that can be easily made.
And easily dismissed. You have to love the phrase "experience suicide bombing".......the US Air Force, long before it mounted an invasion of Iraq, mounted a campaign of Aerial bombardment IN DEFENCE of Kosovar Albanians. I guess you forgot that. The British army is STILL in Northern Ireland but the last bombing of London was...1997?? Explain that....Iraq did not experience Invasion till it invaded Kuwait. Iraq did not experience invasion until 9/11. Did Muslims sit back and philosophically muse that they should take the rough with the smooth?? Nope. Did they look at it and say "Well...the Yanks helped out in Kosovo, Saddam invaded Kuwait and 9/11 was out of order"...NOPE.wes wrote:Regardless, almost nothing you said supports Steyns demographic arguments at all. In fact you completely ignored that topic and instead decided to have a rant about various different situations that have nothing to do with estimating future demographic trends.
Steyns arguments are valid. Muslims have big families, marry earlier, don't partake of abortions, the most commonly registered boys name in Amsterdam is Mohammed, 75% of the Muslim pop of GB is under 30, yeah, I guess they are just going to die of typhus in the morning. Having more kids is unlikey.:rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Hobbes wrote:The only way to combat terrorism is to combat the reasons that the particular terrorism exists. Northern Ireland for example the IRA only really came into power during the UK civil rights abuses against Catholics. Once civil rights were restored the support and structure stopped.
So you agree, that the continued Military occupation of Northern Ireland by an occupying and invading British force has not caused and did not cause and is unlikely to cause Terror/Resistance/Freedom/For Laughs attacks on civilian targets in the UK by IRISH REPUBLICAN units ????????? Given that it was not British Army Units per se who caused the injustices against Catholics, but Gerrymandering Unionist politicians???
If so, how do you equate the claim that the occupation of Iraq, a country where there were NO CIVIL RIGHTS during Saddams dictatorship, has formented BRITISH {thats right, British} terror attacks by Britons against Britons when the country invaded is Iraq and Iraq had no Civil Rights to begin with.????0 -
Actually the liquid attack was a total hoax and has been known for some time.
Really? Better get onto the British CPS quick, they have been holdin a few lads for this for quite a while now. And they have been airing this liquid bomb nonsense as lately as last week. :eek:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/03/plane.plot?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfrontif your going to..... post statements you better back it up with a reputuble source.
Indeed. :rolleyes:0 -
Tha Gopher wrote: »Really? Better get onto the British CPS quick, they have been holdin a few lads for this for quite a while now. And they have been airing this liquid bomb nonsense as lately as last week. :eek:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/03/plane.plot?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Indeed. :rolleyes:
Word. My sentiments exactly. I think that Hobbes is out of line, but he is threatening me with a ban so I have to be careful. Its DISGUSTING.......to suggest that this is an ELABORATE HOAX is DISGUSTING. Thats the very excuse the Rice/Peroxide boys use..."Oh, we was just kidding around"...now that the noose is around their necks, and Mr Big is waiting for them in Wormwood Scrubs, it was all a joke.:mad::mad:0 -
Hero Of College wrote: »So you agree, that...
Ok so how do you equate an occupying force to a legal immigrant? I recommend reading CAIN. Will give you more insight into Northern Ireland. Like for example troops were initially sent to Northern Ireland to protect Catholics from attacks. Will also show totals (if your into that sort of thing).
If you want to continue this discussion this is not the forum for it.I think that Hobbes is out of line, but he is threatening me with a ban
I believe my words were along the lines that if you continued in such a manner to offend people in the forum then I would have no recourse but to ban you. It is possible to ask your questions without upsetting others.
Tha Gopher. Your story points to the initial people picked up. There has been no actual evidence that such an event was going to take place, nor that such an event would of been viable.
As I said that discussion is for other forums.0 -
Hero Of College wrote: »People do it all the time. MORI polls do it all the time. The Markets do it all the time. Auctioneers do it all the time. Estate agents do it. You take current trends and make projections. They are usually there or there abouts. If an Estate agent tells me that my house will be worth 10% extra in 1 year the information he is relying on is present and past combined, and is usually accurrate. Sure, its not failsafe.
Again, Steyn doesn't have a clue. His argument was taken apart in the review I posted. He ignores anything that doesn't jive with what he is saying. As I said earlier he is full of it and present nothing more than his own opinion which is based on the fact that he likes.Hero Of College wrote: »Of course. The words of this man indicate the manifestation of the present trend based on the past trend. Of course, its convenient to dismiss him as a loo-la, thats par for the course, but the statement he makes today could not have been made 60 years ago. Is it unlikely or likely that regions and sectors of major cities will continue to become "dominated" by people of a predominantly Islamic persuasion?? Yes or no?? Evidently, there is some past trend there, otherwise our nutty friend could not make the "outrageous" claim he makes today.....and I see no reason how that past trend is likely to be upset anytime soon.
The words of one man, prove nothing whatsoever. Yes, there are area's in the UK where Muslims live? So what? There are area's were other minorities live, how does this support the argument that Muslims are taking over. The exact same rubbish about other minorities has been spouted before and there predictions didn't come to pass.Hero Of College wrote: »Past trends are always influencing future trends. Always.
He ignores other past trend with other miniorites as they don't back up what he is saying. He started with a conclusion first and then found facts that backed that up, while ignoring plenty that don't. The man is not an academic and his argument isn't academic either.Hero Of College wrote: »Sure. The Iraq war turned these rational decent folk into killers. They weren't like that already.:rolleyes: What heinous acts did Canda commit to warrant a plot to behead its PM??? What heinous acts did Australia commit to warrant a threat/plot to bomb nuclear facilities?? Is China in Iraq too?? Please.....The Iraq war has merely precipitated a dormant sentiment, allowed it to sprout a bit faster.
China? There government is full of crap and quite frankly any claims they make should be taken with a pinch of salt.
As for the others Australia has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and Canada has troops in Afghanistan. Hence why these want to attack them. Nice of you to ignore these facts of course.
Having said that, these aren't the sole causes of terrorism. Its far more complicated than that. Of course you argument once again, has very little to do with Steyn, which is Muslims taking over Europe via demographics and democratically as opposed to terrorism.Hero Of College wrote: »Do you KNOW what "Polemic" means. Population is going up, not down. GET WITH THE PROGRAMME. HOW THE FCUK is my suggestion that the Islamic population of GB is rising a "polemic"...don't get thick with me Wes.
Rising population true, but will this remain the same? Again, your argument is that Muslims will form a majority and hence take over. Again, we are talking about Steyn argument here (at least I have been). So I am hardly being "thick".Hero Of College wrote: »Fawkes tried to use that as an excuse alright. Really what Fawkes wanted to do was install a Catholic monarch. Political motivations passed off as a plea for justice and fairness. Sound familiar?? And besides, you missed the point...Fawkes machinations were possible as he hid behind Catholic apologia to effect his means. Notice that Irish Catholics, who had a far worse deal, were not behind the plot and were of no concern to Fawkes.
So? Fawke's was English. Plenty of Catholics native to the UK you know. This had nothing to do with immigration or Catholic population increases.Hero Of College wrote: »How qualified is an Estate Agent who can tell me that my house will be worth X in a year, and gets it right? How qualified is a used car salesman that accurately guesses what a punter will pay for a motor??? Again, its not rocket science.
The Estate agent would get his information from others who would know what there talking about. Also, a Estate agent would have to have some qualifications.
Car sales and predicting future demographics are hardly the same :rolleyes:. Piss poor example that.Hero Of College wrote: »Do you know how the UK caused a mess??? It planted Ulster with Scots-Protestants who came to constitute a majority of population, quite quickly, a situation which is persistent to this day. Sound familiar? Or is the Protestant majority in the 6 counties another "fantasy" sir????:rolleyes:
Completely different situation. No one is occupying the UK and planting anyone. So you example is total rubbish and yes what your talking about is a fantasy as no one is occupying the UK and planting anyone.Hero Of College wrote: »It wasn't racist. They won the war. They did what they thought necessary in the circumstances. And the world is better for it. Fight fire with fire. Love it or leave it.
Complete rubbish. The Japanese American's started no war on anyone whatsoever and the American's themselves see what they did as a dark chapter in there history.Hero Of College wrote: »And easily dismissed. You have to love the phrase "experience suicide bombing".......the US Air Force, long before it mounted an invasion of Iraq, mounted a campaign of Aerial bombardment IN DEFENCE of Kosovar Albanians. I guess you forgot that. The British army is STILL in Northern Ireland but the last bombing of London was...1997?? Explain that....Iraq did not experience Invasion till it invaded Kuwait. Iraq did not experience invasion until 9/11. Did Muslims sit back and philosophically muse that they should take the rough with the smooth?? Nope. Did they look at it and say "Well...the Yanks helped out in Kosovo, Saddam invaded Kuwait and 9/11 was out of order"...NOPE.
Complete and utter neo-con nonsense of the worst kind. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the fact your trying to excuse the US/UK war of aggression by bring up 9/11 is very telling. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama btw, hated Saddam and wanted to go to war against him at one point. So to link 9/11 and Saddam is laughable and the fact that you even tried it, is pretty darn entertaining.
The invasion of Kuwait happened years before the current invasion. So, why you bring it up at all is puzzling. It has nothing to do with the current invasion.
Really bad and frankly pathetic straw man argument to justify a war of aggression.
You really have no clue what your on about at this point. Your making no sense whatsoever and repeating rubbish that been shown to out and out lies and your defense of the Iraq war is complete nonsense.
As for Kosovo, so that makes it ok for the US/UK to bomb other Muslims then :rolleyes:. More nonsense.
This is btw, your worst argument thus far. It make no sense whatsoever and repeats rubbish that has long been shown to incorrect and then bringing up Kuwait to justify the current invasion. Even the neo-cons didn't try that one.Hero Of College wrote: »Steyns arguments are valid. Muslims have big families, marry earlier, don't partake of abortions, the most commonly registered boys name in Amsterdam is Mohammed, 75% of the Muslim pop of GB is under 30, yeah, I guess they are just going to die of typhus in the morning. Having more kids is unlikey.:rolleyes:
No, his argument is rubbish and the review of his book takes his arguments apart pretty effectively.
Your arguments are even worse that Steyns, as half the examples you give make no sense whatsoever and have no similarities to what is being discussed.0 -
Well, my opinion is the same as most of the people on this thread. It's pure propaganda and utter trash. Same old same old techniques for attempting to bring Islam into disrepute and give non-Muslims the wrong idea.
Anyway, thought you guys might be interested in the following videos from YouTube. It's a response from Fadel Soliman, the director of the Bridges Foundation. I think you'll find his response very well thought out.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WuaPwjPGvw
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2lIeInCUrs
And, in Arabic (more or less the same except that he talks a bit at the start about how fitna is basically trying to use propaganda to scare people in Europe with misleading statistics, misquoting verses and stuff):
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V51th1O6U78
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJMES2F-PE0 -
I haven't seen it but I've read transcripts of some of it. On the one had, I agree with much of it. On the other hand, the fact that it comes from a racist ultra-nationalist undermines its content.0
-
The Irish People has learned that a number of foreign nationals objected to the crib - claiming it was an insult to their religion.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/333272/holy_row_erupts_at_hospital_crib_ban_causes_uproar/
I think its events such as this which highlight the need for respect of host countrys' identity. Foreign nationals who complain about Irish tradition seem a bit cheeky to me in all honesty. I would not dare tell the Iranians to shave all their beards as I find them offensive, whilst staying in a hotel in Tehran?
Like most people here I am a big fan of christmas, and have fond childhood memories. I would hate to think that in the future, here, we will have to say, 'Happy Holidays' (like in the US), and keep the festivities hush hush, for the childrens sake.
I believe people would see muslims in a better light if they were more respectful of our ways.
(I have only touched on christmas here, there are many more examples, but not needed)0 -
Dragging up an old thread to post a news story from 2005?0
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement