Europe submits voluntarily

[LordKiran]

239 innocent lives and many more injured is a molehill?

Maybe LK means that it is a molehill because they are French or Xtians, and not whatever he/she is. If he is a citizen of the USA where some 30,000 deaths a year are caused by gun violence, then 239 innocent deaths may indeed seem to be a molehill to LK and his ilk.

I would just have thought that the yearly body count for a submitted Europe would have been much higher.

 

[bilby]

Maybe LK means that it is a molehill because they are French or Xtians, and not whatever he/she is. If he is a citizen of the USA where some 30,000 deaths a year are caused by gun violence, then 239 innocent deaths may indeed seem to be a molehill to LK and his ilk.

I would just have thought that the yearly body count for a submitted Europe would have been much higher.

Well that is about 0.00003% of the European population. less than one third of a person per million population. The Nazi occupation of France killed about 150,000 civilians, or about 0.3% of the population of France at that time. And they still didn't manage to get the French to submit. So Islam would appear to be at least 10,000 times less deadly than Naziism.

 

[angelo]

Maybe LK means that it is a molehill because they are French or Xtians, and not whatever he/she is. If he is a citizen of the USA where some 30,000 deaths a year are caused by gun violence, then 239 innocent deaths may indeed seem to be a molehill to LK and his ilk.

I would just have thought that the yearly body count for a submitted Europe would have been much higher.

It is much higher in totality than just the 239 French lives lost.

 

[angelo]

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/europe-attacks.aspx

Just as well most moslems are as dumb as shite, otherwise it would be perhaps 100 times worse!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since 2015, 239 innocent French people have lost their lives to muslim terrorist attacks, Muslim not xtian! That's in France alone for f... sake!

239? That's it? Talk about making mountains out of molehills.

Then why are you upset about mass shooting deaths in the US?

That's 20% more than we have lost to mass shootings over the same time period. Their population is only 20% of ours, for a combined effect that their terrorism rate is about 6x our mass shooting rate.

- - - Updated - - -

Prtoblem is too many Muslim "cherries" explode.

Yes, that's an unfortunate accident of history. But it's a new development in Islam. From which we can draw the conclusion that it isn't intrinsic, nor a result if Islamic teachings, nor Islamic sacred texts. It's the result of something else. If we focus on the "something else" we stand a greater chance of winning this. With the added bonus of not needlessly alienating a quarter of the world's population, who are just fine and simply want to get on with life

If they can start with this they can stop.

The focus on terrorism is new--and the result of recruiters & lots of money driving it. The general tendency towards trouble is not new.

 

[TSwizzle]

Prtoblem is too many Muslim "cherries" explode.

Yes, that's an unfortunate accident of history. But it's a new development in Islam. From which we can draw the conclusion that it isn't intrinsic, nor a result if Islamic teachings, nor Islamic sacred texts.

A cursory look at the history of teh islam tells us the complete opposite of what you state.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, that's an unfortunate accident of history. But it's a new development in Islam. From which we can draw the conclusion that it isn't intrinsic, nor a result if Islamic teachings, nor Islamic sacred texts.

A cursory look at the history of teh islam tells us the complete opposite of what you state.

So they used a lot of suicide bombs against the crusaders? Dynamite was invented 150 years ago. I'm guessing that suicide bombing wasn't all that prevalent before that. Or what do you think?

 

[4321lynx]

I would just have thought that the yearly body count for a submitted Europe would have been much higher.

Well that is about 0.00003% of the European population. less than one third of a person per million population. The Nazi occupation of France killed about 150,000 civilians, or about 0.3% of the population of France at that time. And they still didn't manage to get the French to submit. So Islam would appear to be at least 10,000 times less deadly than Naziism.

Disagree with history of France in WW II.

!. The French submitted in mid-June 1940 when they petitioned the Germans for a cease fire and subsequently signed an Armistice.
2. The result was a German occupation of roughly half of France. It was a German occupation, NOT a Nazi Party (NASDAP) occupation. I guess you, as is now fashionable, are using Nazi as a short-cut/euphemism for German.
3. Only a small minority of the French had the will and the stomach to continue the fight, all credit to de Gaulle who never wavered in his belief of right and wrong. Most others in France and its empire went along with the surrender, the deportation of French Jews to the gas chambers, etc etc and waited till it was obvious the Allies would win before taking action against the Germans.
4. If you count the people in Alsace and Lorraine as French, you will see that more Frenchmen served in the German/Nazi SS than served in the Maquis and other Resistance organisations,

 

[4321lynx]

A cursory look at the history of teh islam tells us the complete opposite of what you state.

So they used a lot of suicide bombs against the crusaders? Dynamite was invented 150 years ago. I'm guessing that suicide bombing wasn't all that prevalent before that. Or what do you think?

Ever heard of the Assassins?

 

[DrZoidberg]

So they used a lot of suicide bombs against the crusaders? Dynamite was invented 150 years ago. I'm guessing that suicide bombing wasn't all that prevalent before that. Or what do you think?

Ever heard of the Assassins?

There's so much wrong with this. The DaVinci code or The Illimatus Trillogy are not works of historical fact. Both have admitted to taking things out of context and made up all manner of stuff. The historical assassins are Ismaili. Which means they have a new prophet after Muhammed and should really be considered a wholly new religion. They are very different. And are still often suffering from persecution from other Muslims because they are perceived as rejecting Mohammed.

Quite quickly after their rise, (the Fatamid empire) they came into conflict with the Caliphate on the ascent, the Seljuks. Weak and on the wane they turned to the only military option open to them, assassinations of opposing political leaders. But perhaps most importantly they're mostly mythic. The image that spread about them was the image created by the winners (not Ismailis). The whole idea of the Ismaili as ruthless assassins is mostly political propaganda. We also know that the version of the myth that made it to Europe came from Marco Polo, who is today primarily well known for just making shit up and exaggerating.

We have no idea whether the Ismaili assassins ever managed to kill anybody. And even if they did, we know from historical records they never managed to kill anybody of any note. All their prime targets lived to a ripe old age.

Also worth noting is that assassins were often used for political gains all the time everywhere. The middle east was not unique. They're certainly perceived a constant threat by rulers and often mentioned in ancient texts. Every European king had a food taster. But these are also times when people dropped dead from stupid little infections all the time. The knowledge of forensics and poisons was negligible. People were most likely murdered left and right. We have no idea how many of the deaths attributed to murder, was murder. And which murders went unnoticed. This is extremely murky territory.

But just the fact that you bring up an ancient myth does show us a couple of things.

1) You don't let reality, or what is reasonable, interfere with your firmly held beliefs.
2) Your grasp of history is not the best.
3) You don't look things up before posting.

Did I miss anything?

edit: fun detail is that the Muslims who conquered the Ismailis/Fatamids, the Seljuks were for practical purposes pagans. They kept all their pagan traditions. They just switched the names around a bit. They were pagan political opportunists who held a veneer of Islam to make ruling easier.

Another fun fact is that both the Fatamid and the Seljuk empires were extremely well run. Low corruption, good education system and a meritocratic system of exams if you wanted a job in the government. They were way ahead of Europe. These dynasties kicked off the so called Islamic golden age and is why there's so many mathematical and stellar terms that still have Arabic names today.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So they used a lot of suicide bombs against the crusaders? Dynamite was invented 150 years ago. I'm guessing that suicide bombing wasn't all that prevalent before that. Or what do you think?

Ever heard of the Assassins?

They weren't really suicide attackers. They would kill themselves rather than be captured but they didn't normally go on missions intending to die.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ever heard of the Assassins?

They weren't really suicide attackers. They would kill themselves rather than be captured but they didn't normally go on missions intending to die.

Ehe... myth.

 

[angelo]

It's not myth that Western Europe will be well on the way to becoming moslem majority by the end of the century.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not myth that Western Europe will be well on the way to becoming moslem majority by the end of the century.

Wrong. Myths are set in the past. Myths are origin stories. What you are doing is a prophecy. which is not the same thing.

 

[angelo]

Should have worded it differently perhaps but computer modeling would show the prediction will eventuate.

 

[bilby]

Should have worded it differently perhaps but computer modeling would show the prediction will eventuate.

Well it sounds to me like a bullshit claim; and unless you present some such modeling, for analysis and consideration, we will be completely justified in assuming it to be bullshit.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, show us the model, or drop your claim.

 

[angelo]

Should have worded it differently perhaps but computer modeling would show the prediction will eventuate.

Well it sounds to me like a bullshit claim; and unless you present some such modeling, for analysis and consideration, we will be completely justified in assuming it to be bullshit.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, show us the model, or drop your claim.

But you accept computer modeling for global warming......oops, sorry, climate change do you not?
What's the difference?

 

[blastula]

gigo

 

[bilby]

Well it sounds to me like a bullshit claim; and unless you present some such modeling, for analysis and consideration, we will be completely justified in assuming it to be bullshit.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, show us the model, or drop your claim.

But you accept computer modeling for global warming......oops, sorry, climate change do you not?
What's the difference?

I have SEEN the computer modeling for climate change.

I don't accept a rumor that computer models might exist.

So, show us the model, or drop your claim.

Hell, I will stretch a point, and accept a paper published in a reputable journal that references a model I haven't seen. So just a link to such a paper will do.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Should have worded it differently perhaps but computer modeling would show the prediction will eventuate.

All those models assume loads of things:

1) The demographic gap becomes static. There's a rule in sociology that states that low income societies have high birth rates and high death rates. As death rates drop, so does birth rates. The Middle-East is in that transition now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

All predictions I've seen assume that Muslims, uniquely, keep up high birth rates, as if they lived in a high death society. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Put up or shut up.

2) It assumes that Islam won't liberalise and reform. I'm sorry, but that's going on right now. WTF do you think ISIS and Al Qaeda is all about? It's the last desperate attempt by a dying breed to assert dominance. Same thing happened in the West regarding Christianity. First in the reformation and then again in the industrialization. Militant Christianity sprung up, and then died. Again... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why would Muslims be any different than Christians?

3) It assumes that when Muslims from a poor country move to a rich country they will keep all their values and culture. I'm sorry, but that has never happened in the history of mankind. Immigrants always adapt to the country they move to. Again, if Muslims are so fucking unique show some evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Of course Muslims in the west have and will continue to liberalise. Any other claim is ridiculous.

4) The greatest impact on culture is the economy. These models makes assumptions about the future world economy that we do not have any basis for making. The world has never before been as dynamic and hard to predict as now. Transport and warehouse information technology has made retail extremely efficient, and that's a trend that is only going to continue. 3d printing, robotics, machine learning electric cars, solar and wind power... right now, there's just so much in the pipe that any prediction made will be as good as any other. Good luck modelling that.