Europe submits voluntarily

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes I know.

All this Western violence, and it has been massive and widespread and relentless, for over a decade, beginning with the US invasion of Afghanistan then Iraq then the non-stop drone strikes and bombings in places like Libya and Pakistan and Yemen.

All of this violence and killing and torturing, it all means nothing.

Because there were the Barbary Pirates after all. You know those Muslims who caught people and put them into slavery at the same time the US was doing the same in Africa. Their only crime was that they enslaved white Christians, the horror!

Fun thing with Barbary pirates. In medieval muslim seas boats had no problem with pirates. So boats had no soldiers and no armaments. So they had completely different types of boats. European/mediterranean ships were floating fortresses. All countries had countries that it was ok to attack, and which were forbidden. But any captain worth his salt had a storage of flags to chose from. So they'd switch mid-trip if they wanted to attack some ship. Or vice versa, if the opponent ship was too big, they'd just switch flags. The Islamic mediterranean traders had clear rules of conduct they didn't deviate from. Ships under their protection really we safe. Also, anybody enslaved by them always had the option to convert to Islam, after which they were instantly freed. Way less barbaric than their European counterparts. Anyhoo... like most things, our view of the Islamic world is mostly down to racist propaganda. Strongly filtered history.

We weren't enslaving Muslims or attacking their ships. We aren't responsible for what other countries did in the past.

 

[dystopian]

Fun thing with Barbary pirates. In medieval muslim seas boats had no problem with pirates. So boats had no soldiers and no armaments. So they had completely different types of boats. European/mediterranean ships were floating fortresses. All countries had countries that it was ok to attack, and which were forbidden.

I'm not sure where you get these ideas from, but they're ideologically based, not reality-based. Arab states and merchants in the middle ages used a variety of ship designs; including military galleys which most certainly had soldiers onboard. Beyond the galleys, arab states used a range of shipdesigns now known as Dhows, which really included everything from river-bound canoes to oceangoing ships. Again, many of these were most definitely armed. The idea that the Arabs didn't use ships like Europeans did because their waters were safe is ignorant, and utterly absurd. They didn't use floating fortress ships like we did because such ships were poorly suited for the shallow waters of the Red Sea and Persian gulf and because they used stitched ship-building techniques that were poorly suited for European style designs. Instead, their 'dhows' were light and maneuverable (part of why they were so succesful at piracy early on). Once the Portugese show up with cannons, you see the Arabs switching to bigger Dhow designs that were nailed together instead of stitched, and which were more heavily armed.

The idea that islamic pirates were less barbaric than European pirates on the basis that their slaves were instantly freed after converting to Islam is similarily silly. Mostly because it just isn't true. True, there were rules against enslaving muslims; but you'd think that if all it took to earn your freedom was converting, there wouldn't have been these massive slave populations. The rules against enslaving muslims specifically only applied to *pre-existing* muslims. It did *not* apply to a slave that converted after being taken; Islamic rules were quite clear on this: they had to buy their own freedom. Of course, this was only if the master and slave agreed to a contract (mukhārajah) in which the master pays the slave a small sum at the end of the month which can go to their emancipation. However, the master was not required to agree to this (it was considered praiseworthy, but non-compulsory), and in the absence of such a contract it was entirely up to the master to decide when (and if) the slave would be set free.

It's also kind of absurd to defend them as less barbaric when there's accounts of them circumcising and making their female slaves infertile to increase their value. One should also note that the female-to-male ratio among slaves was much higher in the muslim world... for obvious reasons.

None of this is racist propaganda; this comes straight from islamic sources, not European ones. European barbarism in no way mitigates Islamic barbarism.

 

[Bomb#20]

Communism often gets a bad rap. In reality communism is quite good at taking care of those at the bottom of the ladder. They actually are.

Is this the definition of taking care of them you have in mind?

So your logic is that capitalism is bad because the Nazis killed 6 million jews? Is that your fine logic here?

What's your "logic" here, "Lenin is to communism as Hitler is to capitalism"? Even if we buy into the popular but unhistorical notion that Nazi Germany was capitalist, that's still about the lamest occurrence of Godwin I've ever seen.

I'm no suporter of communism. Not at all. But nothing is all bad. Communism would never have survived anywhere if it was all bad. No political system can survive if it's all bad. Capitalism and free market is very bad at catering to the needs of those who, for various reasons, aren't able to function in the market. That's just a fact.

Funny, I don't recall claiming capitalism is good at that. If I were to claim capitalism is very good at taking care of people who can't function in the market, I'd expect somebody to call me on it. You made an equally ridiculous claim and you seem surprised to have been called on it. In reality communists aren't very good at taking care of those at the bottom of the ladder. They actually aren't. This is mainly because they tend to impose their superstitious economic beliefs not only on industry, where the consequence is poverty, but also on agriculture, where the consequence has repeatedly been lethal.

Communism is very well suited to take care of those unfortunates.

No doubt there are plenty of unfortunates communism is very well suited to take care of. Which unfortunates do you have in mind, and what it is about these particular unfortunates that makes you think they're lower on the ladder than the people who starve to death in communism-induced famines?

 

[Trausti]

Fun thing with Barbary pirates. In medieval muslim seas boats had no problem with pirates. So boats had no soldiers and no armaments. So they had completely different types of boats. European/mediterranean ships were floating fortresses. All countries had countries that it was ok to attack, and which were forbidden.

I'm not sure where you get these ideas from, but they're ideologically based, not reality-based. Arab states and merchants in the middle ages used a variety of ship designs; including military galleys which most certainly had soldiers onboard. Beyond the galleys, arab states used a range of shipdesigns now known as Dhows, which really included everything from river-bound canoes to oceangoing ships. Again, many of these were most definitely armed. The idea that the Arabs didn't use ships like Europeans did because their waters were safe is ignorant, and utterly absurd. They didn't use floating fortress ships like we did because such ships were poorly suited for the shallow waters of the Red Sea and Persian gulf and because they used stitched ship-building techniques that were poorly suited for European style designs. Instead, their 'dhows' were light and maneuverable (part of why they were so succesful at piracy early on). Once the Portugese show up with cannons, you see the Arabs switching to bigger Dhow designs that were nailed together instead of stitched, and which were more heavily armed.

The idea that islamic pirates were less barbaric than European pirates on the basis that their slaves were instantly freed after converting to Islam is similarily silly. Mostly because it just isn't true. True, there were rules against enslaving muslims; but you'd think that if all it took to earn your freedom was converting, there wouldn't have been these massive slave populations. The rules against enslaving muslims specifically only applied to *pre-existing* muslims. It did *not* apply to a slave that converted after being taken; Islamic rules were quite clear on this: they had to buy their own freedom. Of course, this was only if the master and slave agreed to a contract (mukhārajah) in which the master pays the slave a small sum at the end of the month which can go to their emancipation. However, the master was not required to agree to this (it was considered praiseworthy, but non-compulsory), and in the absence of such a contract it was entirely up to the master to decide when (and if) the slave would be set free.

It's also kind of absurd to defend them as less barbaric when there's accounts of them circumcising and making their female slaves infertile to increase their value. One should also note that the female-to-male ratio among slaves was much higher in the muslim world... for obvious reasons.

None of this is racist propaganda; this comes straight from islamic sources, not European ones. European barbarism in no way mitigates Islamic barbarism.

The reason the that Islamic navy lost the Battle of Lepanto is because the Muslim boats weren't armed. Makes sense.

In any case, the history of Islamic aggression against the West makes Western intervention in the middle east pale by comparison.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kc[/YOUTUBE]

The West may view the past Islamic conquests as finished history. Are we sure that the Islamists think the same way?

 

[whichphilosophy]

It burst a couple of years ago. If the FSA (OR SHOULD IT BE FREE SYRIAN ARMIES) is irrelevant why was it given aid the first place. Of course some factions were not quite as Free Syrian Army as we thought as in pro ISIS.
This is another waste of taxpayer's money and a disregard of the cost in terms of human lives.

Well.. the number one difficulty in war is information. In a chaotic situation, (which any war is) it's hard to gather information. It's in every armies best interest to confuse its opponents by spreading disinformation. There's also the question of momentum. Everybody wants to be on the winning side. By exaggerating their progress an army can get spontaneous support. This is what FSA did.

The truth is that the FSA was complete bullshit right from the start. It was nothing but talk. At it's core was a group of rebels who had virtually nothing keeping them together other than not being Assad. Most of them were Assad deserters who would have joined any rebel group. The west wanted a moderate army in Syria that they could back. So they bought into the FSA lie, a circular self-perpetuating lie. Eventually, any propaganda devoid of content will collapse. Which is what happened. In hind-sight the FSA was never a viable option. Any money given to FSA was either wasted, embezzled or went to directly funding ISIS.

But backing FSA wasn't evil... or necessarily a waste of tax payer money nor stupid. It was a gamble that didn't pay off. But it could have. There was no way of knowing until afterwards. In hind-sight everybody is a genius. Wars are extremely messy. Slim and dodgy gambles are worth taking.

Syria has three viable teams. Assad, ISIS and the Kurds. The Kurds is in a precarious situatation in that they had Turkey against them, and are operating as only an Iraqi force, and shouldn't even be inside Syrias borders. In this situation it's not hard to understand why USA keeps pouring money into FSA. That is the only option right now.

I'm rooting for team Kurd though. They seem the best suited to take charge here. But I doubt it'll happen.

Backing the FSA was flawed and was a gamble that didn’t pay off it was definitely a waste of the tax payers’ money. It was a stupid gamble which some did predict would end like this. This was a gamble which had no chance of short term success. The two things Western politicians are capable of is, throwing tax payers money into lost causes and borrowing when that runs out.
The best option would be to try to broker a deal between the factions at least in the way of a ceasefire while they attack ISIS and other similar groups (if they are distinguishable from the allies.)
Now that France has recently made a statement that it will not include Assad in any negotiations. This asinine statement means that then peace talks can be forgotten as the Western generated genocide continues.

As you know the PKK is a terrorist organization within Turkey and a freedom fighters anywhere else. The US an allies will most likely forget the Kurds as soon as it is convenient to do so.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm not sure where you get these ideas from, but they're ideologically based, not reality-based. Arab states and merchants in the middle ages used a variety of ship designs; including military galleys which most certainly had soldiers onboard. Beyond the galleys, arab states used a range of shipdesigns now known as Dhows, which really included everything from river-bound canoes to oceangoing ships. Again, many of these were most definitely armed. The idea that the Arabs didn't use ships like Europeans did because their waters were safe is ignorant, and utterly absurd. They didn't use floating fortress ships like we did because such ships were poorly suited for the shallow waters of the Red Sea and Persian gulf and because they used stitched ship-building techniques that were poorly suited for European style designs. Instead, their 'dhows' were light and maneuverable (part of why they were so succesful at piracy early on). Once the Portugese show up with cannons, you see the Arabs switching to bigger Dhow designs that were nailed together instead of stitched, and which were more heavily armed.

The idea that islamic pirates were less barbaric than European pirates on the basis that their slaves were instantly freed after converting to Islam is similarily silly. Mostly because it just isn't true. True, there were rules against enslaving muslims; but you'd think that if all it took to earn your freedom was converting, there wouldn't have been these massive slave populations. The rules against enslaving muslims specifically only applied to *pre-existing* muslims. It did *not* apply to a slave that converted after being taken; Islamic rules were quite clear on this: they had to buy their own freedom. Of course, this was only if the master and slave agreed to a contract (mukhārajah) in which the master pays the slave a small sum at the end of the month which can go to their emancipation. However, the master was not required to agree to this (it was considered praiseworthy, but non-compulsory), and in the absence of such a contract it was entirely up to the master to decide when (and if) the slave would be set free.

It's also kind of absurd to defend them as less barbaric when there's accounts of them circumcising and making their female slaves infertile to increase their value. One should also note that the female-to-male ratio among slaves was much higher in the muslim world... for obvious reasons.

None of this is racist propaganda; this comes straight from islamic sources, not European ones. European barbarism in no way mitigates Islamic barbarism.

The reason the that Islamic navy lost the Battle of Lepanto is because the Muslim boats weren't armed. Makes sense.

In any case, the history of Islamic aggression against the West makes Western intervention in the middle east pale by comparison.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kc[/YOUTUBE]

Sorry, but did you intend this video as a serious argument?

Presenting everytime a Muslim army (or even just a gang of privateers) attacked a Christian army or city as part of *the* Jihad, and trying to compare it to the "official" crusades only is just bad reasoning. If you want an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to include every attack by Christians on the other side. That'd include Russia's expansion into what's today Southern Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus region, Central Asia, the Reconquista, modern colonialism, but also in part the trans-Atlantic slave trade (Islam had spread far into West Africa by the late Middle Age and a significant minority of the slaves traded across the Atlantic were Muslims).

The West may view the past Islamic conquests as finished history. Are we sure that the Islamists think the same way?

I'm sure *the* Islamists don't think the same way. Islamism means a lot of different things to different people, and pretending, that *they* all want the same things is hilariously stupid.

If you want to show that Europe is currently under threat from Islamization, you need to do quite a bit more than insinuate (or even show) that *some* Islamists state that as one of their goals: You need to show that those Islamist theorists who consider that a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

 

[Trausti]

The reason the that Islamic navy lost the Battle of Lepanto is because the Muslim boats weren't armed. Makes sense.

In any case, the history of Islamic aggression against the West makes Western intervention in the middle east pale by comparison.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kc[/YOUTUBE]

Sorry, but did you intend this video as a serious argument?

Presenting everytime a Muslim army (or even just a gang of privateers) attacked a Christian army or city as part of *the* Jihad, and trying to compare it to the "official" crusades only is just bad reasoning. If you want an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to include every attack by Christians on the other side. That'd include Russia's expansion into what's today Southern Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus region, Central Asia, the Reconquista, modern colonialism, but also in part the trans-Atlantic slave trade (Islam had spread far into West Africa by the late Middle Age and a significant minority of the slaves traded across the Atlantic were Muslims).

The West may view the past Islamic conquests as finished history. Are we sure that the Islamists think the same way?

I'm sure *the* Islamists don't think the same way. Islamism means a lot of different things to different people, and pretending, that *they* all want the same things is hilariously stupid.

If you want to show that Europe is currently under threat from Islamization, you need to do quite a bit more than insinuate (or even show) that *some* Islamists state that as one of their goals: You need to show that those Islamist theorists who consider that a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

M'kay.

https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

 

[Jokodo]

Sorry, but did you intend this video as a serious argument?

Presenting everytime a Muslim army (or even just a gang of privateers) attacked a Christian army or city as part of *the* Jihad, and trying to compare it to the "official" crusades only is just bad reasoning. If you want an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to include every attack by Christians on the other side. That'd include Russia's expansion into what's today Southern Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus region, Central Asia, the Reconquista, modern colonialism, but also in part the trans-Atlantic slave trade (Islam had spread far into West Africa by the late Middle Age and a significant minority of the slaves traded across the Atlantic were Muslims).

The West may view the past Islamic conquests as finished history. Are we sure that the Islamists think the same way?

I'm sure *the* Islamists don't think the same way. Islamism means a lot of different things to different people, and pretending, that *they* all want the same things is hilariously stupid.

If you want to show that Europe is currently under threat from Islamization, you need to do quite a bit more than insinuate (or even show) that *some* Islamists state that as one of their goals: You need to show that those Islamist theorists who consider that a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

M'kay.

https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

Whatever else that may show, you haven't, by a long shot, shown that Islamist theorists who consider islamizing Europe a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

 

[untermensche]

Fun thing with Barbary pirates. In medieval muslim seas boats had no problem with pirates. So boats had no soldiers and no armaments. So they had completely different types of boats. European/mediterranean ships were floating fortresses. All countries had countries that it was ok to attack, and which were forbidden.

I'm not sure where you get these ideas from, but they're ideologically based, not reality-based. Arab states and merchants in the middle ages used a variety of ship designs; including military galleys which most certainly had soldiers onboard. Beyond the galleys, arab states used a range of shipdesigns now known as Dhows, which really included everything from river-bound canoes to oceangoing ships. Again, many of these were most definitely armed. The idea that the Arabs didn't use ships like Europeans did because their waters were safe is ignorant, and utterly absurd. They didn't use floating fortress ships like we did because such ships were poorly suited for the shallow waters of the Red Sea and Persian gulf and because they used stitched ship-building techniques that were poorly suited for European style designs. Instead, their 'dhows' were light and maneuverable (part of why they were so succesful at piracy early on). Once the Portugese show up with cannons, you see the Arabs switching to bigger Dhow designs that were nailed together instead of stitched, and which were more heavily armed.

The idea that islamic pirates were less barbaric than European pirates on the basis that their slaves were instantly freed after converting to Islam is similarily silly. Mostly because it just isn't true. True, there were rules against enslaving muslims; but you'd think that if all it took to earn your freedom was converting, there wouldn't have been these massive slave populations. The rules against enslaving muslims specifically only applied to *pre-existing* muslims. It did *not* apply to a slave that converted after being taken; Islamic rules were quite clear on this: they had to buy their own freedom. Of course, this was only if the master and slave agreed to a contract (mukhārajah) in which the master pays the slave a small sum at the end of the month which can go to their emancipation. However, the master was not required to agree to this (it was considered praiseworthy, but non-compulsory), and in the absence of such a contract it was entirely up to the master to decide when (and if) the slave would be set free.

It's also kind of absurd to defend them as less barbaric when there's accounts of them circumcising and making their female slaves infertile to increase their value. One should also note that the female-to-male ratio among slaves was much higher in the muslim world... for obvious reasons.

None of this is racist propaganda; this comes straight from islamic sources, not European ones. European barbarism in no way mitigates Islamic barbarism.

If it is US/British barbarism directly aimed at Muslims, and decades of it, it certainly mitigates a lot.

 

[skepticalbip]

Sorry, but did you intend this video as a serious argument?

Presenting everytime a Muslim army (or even just a gang of privateers) attacked a Christian army or city as part of *the* Jihad, and trying to compare it to the "official" crusades only is just bad reasoning. If you want an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to include every attack by Christians on the other side. That'd include Russia's expansion into what's today Southern Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus region, Central Asia, the Reconquista, modern colonialism, but also in part the trans-Atlantic slave trade (Islam had spread far into West Africa by the late Middle Age and a significant minority of the slaves traded across the Atlantic were Muslims).

The West may view the past Islamic conquests as finished history. Are we sure that the Islamists think the same way?

I'm sure *the* Islamists don't think the same way. Islamism means a lot of different things to different people, and pretending, that *they* all want the same things is hilariously stupid.

If you want to show that Europe is currently under threat from Islamization, you need to do quite a bit more than insinuate (or even show) that *some* Islamists state that as one of their goals: You need to show that those Islamist theorists who consider that a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

M'kay.

https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

Whatever else that may show, you haven't, by a long shot, shown that Islamist theorists who consider islamizing Europe a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

There are many Islamist leaders who have a goal of making Islam a world religion. Gaddafi, for one, talks about it in this speech:



Whether they have a "significant following" among Muslims is fairly irrelevant. The Muslims who are moving into Europe and non-Muslim countries are changing the demographics of those countries whether that is their goal or not. With the low birth rate of the natives and the high birth rate of the incoming Muslims, those demographics will continue to sway to a higher percentage of Muslims in the country. When or if it will eventually exceed fifty percent is the question in democratic countries. Gaddafi in that video is predicting that in only a few decades Islam will have taken Europe without a shot being fired. Who knows, he may be right.

 

[Trausti]

Whatever else that may show, you haven't, by a long shot, shown that Islamist theorists who consider islamizing Europe a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

Heh? Wouldn't demographic displacement of the indigenous European population achieve that goal?

 

[Ford]

There are many Islamist leaders who have a goal of making Islam a world religion. Gaddafi, for one, talks about it in this speech

Last time I checked, he was still rather dead. Kinda puts a wrench in his plans.

Whether they have a "significant following" among Muslims is fairly irrelevant.

I'd say that's the most relevant thing. If you're going to fear monger about the Islamic "takeover" of Europe, you've got to demonstrate that there's a large segment of the population that is deliberately working towards this goal.

The Muslims who are moving into Europe and non-Muslim countries are changing the demographics of those countries whether that is their goal or not.

I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that a family risking their lives to escape Syria isn't thinking "wow, we need to change the demographics of the country that eventually takes us in." Yes, migration changes demographics. This is not a recipe for doom, nor should it be treated as such.

Here in America we've got millions of migrants who are here working and living. Some have been here for decades...even generations. Most of them come from south of the border and speak Spanish. Yet despite having all these migrants living here for so long, the United States hasn't become a Spanish speaking country. We're a little more diverse, but we haven't been taken over.

With the low birth rate of the natives and the high birth rate of the incoming Muslims, those demographics will continue to sway to a higher percentage of Muslims in the country. When or if it will eventually exceed fifty percent is the question in democratic countries.

It's a little more complex than just percentages. The question - well, one of the many - is how much those new arrivals will assimilate. That depends upon whether or not they are encouraged to assimilate. Let's say a Syrian family arrives in Germany today, and they have a new born son. Will that son still be Muslim 50 years from now? Will that son consider himself Syrian? Or will he be culturally German with a Syrian background and Islam as his religion? And what about his son or daughter?

Gaddafi in that video is predicting that in only a few decades Islam will have taken Europe without a shot being fired. Who knows, he may be right.

Again, he's dead, and his predictions about his own future seemed not to pan out. In order for his prediction to come true, European countries would have to not just rapidly lose the demographic race, but also completely abandon their culture and history. Is Germany really going to stop being German just because a percentage of Muslims showed up after a crisis? I'm highly doubtful.

Remember, in WWII Germany was bombed into oblivion, lost millions of people, had their country occupied and then cut in half for decades. If they can survive that, then the influx of some refugees from Muslim countries seems a small hurdle. Maybe even a speed bump.

 

[angelo]

The reason the that Islamic navy lost the Battle of Lepanto is because the Muslim boats weren't armed. Makes sense.

In any case, the history of Islamic aggression against the West makes Western intervention in the middle east pale by comparison.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kc[/YOUTUBE]

Sorry, but did you intend this video as a serious argument?

Presenting everytime a Muslim army (or even just a gang of privateers) attacked a Christian army or city as part of *the* Jihad, and trying to compare it to the "official" crusades only is just bad reasoning. If you want an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to include every attack by Christians on the other side. That'd include Russia's expansion into what's today Southern Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus region, Central Asia, the Reconquista, modern colonialism, but also in part the trans-Atlantic slave trade (Islam had spread far into West Africa by the late Middle Age and a significant minority of the slaves traded across the Atlantic were Muslims).

The West may view the past Islamic conquests as finished history. Are we sure that the Islamists think the same way?

I'm sure *the* Islamists don't think the same way. Islamism means a lot of different things to different people, and pretending, that *they* all want the same things is hilariously stupid.

If you want to show that Europe is currently under threat from Islamization, you need to do quite a bit more than insinuate (or even show) that *some* Islamists state that as one of their goals: You need to show that those Islamist theorists who consider that a top priority have a significant following and a workable strategy for achieving their goal.

Before the end of the century, Muslims will outnumber the western population of most European nations where they are a minority now. Once that happens, and no doubt they'll outnumber them in government by then as well. No doubt they will pass legislation to install sharia law, as that is the law of Allah. Many of the western descendants may seek asylum to places where western culture is still a majority.

 

[skepticalbip]

Last time I checked, he was still rather dead. Kinda puts a wrench in his plans.

That is a rather silly and juvenile objection. Gaddafi isn't and wasn't the leader of Islam. He was only one of many and was replaced with another who have a dream of Islam being a world religion. That video just shows the dreams of Islamist leadership.

Whether they have a "significant following" among Muslims is fairly irrelevant.

I'd say that's the most relevant thing. If you're going to fear monger about the Islamic "takeover" of Europe, you've got to demonstrate that there's a large segment of the population that is deliberately working towards this goal.

You obviously have no clue how democracy works. It does not matter the intent of those Muslims moving into Europe. When they, their children, and grandchildren reach voting age, they will be much more likely to vote for a Muslim running for office than the other candidates.

The Muslims who are moving into Europe and non-Muslim countries are changing the demographics of those countries whether that is their goal or not.

I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that a family risking their lives to escape Syria isn't thinking "wow, we need to change the demographics of the country that eventually takes us in." Yes, migration changes demographics. This is not a recipe for doom, nor should it be treated as such.

Your strawmen are tiresome. Read the fucking post you are responding to. It doesn't matter why they migrated. They and their children will become voters.

Here in America we've got millions of migrants who are here working and living. Some have been here for decades...even generations. Most of them come from south of the border and speak Spanish. Yet despite having all these migrants living here for so long, the United States hasn't become a Spanish speaking country. We're a little more diverse, but we haven't been taken over.

Of course it hasn't. But if you would care to check who is getting elected to public office you will see a lot more hispanics being elected. The good fact is that hispanics are melding into society and becoming "Americanized". European Muslims don't seem to be doing that.

With the low birth rate of the natives and the high birth rate of the incoming Muslims, those demographics will continue to sway to a higher percentage of Muslims in the country. When or if it will eventually exceed fifty percent is the question in democratic countries.

It's a little more complex than just percentages. The question - well, one of the many - is how much those new arrivals will assimilate. That depends upon whether or not they are encouraged to assimilate. Let's say a Syrian family arrives in Germany today, and they have a new born son. Will that son still be Muslim 50 years from now? Will that son consider himself Syrian? Or will he be culturally German with a Syrian background and Islam as his religion? And what about his son or daughter?

Give some data on how well Muslims are assimulating into European culture and you may have a point. I don't see it. In fact I see sections of some cities being declared "Muslem areas" where the old natives are not welcome.

Gaddafi in that video is predicting that in only a few decades Islam will have taken Europe without a shot being fired. Who knows, he may be right.

Again, he's dead, and his predictions about his own future seemed not to pan out. In order for his prediction to come true, European countries would have to not just rapidly lose the demographic race, but also completely abandon their culture and history. Is Germany really going to stop being German just because a percentage of Muslims showed up after a crisis? I'm highly doubtful.

In a democratic country, it doesn't matter if the old natives don't abandon their cultures and history. If they become the minority then they are the minority and the majority will lead the country where they want it to go. The Navajo still maintain their culture and history but the influx of Europeans has certainly changed their way of life.

Remember, in WWII Germany was bombed into oblivion, lost millions of people, had their country occupied and then cut in half for decades. If they can survive that, then the influx of some refugees from Muslim countries seems a small hurdle. Maybe even a speed bump.

An asinine strawman. The Germans were Germans. they were democracies, they were predominately christian before, throughout and after the war. They only had different leaders. Fuck we change our House of Representatives every four years and can change our president every four years.

 

[Ford]

Before the end of the century, Muslims will outnumber the western population of most European nations where they are a minority now. Once that happens, and no doubt they'll outnumber them in government by then as well. No doubt they will pass legislation to install sharia law, as that is the law of Allah.

Well shit. That ruins my plans. I booked a trip to France to celebrate my 135th birthday with a tour of some vineyards, but since Sharia law will be in effect by then and alcohol will be banned, it will be a waste of time.

Maybe I can get my deposit back?

 

[Trausti]

Remember, in WWII Germany was bombed into oblivion, lost millions of people, had their country occupied and then cut in half for decades. If they can survive that, then the influx of some refugees from Muslim countries seems a small hurdle. Maybe even a speed bump.

Apples and oranges. The Allies' post-war plan did not include the mass importation of non-Germans.

Can you name a country, any country, that did not destabilize or become Islamic after the migration of a significant number of Muslims? Note that India had to be partitioned because the Muslims absolutely refused to be ruled over by non-Muslims. Perhaps Germany can survive, but it'll look more like the Balkans than it does now.

 

[angelo]

Before the end of the century, Muslims will outnumber the western population of most European nations where they are a minority now. Once that happens, and no doubt they'll outnumber them in government by then as well. No doubt they will pass legislation to install sharia law, as that is the law of Allah.

Well shit. That ruins my plans. I booked a trip to France to celebrate my 135th birthday with a tour of some vineyards, but since Sharia law will be in effect by then and alcohol will be banned, it will be a waste of time.

Maybe I can get my deposit back?

So as long as you're okay, fuck the future of western culture! The planet can blow up by then, stuff them!!!!

 

[angelo]

With that mentality, and if adhered to by a majority, I fear for the future of planet earth.

 

[Trausti]

Well shit. That ruins my plans. I booked a trip to France to celebrate my 135th birthday with a tour of some vineyards, but since Sharia law will be in effect by then and alcohol will be banned, it will be a waste of time.

Maybe I can get my deposit back?

So as long as you're okay, fuck the future of western culture! The planet can blow up by then, stuff them!!!!

Well, ditto fuck. If the Gutmenschen don't care about the future of Europe, why should anyone care about environmental destruction or climate change? To hell to those who haven't been born.

 

[Ford]

That is a rather silly and juvenile objection.

I'm responding to a silly and juvenile argument, so I thought it was appropriate.

You obviously have no clue how democracy works. It does not matter the intent of those Muslims moving into Europe. When they, their children, and grandchildren reach voting age, they will be much more likely to vote for a Muslim running for office than the other candidates.

Ah. So democracy works because generations of people always vote the same way, and never change their vote based upon new information. Thanks for instructing me on the subtleties.

Your strawmen are tiresome. Read the fucking post you are responding to. It doesn't matter why they migrated. They and their children will become voters.

Terrifying thought...people growing up. Becoming voters. Democratically electing other people. Might as well just write off Europe now and build a wall around it, eh?

Of course it hasn't. But if you would care to check who is getting elected to public office you will see a lot more hispanics being elected. The good fact is that hispanics are melding into society and becoming "Americanized". European Muslims don't seem to be doing that.

Well maybe that's something that European nations can address instead of just promoting xenophobia.

Give some data on how well Muslims are assimulating into European culture and you may have a point. I don't see it. In fact I see sections of some cities being declared "Muslem areas" where the old natives are not welcome.

Again, a problem for European countries to solve.

An asinine strawman.

I'd say the more asinine idea is that by accepting some refugees and economic migrants, centuries old European cultures will be bowled over by a wave of Islamism.