Log in

View Full Version : hmmm I thought that high taxes and generous gov't benefits were supposed to ....



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Melonie
04-05-2007, 11:55 AM
he problem, worry ,concern ( call it whatever you like ) are the UNSKILLED, UNEDUCATED and UNEMPLOYED flocking to EUROPE from Asia and Africa

which, coincidentally, brings us full circle and right back to the original topic !

Eric Stoner
04-05-2007, 12:02 PM
which, coincidentally, brings us full circle and right back to the original topic !

Apparently, the only one who doesn't "get it" and probably never will is "you
know who." Posted with respect and the utmost civility.

flickad
04-05-2007, 07:21 PM
Do you expose yourself at all to the NEWS ?
Do you have any awareness ; any at all; of current conditions in Europe ?
Have you bothered to read any of the Al Queda manuals where they talk about how to enter European countries ; where they talk about re-conquering Spain ?
You are aware that Muslims ruled the entire Iberian Peninsula ( except for a small slice of Galicia ) for Hundreds of years ;aren't you ? You know that the Spanish language is a mixture of Latin and Arabic ; don't you ? How do you think that happened ?
Are you aware of the Muslim Brotherhood and their PUBLISHED plan to "conquer"large parts of Europe DEMOGRAPHICALLY as opposed to militarily ? A plan shared by Al Queda and othe radical Muslim groups ?

Btw, WHERE were YOU during the Bali bombings ? WHO do you think was responsible ? The CIA ? The Tri-lateral Commission ?

Who said I thought the CIA or the Tri-lateral commission was responsible for the Bali Bombings? I believe a fundamentalist Islamic group was most likely responsible, though claiming responsibility isn't necessarily conclusive in my book, since fringe groups may occasionally claim responsibility for terrorist attacks so as to make themselves appear to be more of a threat than they actually are. However, the fact that members of a fundamentalist group have been tried for and convicted of the attacks in this case seems reasonably persuasive.

There are fundamentalist Christian sects- the Full Quiver group springs to mind- who have also stated in writing that they plan to take over the world demographically, yet on boards like this, no-one jumps up and down about them.

The Muslim brotherhood is also a small sect (mostly of African-American converts, from my understanding) and in no way represents Islam as a whole. Neither does al-Qaeda, by the way, as much as FoxNews (which is not 'news' at all) would have you believe that all people of Middle Eastern appearance carry a dynamite belt and a bomb recipe.

flickad
04-05-2007, 07:24 PM
I've done my best. It's obvious that no matter what source I cite or whose numbers I use, it doesn't matter to, and has no meaning to you. Sadly, too many Europeans share your head in the sand approach and those that do not tend to be radically xenophobic and even fascistic like Monsieur Le Pen in France and that former Austrian P.M. whose name eludes me.(Not Waldheim but he had some nice things to say about Hitler, if memory serves.)
Assuming you have anything resembling an OPEN MIND and/or intellectual curiosity go to danielpipes.org or Google- Robert S. Leiken and you'll find a treasure trove of scholarly work on what I've been talking about.

Not that facts seem to matter to you, but Europe IS importing skilled labor and in fact has been doing so since World War II. The problem, worry ,concern ( call it whatever you like ) are the UNSKILLED, UNEDUCATED and UNEMPLOYED flocking to EUROPE from Asia and Africa.

Well, see, you haven't actually quoted any sources. The numbers you've used could be pulled from anywhere. You've provided no links to evidence your statements.

Also, most Asians are not Muslims and many Africans aren't either. Asian labour may also be highly skilled.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 07:03 AM
Who said I thought the CIA or the Tri-lateral commission was responsible for the Bali Bombings? I believe a fundamentalist Islamic group was most likely responsible, though claiming responsibility isn't necessarily conclusive in my book, since fringe groups may occasionally claim responsibility for terrorist attacks so as to make themselves appear to be more of a threat than they actually are. However, the fact that members of a fundamentalist group have been tried for and convicted of the attacks in this case seems reasonably persuasive.

There are fundamentalist Christian sects- the Full Quiver group springs to mind- who have also stated in writing that they plan to take over the world demographically, yet on boards like this, no-one jumps up and down about them.

The Muslim brotherhood is also a small sect (mostly of African-American converts, from my understanding) and in no way represents Islam as a whole. Neither does al-Qaeda, by the way, as much as FoxNews (which is not 'news' at all) would have you believe that all people of Middle Eastern appearance carry a dynamite belt and a bomb recipe.

Madame, Your IGNORANCE is breathtaking and goes a long way to explaining your attitude to what EUROPEANS themselves ( the people; not their governments unfortunately ) already recognize as a serious problem and potential threat. At least you recognize that it was Muslim extremists behind the Bali bombings. Hopefully, you're also aware that Indonesia is a MUSLIM country as is Malaysia (Al Queda is reportedly active in both) and that Thailand is on the verge of Civil War with its Muslim population.

The reason no one is jumping up and down about Christian extremists is because except for bombing abortion clinics and killing a doctor or two they haven't actually DONE too much in recent times. ( Let's put aside the Crusades and the Inquisition for the time being. )

You are TOTALLY ignorant of the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD which you obviously confuse with BLACK MUSLIMS. The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamic organization started in Egypt when it was dominated by the British before W.W. II. They allied themselves with Hitler btw. They preach a violent Islamic resurgence; a return to fundamentalist Islam ; RE-CONQUEST of Spain ; Sicily;Greece and the Balkans and WAR against non-believers. They have a long history of terrorism and bloodshed. Sadat was killed by one of their sects. They have published literature which advocates RE-CONQUEST and CONQUEST of Europe DEMOGRAPHICALLY whereby Muslims immigrate, live ,work and MULTIPLY fruitfully so that in a generation or so they can take political control legally by winning elections. In short they want to return Arabs to the glory days of the Caliphate of the Middle Ages.

Btw, since you're SO BIG on sourcing and links would you be so kind as to show us WHERE FOX News ever said " All Muslims are bomb-carrying terrorists " or anything remotely that ridiculous.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 07:12 AM
Well, see, you haven't actually quoted any sources. The numbers you've used could be pulled from anywhere. You've provided no links to evidence your statements.

Also, most Asians are not Muslims and many Africans aren't either. Asian labour may also be highly skilled.

Have your eyes checked. I DID quote sources ! Quite a few in fact and vetted to exclude any group or organization remotely "partisan ". E.U. figures on population growth are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD - look them up YOURSELF ! If I can find them and I'm a computer semi-literate, you should have no difficulty.

Indonesia, Malaysia , Bangladesh and Pakhistan are ALL Muslim. Thailand and the Phillipines have large Muslim populations. Good Lord ! You're even ignorant of the basic demographics and dominant cultures in your own part of the world !

flickad
04-06-2007, 07:37 AM
Have your eyes checked. I DID quote sources ! Quite a few in fact and vetted to exclude any group or organization remotely "partisan ". E.U. figures on population growth are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD - look them up YOURSELF ! If I can find them and I'm a computer semi-literate, you should have no difficulty.

Indonesia, Malaysia , Bangladesh and Pakhistan are ALL Muslim. Thailand and the Phillipines have large Muslim populations. Good Lord ! You're even ignorant of the basic demographics and dominant cultures in your own part of the world !

Well, I don't actually live in Asia (Oceania/Australasia is in fact a seperate region), but I was under the impression that most Asians belonged to the Buddhist, Hindu and Shinto religions. However, you're right that Asia is a large place with a significant Muslim population. I'm not sure they form the majority though.

You quoted figures without linking me to the places you got them from. For all I know you could have invented them to suit your point.

Also I will reiterate that I am under no obligation to prove anyone else's arguments.

flickad
04-06-2007, 07:53 AM
Madame, Your IGNORANCE is breathtaking and goes a long way to explaining your attitude to what EUROPEANS themselves ( the people; not their governments unfortunately ) already recognize as a serious problem and potential threat. At least you recognize that it was Muslim extremists behind the Bali bombings. Hopefully, you're also aware that Indonesia is a MUSLIM country as is Malaysia (Al Queda is reportedly active in both) and that Thailand is on the verge of Civil War with its Muslim population.

The reason no one is jumping up and down about Christian extremists is because except for bombing abortion clinics and killing a doctor or two they haven't actually DONE too much in recent times. ( Let's put aside the Crusades and the Inquisition for the time being. )

You are TOTALLY ignorant of the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD which you obviously confuse with BLACK MUSLIMS. The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamic organization started in Egypt when it was dominated by the British before W.W. II. They allied themselves with Hitler btw. They preach a violent Islamic resurgence; a return to fundamentalist Islam ; RE-CONQUEST of Spain ; Sicily;Greece and the Balkans and WAR against non-believers. They have a long history of terrorism and bloodshed. Sadat was killed by one of their sects. They have published literature which advocates RE-CONQUEST and CONQUEST of Europe DEMOGRAPHICALLY whereby Muslims immigrate, live ,work and MULTIPLY fruitfully so that in a generation or so they can take political control legally by winning elections. In short they want to return Arabs to the glory days of the Caliphate of the Middle Ages.

Btw, since you're SO BIG on sourcing and links would you be so kind as to show us WHERE FOX News ever said " All Muslims are bomb-carrying terrorists " or anything remotely that ridiculous.

I didn't actually say FoxNews said that. The words I used were 'as much as FoxNews would have you believe'. In no way to those words indicate an assertion that they stated that directly. I will, however, back track a little and admit that I exaggerated slightly for effect in making that statement, which I assumed would be fairly obvious, but that I guess was not.

You're right, I did confuse the Muslim brotherhood with black Islam and for this I apologise. But I stand by my statement that fundamentalist sects are in no way representative of the whole. To assume that they are representative would be akin to judging all Christians by the yardstick of radicals who bomb abortion clinics and advocate the revocation of feminist reforms. I will also add that the Muslim Brotherhood in fact preaches non-violence, contrary to your 'violent Islamic resurgence' remark (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood).

I will admit that Muslims have a violent history, as do most religions. Islam, like many religions, may be and often is practiced in a brutal manner and I'll agree with you that to see Sharia law instituted in formerly democratic nations would be nothing less than a tragedy. I will also concede that extremists do exist among the Muslim population and that these people may well pose a potential threat to those of us living in democratic countries. However, it seems extreme to suggest that within the next fifty years they will be responsible for the institution of Sharia law in countries such as Britain and France, particularly since birth rates and immigration patterns do not necessarily continue in a linear fashion. It is also possible for European countries to begin restricting immigration from certain countries if they begin to run into problems caused by extremists. Muslim immigration, in my view, is not an unstoppable, all-powerful force that's set to subsume democracy and democratic values.

There's also no need for name calling (or caps lock, for that matter). If your argument is good it will stand for itself. Name calling only makes you look defensive and, well, uncouth.

flickad
04-06-2007, 08:06 AM
You are 100 % INCORRECT ! Europe's aging native-born population and declining birthrate since World War II created the demand for immigrant labor.This is simply a commonly accepted HISTORICAL fact.If you don't like it take it up with the publishers of the History books. Millions of German men were killed in WW II and somebody had to do the lower paid menial work and that DEMAND was filled by the SUPPLY of immigrants mostly from Turkey and later from Africa and the Middle East. Same for France; the U.K. and other European countries.
I ALREADY POSTED the current EUROPEAN birthrates most of which are far below what is needed to replace the dead. How do you think a country's population sustains itself ? Women have babies and if they don't then they have to allow IMMIGRATION.

The aged do NOT work in Europe. They collect pensions which have to be paid for by taxes collected from those young enough to work and own businesses. Are YOU REALLY that ignorant of how the REAL WORLD works ? Where do you think the money comes from to fund pensions ; social welfare ; health care etc. ? Since Europe's native born are AGING, and declining in number, whether you like it or not, immigrants are being relied on to make up the difference - to perform the labor and pay the taxes needed to take care of the elderly and pay the other bills of the E.U. gov'ts. This has been so widely reported; published and commented on both inside and outside Europe that I can't believe that ANYONE would seriously question it. Based on WHAT ? Have YOU bothered to look up European birth-rates ? I doubt it. Do YOU have any idea what the median age of the average European is today ? Do you even KNOW what a "median age " is and its demographic significance ? Apparently not.

So before you dare to question the FACTS posted by me- get off your ass (ARSE ! ) and look them up yourself ! You can start with GOOGLE or YAHOO or any search engine you prefer- type in "Europe ,population, birthrate,immigration,Muslim "etc.etc. or whatever variant you like and then actually READ for yourself and THEN I'll sit still for your questioning of my facts and figures. If you want to question them that's fine.
You go right ahead and SHOW me the "what,why and wherefore" of how their authenticity and accuracy can be called into question. Unless you're prepared to do that ( and to date you haven't been bothered ) then I'll thank you to stop questioning them based on nothing more than your disagreement with my thoughts and ideas.

I will reiterate (yet again) that you are responsible for proving your own assertions. It is not for me to back up arguments which I did not make. It is only the points that I myself make that are my responsibility. I'm finding it rather incomprehensible that you seem to have difficulty grasping this. Were you never asked to provide footnotes and a bibliography to back up the points you made in essays at school/university? Is it for the professor to provide the footnotes for you? If they don't, is it the writer or the reader who should 'get off their arse'? Should the reader take at face value arguments which remain unsupported by proper evidence?

Perhaps you are the one in need of a tutorial on reality.

I will add that I am in fact aware of both the concept and significance of a median age. I am also aware that social welfare must be paid for by a working population and that Europe has an ageing demographic, as does Australia. In addition, I realise that people of working age must be brought in and have been brought in so as to make up the tax shortfall and perform menial labour.

The basis of your assumption that I thought the aged worked in Europe is a mystery to me, since I made no statements that would indicate anything of the sort. Nor did I at any point dispute the necessity of immigration and/or population replacement. Your patronising tone was most uncalled for, particularly since I remain unaware of your background and level of education, and you are certainly utterly unaware of mine.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 08:25 AM
Well, I don't actually live in Asia (Oceania/Australasia is in fact a seperate region), but I was under the impression that most Asians belonged to the Buddhist, Hindu and Shinto religions. However, you're right that Asia is a large place with a significant Muslim population. I'm not sure they form the majority though.

You quoted figures without linking me to the places you got them from. For all I know you could have invented them to suit your point.

Also I will reiterate that I am under no obligation to prove anyone else's arguments.

Last time I looked at a map Indonesia looked like it was pretty close to the Northern coast of Australia.

I do NOT invent any facts or figures I quote. As I have repeatedly said, if you want to question their authenticity or accuracy, come up with better numbers. I DID cite my sources and the fact that you're too lazy to look them up y-self is
NOT my problem. I don't post links ! I can't be bothered.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 08:39 AM
I will reiterate (yet again) that you are responsible for proving your own assertions. It is not for me to back up arguments which I did not make. It is only the points that I myself make that are my responsibility. I'm finding it rather incomprehensible that you seem to have difficulty grasping this. Were you never asked to provide footnotes and a bibliography to back up the points you made in essays at school/university? Is it for the professor to provide the footnotes for you? If they don't, is it the writer or the reader who should 'get off their arse'? Should the reader take at face value arguments which remain unsupported by proper evidence?

Perhaps you are the one in need of a tutorial on reality.

I will add that I am in fact aware of both the concept and significance of a median age. I am also aware that social welfare must be paid for by a working population and that Europe has an ageing demographic, as does Australia. In addition, I realise that people of working age must be brought in and have been brought in so as to make up the tax shortfall and perform menial labour.

The basis of your assumption that I thought the aged worked in Europe is a mystery to me, since I made no statements that would indicate anything of the sort. Nor did I at any point dispute the necessity of immigration and/or population replacement. Your patronising tone was most uncalled for, particularly since I remain unaware of your background and level of education, and you are certainly utterly unaware of mine.


Let me explain how this works. I am NOT in college ( or "at University" as they'd say "down undah " ) and I'm not submitting a term paper and you are NOT my professor.( Thank God ! Talk about the ignorant leading the unlearned.) I have cited sources for my numbers. You, on the other hand question my numbers without any basis whatsoever. For the last time, if you have "better" numbers, let's see them. Simply saying " I don't believe it " is just NOT good enough. You are the one challenging my facts and figures so as we Yanks say: "Put up or shut up."

Btw, YOU were the one who claimed that an aging European population had no relation to such things as immigration. I had to demonstrate that it was very relevant indeed.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 08:42 AM
[QUOTE=flickad;1027027]Um. Shifts in immigration patterns (in terms of where the immigrants are coming from) have nothing to do with the ages or birthrates of the natives.

Just in case you forgot what you yourself posted.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 08:53 AM
You're right, I did confuse the Muslim brotherhood with black Islam and for this I apologise. But I stand by my statement that fundamentalist sects are in no way representative of the whole. To assume that they are representative would be akin to judging all Christians by the yardstick of radicals who bomb abortion clinics and advocate the revocation of feminist reforms. I will also add that the Muslim Brotherhood in fact preaches non-violence, contrary to your 'violent Islamic resurgence' remark (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood).

I'm sorry but correcting your ignorance gets tedious at times. Go to: fas.org/irp/world/para/mb.htm or infoplease.com/ceb/history/A0834582.html
and you will see that the Muslim Brotherhod does not practice non-violence. Far
from it. In fact some of Bin Laden's most loyal followers originated in Egypt as members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

flickad
04-06-2007, 08:53 AM
Last time I looked at a map Indonesia looked like it was pretty close to the Northern coast of Australia.

I do NOT invent any facts or figures I quote. As I have repeatedly said, if you want to question their authenticity or accuracy, come up with better numbers. I DID cite my sources and the fact that you're too lazy to look them up y-self is
NOT my problem. I don't post links ! I can't be bothered.

Australia is not part of Asia, despite the fact that Indonesia is relatively close to our shores.

Again, I am under no obligation to support your arguments. I used the university essay scenario as an example only. I was not suggesting that I was your tutor or lecturer. I was merely suggesting that, as with the construction of an essay, it is for the writer, not the reader, to provide citations for the arguments therein. The fact that you were unable to support one of your assertions in another thread makes me more questioning of your figures than I might otherwise be.

flickad
04-06-2007, 08:58 AM
[QUOTE=flickad;1027027]Um. Shifts in immigration patterns (in terms of where the immigrants are coming from) have nothing to do with the ages or birthrates of the natives.

Just in case you forgot what you yourself posted.

What I posted was in response to this statement made by yourself:

There could be shifts in immigration patterns but that is VERY UNLIKELY BECAUSE of the SEVERE DECLINE in native EUROPEAN birthrates and the aging of the European workforce

What you said was that shifts in immigration were unlikely due to these factors. When I was referring to shifts in immigration I was referring not just to numbers, but to the national origins of immigrants. An ageing population and a decline in fertility is indeed unrelated to these types of shifts.

flickad
04-06-2007, 09:00 AM
You're right, I did confuse the Muslim brotherhood with black Islam and for this I apologise. But I stand by my statement that fundamentalist sects are in no way representative of the whole. To assume that they are representative would be akin to judging all Christians by the yardstick of radicals who bomb abortion clinics and advocate the revocation of feminist reforms. I will also add that the Muslim Brotherhood in fact preaches non-violence, contrary to your 'violent Islamic resurgence' remark (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood).

I'm sorry but correcting your ignorance gets tedious at times. Go to: fas.org/irp/world/para/mb.htm or infoplease.com/ceb/history/A0834582.html
and you will see that the Muslim Brotherhod does not practice non-violence. Far
from it. In fact some of Bin Laden's most loyal followers originated in Egypt as members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I didn't say it practiced non-violence. I said it preached it. This is in direct contradiction to your statement that the Muslim Brotherhood in fact advocates the use of violence.

Your insistence on calling me ignorant (and apparently on mocking Australian/British English) in each of your posts is again suggestive of a belief that your arguments do not stand alone without recourse to lowbrow tactics such as the use of an insulting and patronising manner when referring to the views of others.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 09:04 AM
You're right, I did confuse the Muslim brotherhood with black Islam and for this I apologise. But I stand by my statement that fundamentalist sects are in no way representative of the whole. To assume that they are representative would be akin to judging all Christians by the yardstick of radicals who bomb abortion clinics and advocate the revocation of feminist reforms. I will also add that the Muslim Brotherhood in fact preaches non-violence, contrary to your 'violent Islamic resurgence' remark (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood).

I'm sorry but correcting your ignorance gets tedious at times. Go to: fas.org/irp/world/para/mb.htm or infoplease.com/ceb/history/A0834582.html
and you will see that the Muslim Brotherhod does not practice non-violence. Far
from it. In fact some of Bin Laden's most loyal followers originated in Egypt as members of the Muslim Brotherhood.


Australia is not part of Asia, despite the fact that Indonesia is relatively close to our shores.

Again, I am under no obligation to support your arguments. I used the university essay scenario as an example only. I was not suggesting that I was your tutor or lecturer. I was merely suggesting that, as with the construction of an essay, it is for the writer, not the reader, to provide citations for the arguments therein. The fact that you were unable to support one of your assertions in another thread makes me more questioning of your figures than I might otherwise be.

I never said Australia was part of Asia. It doesn't matter. Turkey's next door to Europe but still considered part of Asia.

I never asked you to support my arguments. I'm asking you to support YOURS ! Part of your argument is questioning my numbers which works ONLY if YOU can show my facts and figures are erroneous, inaccurate , inauthentic or simply out of date. You never do anything remotely resembling any of that. Please start .

You are correct that I did make an assertion ( based on what I later learned was half-baked info ) which I publicly recognized, took responsibility for and apologized for. I made a mistake. You called me on it. You were right. I was wrong. I hope this makes your day. Now rather than keep score; why don't you do a little research of your own and try to contribute some facts to the discussion.

flickad
04-06-2007, 09:08 AM
Talk about the ignorant leading the unlearned.)

Are you admitting to being unlearned?

flickad
04-06-2007, 09:11 AM
I never said Australia was part of Asia. It doesn't matter. Turkey's next door to Europe but still considered part of Asia.

I never asked you to support my arguments. I'm asking you to support YOURS ! Part of your argument is questioning my numbers which works ONLY if YOU can show my facts and figures are erroneous, inaccurate , inauthentic or simply out of date. You never do anything remotely resembling any of that. Please start .

You are correct that I did make an assertion ( based on what I later learned was half-baked info ) which I publicly recognized, took responsibility for and apologized for. I made a mistake. You called me on it. You were right. I was wrong. I hope this makes your day. Now rather than keep score; why don't you do a little research of your own and try to contribute some facts to the discussion.

Actually, you avoided the question on a number of occasions before essentially telling me to 'get a life'. I concluded that you invented the facts to suit yourself and am thus reluctant to take anything you state as 'fact' as indeed being such.

Telling you that you need to prove what you are saying does not constitute an 'argument' in any sense of the word. It is asking you to back up yours. Nice try though.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 09:27 AM
FLICKAD- Just out of curiosity- The European & American press, journals, academic publications, think-tank periodicals etc. are all full of articles documenting Europe's declining birthrate and the explosion of Muslim immigration. Do you question the numbers cited by the authors of same ? Their numbers are "my" numbers. I'm just repeating the facts and figures they cite or repeating the numbers from E.U. nations from public reference sources.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 09:29 AM
Are you admitting to being unlearned?

Life has taught me that in our lifetimes we barely scratch the surface of learning all there is to know in this great big world of ours.

flickad
04-06-2007, 09:29 AM
FLICKAD- Just out of curiosity- The European & American press, journals, academic publications, think-tank periodicals etc. are all full of articles documenting Europe's declining birthrate and the explosion of Muslim immigration. Do you question the numbers cited by the authors of same ? Their numbers are "my" numbers. I'm just repeating the facts and figures they cite or repeating the numbers from E.U. nations from public reference sources.

Actually, I did take a look at the figures just now (having realised that getting you to actually evidence the statements you make is an exercise in futility) and apparently the Muslim population in Europe is currently a staggering (*insert sarcasm here*) 4 to 5%. In 2020, if current trends continue, it will be a whole 10%.

Hardly takeover material, in my book.

Also, apparently many Muslim immigrants do secularise and/or live in harmony in their adopted European countries (see: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8252/europe.html). So much for your insinuation that they are all hankering after a return in their new homelands to the system of Sharia law they escaped from.

EDIT- It's not that I question statistics from official sources, it's that I question that you actually used those sources (or any sources, for that matter). I was interested in seeing exactly where you got your numbers from, again so I can be satisfied that you did not invent facts to suit your arguments. The fact that you are invariably excruciatingly reluctant to show me your sources only serves to heighten my suspicion that you never had any.

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 09:41 AM
I didn't say it practiced non-violence. I said it preached it. This is in direct contradiction to your statement that the Muslim Brotherhood in fact advocates the use of violence.

Your insistence on calling me ignorant (and apparently on mocking Australian/British English) in each of your posts is again suggestive of a belief that your arguments do not stand alone without recourse to lowbrow tactics such as the use of an insulting and patronising manner when referring to the views of others.

I'm sorry BUT there have been very few members of the Muslim Brotherhood preaching non-violence since its founding in 1928. In its current form it has proven to be very violent indeed. Sadat's assassins were from the Muslim Brotherhood as are many of Bin Laden's followers including his right-hand man whose name eludes me- the one who's always seated next to him wearing glasses- he was on trial for plotting to kill Sadat and served several years in an Egyptian Prison before being released. The "MB' has been banned by Egypt no less than three times since its founding for preaching violent overthrow of the Egyptian Government.

I don't mean to "mock" Aussie English and I'm sorry you took it that way. We Americans are the ones with the funny accent afaic.

As far as calling you : "Ignorant"- you are. About current events. About history. About Muslim extremism or Islamo-fascism. Btw, you're the one who's accused me of making up facts and figures without any proof or evidence. I'll try to do a better job of posting my sources if you promise to take a look at them for yourself.

flickad
04-06-2007, 09:50 AM
I'm sorry BUT there have been very few members of the Muslim Brotherhood preaching non-violence since its founding in 1928. In its current form it has proven to be very violent indeed. Sadat's assassins were from the Muslim Brotherhood as are many of Bin Laden's followers including his right-hand man whose name eludes me- the one who's always seated next to him wearing glasses- he was on trial for plotting to kill Sadat and served several years in an Egyptian Prison before being released. The "MB' has been banned by Egypt no less than three times since its founding for preaching violent overthrow of the Egyptian Government.

I don't mean to "mock" Aussie English and I'm sorry you took it that way. We Americans are the ones with the funny accent afaic.

As far as calling you : "Ignorant"- you are. About current events. About history. About Muslim extremism or Islamo-fascism. Btw, you're the one who's accused me of making up facts and figures without any proof or evidence. I'll try to do a better job of posting my sources if you promise to take a look at them for yourself.

That's not what wikipedia said. It said that the Muslim Brotherhood advocated non-violence whilst being both divided and less than peaceful in practice.

I'm aware of Muslim extremism and its very real dangers. However, I'm also aware that many Muslims are moderate and peaceful. I'm also aware of the historical context of the events we've been discussing, though it's possible that I don't know all the details. It seems that you assume my disagreement with you is due to ignorance, and that is both patronising and patently wrong.

I don't find the American accent funny, probably since I hear it on TV quite often, but I've been told that Americans find our accents odd or quaint.

I wouldn't have asked for sources if I was unwilling to read them.


P.S.- I found an interesting article for your perusal. It contradicts some of your points while demonstrating others:
http://www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_savage.pdf

Eric Stoner
04-06-2007, 11:22 AM
That's not what wikipedia said. It said that the Muslim Brotherhood advocated non-violence whilst being both divided and less than peaceful in practice.

I'm aware of Muslim extremism and its very real dangers. However, I'm also aware that many Muslims are moderate and peaceful. I'm also aware of the historical context of the events we've been discussing, though it's possible that I don't know all the details. It seems that you assume my disagreement with you is due to ignorance, and that is both patronising and patently wrong.

I don't find the American accent funny, probably since I hear it on TV quite often, but I've been told that Americans find our accents odd or quaint.

I wouldn't have asked for sources if I was unwilling to read them.


P.S.- I found an interesting article for your perusal. It contradicts some of your points while demonstrating others:
http://www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_savage.pdf

Wikipedia is not a recognized scholarly resource. It consists of submissions. You or I could contribute if we wanted to. The author is mistaken about non-violence vis a vis the MB. At best, Wikipedia serves as a starting place or jumping off point for serious research and inquiry.If you looked at the two sources I cited I think you'd have a clearer picture about the MB.

I assure you I was not making fun of Aussies or their accent. Let us have "AC/DC" and keep "Air Supply" confined to continental Australia and all will be well. lol

I read the article you posted for which I thank you. My question to you is :" Did you read it ? " I don't see anything there contradictory to what I've been saying and btw his population figures are from '03. It is now 2007. Did you take special note of the part where he said that most European countries do NOT know how many Muslims are actually living within their borders ? That they don't know how many illegal immigrants are sneaking in year to year ? That they don't even ask ?

Let me ask you something : Assume, just for the sake of argument that Europe's native born population is declining and that Muslim immigration is increasing. You have argued that we ought not worry too much because the current patterns can always change. What is that based on ? In other words, what do you reasonably forsee happening in Europe to increase the European birthrate ( maybe if they return to fundamental Catholicism and start listening to the Pope ) ? What serious effort is there by any major European nation to stop illegal immigration ?To limit legal immigration ? ( None afaik.) Where is the effort to liberalize and secularize Europe's Muslims ? You are aware of the primary reason Turkey has been denied admission to the EU ; aren't you ? EU countries have to permit free travel and liberal immigration among the citizens of fellow members. Existing EU members anticipate a flood of Turkish immigrants to their countries. How do you propose the Muslim birthrate be slowed and brought in line with the European ? A "one-child" policy a la China ? Mandatory birth control ? Sex- ed in the madrassahs ? Spiking the coffee with saltpeter in Muslim cafes and restaurants ?

I ask all this because YOU have continually said that we can't predict with certainty what future demographic patterns will look like. To a small extent that is somewhat true but I'd like to know what you are relying on in being so sanguine. Unless oil is discovered in Morocco; Tunisia and Turkey I don't see how their economies are likely to improve enough to gainfully employ their populations AND cause their nationals currently living in Europe to suddenly want to repatriate. So please tell us what socio-economic miracle do you see happening in Africa and the Middle East in the next 10 to 15 years that will turn off the spigot of immigrants wanting to live & work in Europe ? Same Q for Pakhistan ; Indonesia etc. What will make them stop wanting to come to Europe ?

How about this: What "new" group do you see coming along in the next decade or so to squeeze out Muslims in Europe ? Koreans ? Taiwanese ? Filipinos (Ooops wait a minute- the southern third of the Phillipines is primarily Muslim.Got to be careful there .) MEXICANS !
Fine, how do we kick out the Muslims and replace them with Mexicans and Central Americans ? Just trade them back and forth across the Atlantic ?. We've only got about 3 million Muslims here in the U.S. but we've got plenty of illegal Mexicans and Central Americans.

O.K., O.K. I'm being facetious if not supercilious BUT I'd appreciate you sharing some plausible demographic shift. Please remember; that's what you said so please give an example of a plausible; viable shift or change in current immigration and fertility patterns that will maintain European dominance in Europe. A reasonable hypothetical scenario if you'd be so kind. Cheers and g'day ! Just kidding.

flickad
04-06-2007, 07:56 PM
Wikipedia is not a recognized scholarly resource. It consists of submissions. You or I could contribute if we wanted to. The author is mistaken about non-violence vis a vis the MB. At best, Wikipedia serves as a starting place or jumping off point for serious research and inquiry.If you looked at the two sources I cited I think you'd have a clearer picture about the MB.

I assure you I was not making fun of Aussies or their accent. Let us have "AC/DC" and keep "Air Supply" confined to continental Australia and all will be well. lol

I read the article you posted for which I thank you. My question to you is :" Did you read it ? " I don't see anything there contradictory to what I've been saying and btw his population figures are from '03. It is now 2007. Did you take special note of the part where he said that most European countries do NOT know how many Muslims are actually living within their borders ? That they don't know how many illegal immigrants are sneaking in year to year ? That they don't even ask ?

Let me ask you something : Assume, just for the sake of argument that Europe's native born population is declining and that Muslim immigration is increasing. You have argued that we ought not worry too much because the current patterns can always change. What is that based on ? In other words, what do you reasonably forsee happening in Europe to increase the European birthrate ( maybe if they return to fundamental Catholicism and start listening to the Pope ) ? What serious effort is there by any major European nation to stop illegal immigration ?To limit legal immigration ? ( None afaik.) Where is the effort to liberalize and secularize Europe's Muslims ? You are aware of the primary reason Turkey has been denied admission to the EU ; aren't you ? EU countries have to permit free travel and liberal immigration among the citizens of fellow members. Existing EU members anticipate a flood of Turkish immigrants to their countries. How do you propose the Muslim birthrate be slowed and brought in line with the European ? A "one-child" policy a la China ? Mandatory birth control ? Sex- ed in the madrassahs ? Spiking the coffee with saltpeter in Muslim cafes and restaurants ?

I ask all this because YOU have continually said that we can't predict with certainty what future demographic patterns will look like. To a small extent that is somewhat true but I'd like to know what you are relying on in being so sanguine. Unless oil is discovered in Morocco; Tunisia and Turkey I don't see how their economies are likely to improve enough to gainfully employ their populations AND cause their nationals currently living in Europe to suddenly want to repatriate. So please tell us what socio-economic miracle do you see happening in Africa and the Middle East in the next 10 to 15 years that will turn off the spigot of immigrants wanting to live & work in Europe ? Same Q for Pakhistan ; Indonesia etc. What will make them stop wanting to come to Europe ?

How about this: What "new" group do you see coming along in the next decade or so to squeeze out Muslims in Europe ? Koreans ? Taiwanese ? Filipinos (Ooops wait a minute- the southern third of the Phillipines is primarily Muslim.Got to be careful there .) MEXICANS !
Fine, how do we kick out the Muslims and replace them with Mexicans and Central Americans ? Just trade them back and forth across the Atlantic ?. We've only got about 3 million Muslims here in the U.S. but we've got plenty of illegal Mexicans and Central Americans.

O.K., O.K. I'm being facetious if not supercilious BUT I'd appreciate you sharing some plausible demographic shift. Please remember; that's what you said so please give an example of a plausible; viable shift or change in current immigration and fertility patterns that will maintain European dominance in Europe. A reasonable hypothetical scenario if you'd be so kind. Cheers and g'day ! Just kidding.


Yes, I did read the article, or else I'd not have posted it. Some of the things it said that contradicted you were that Muslim immigration was not so much related to a European labour shortage as to unrest in their home countries. It also stated that many Muslims were not politically active (ie do not vote, let alone run for parliament) and that many of those who do vote often choose left wing parties- a far cry from the kind of right wing religious extremism you implied the majority harbour. It also stated that Muslims comprised only 4% of the European population. Between 2003 and 2007 there would not have been a significant demographical shift. Perhaps up by a percentage point, but no more.

I do not assume that the European birthrate is set to rise or that the Muslim one is set to decline. Nor do I believe it would be ethical to try and force either birthrate in any particular direction. However, there have been and are ongoing efforts to secularise or Europeanise the Muslim population: see the article I provided at the end of my last post (which makes me question: did you read it all the way through?). Also, immigration patterns have a habit of not remaining static, and this is very much related to world events. We do not know what will happen in terms of world events over the course of the next fifty years and hence do not know from where future immigrants will tend to come. Europe may have a relatively generous immigration policy at present, but it has and will always have the option to alter it at any time. Whether it does so will depend of the nature of the government of the day, as well as other factors.

There has been no demographical shift as yet. I at no point stated that there has. What I did state was that to discount the possibility of one was unrealistic. I do not know who will be coming in to Europe over the next fifty years, as I do not know how the course of world events is going to unfold. If there is a war in North Korea, I imagine many Koreans will be spilling into the world's democracies post-war, for example.

Eric Stoner
04-09-2007, 10:08 AM
Yes, I did read the article, or else I'd not have posted it. Some of the things it said that contradicted you were that Muslim immigration was not so much related to a European labour shortage as to unrest in their home countries. It also stated that many Muslims were not politically active (ie do not vote, let alone run for parliament) and that many of those who do vote often choose left wing parties- a far cry from the kind of right wing religious extremism you implied the majority harbour. It also stated that Muslims comprised only 4% of the European population. Between 2003 and 2007 there would not have been a significant demographical shift. Perhaps up by a percentage point, but no more.

I do not assume that the European birthrate is set to rise or that the Muslim one is set to decline. Nor do I believe it would be ethical to try and force either birthrate in any particular direction. However, there have been and are ongoing efforts to secularise or Europeanise the Muslim population: see the article I provided at the end of my last post (which makes me question: did you read it all the way through?). Also, immigration patterns have a habit of not remaining static, and this is very much related to world events. We do not know what will happen in terms of world events over the course of the next fifty years and hence do not know from where future immigrants will tend to come. Europe may have a relatively generous immigration policy at present, but it has and will always have the option to alter it at any time. Whether it does so will depend of the nature of the government of the day, as well as other factors.

There has been no demographical shift as yet. I at no point stated that there has. What I did state was that to discount the possibility of one was unrealistic. I do not know who will be coming in to Europe over the next fifty years, as I do not know how the course of world events is going to unfold. If there is a war in North Korea, I imagine many Koreans will be spilling into the world's democracies post-war, for example.

The author of the article is partially correct in that many Muslims take advantage of European asylum laws as did many here in the U.S. PRIOR to 9/11. However, the overwhelming majority go to Europe for ECONOMIC reasons. At present, most Muslims in Europe are not politically active yet most European countries already have Muslim members of their Parliaments. Likewise, European immigration policy could change but there is no sign that it will in the near future.Here's why- In order to stray at current levels the indigenous European population requires 2.1 children per woman=. The current rate is 1.5 and declining according to danielpipes.org. To maintain its current workforce Europe needs 1.6 million immigrants per year but to maintain the current worker to retiree ratio it needs 13.5 million per year. The foregoing is based on looking at Europe as a whole and not at certain individual countries. Far more troubling is the fact that current estimates of Muslims in Europe are just that : "ESTIMATES " ! because most European countries do not bother asking about religion on their census forms
and in other government data gathering. (Kindly re-read that part of the article which you, yourself posted. ) What's worse is the numbers do NOT include MILLIONS of ILLEGAL Muslim immigrants in Europe.

According to islamicpopulation.com in 2001 France had less than 2 million Muslims constituting about 3% of the population. In 2005 France had 6 million composing 10% and those were LEGAL immigrants and asylum seekers so your claim that there would not be a "significant" shift in population patterns in only 4 years is clearly belied by the actual demographic facts. Russia has about 28 million Muslims
currently constituting 20 % of its population and the indigenous Russian birthrate is less than 1 %. In 2005 the U.K. had 1.5 million Muslims equalling 2.5% of the population and Germany 3 million fror 3,7 %. Overall, about 5% of Europe's population is Muslim ( based only on LEGAL residents ) and it's conservatively projected to be 10% by 2020.

Most Muslims in Europe are hard working and law-abiding and are not followers of radical Islam. But radical mosques and leaders are all over Europe actively recruiting. It doesn't take very many to make a lot of mischief. Btw, aside from their own amenability to secularization and liberalization what efforts to promote same among Europe's Muslims are you referring to ? France had an awful time trying to deal with female Muslim children wearing headscarves in school and demands that boys and girls be separated. Remembe that ? Oh another btw, North Koreans have been trying to go to China to escape starvation. They can't get to South Korea - landmines;the People's Army of N.K. shoot on sight policy etc. etc. -little details like that.Nor can they just hop a plane and come to the U.S. So your Korean refugee
scenario looks a little ridiculous to put it mildly.

It's possible that Latin Americans could start immigrating to Europe.Possible but unlikely because it's a lot easier for them to go to other Latin American countries with growing economies and demand for labor or to the U.S. Likewise,India's growing economy has created a demand for a trained labor force and the only likely immigrants are mostly untrained, unskilled and uneducated.

The whole point was NOT the present situation but the FUTURE based on reasonable population estimates and projections coupled with the recognition that radical Islam is a growing movement all over the Islamic world. There are 1.6 billion ( that's Billion with a "B" ) Muslims worldwide. If just 1 % are radicalized that's 16 million ; if .25 %- 4 million; if just 1/10 of 1 % that's still 1.6 million radical
Muslims willing to enage in or support violent attacks against Westerners and Western interests.

flickad
04-09-2007, 11:12 PM
The author of the article is partially correct in that many Muslims take advantage of European asylum laws as did many here in the U.S. PRIOR to 9/11. However, the overwhelming majority go to Europe for ECONOMIC reasons. At present, most Muslims in Europe are not politically active yet most European countries already have Muslim members of their Parliaments. Likewise, European immigration policy could change but there is no sign that it will in the near future.Here's why- In order to stray at current levels the indigenous European population requires 2.1 children per woman=. The current rate is 1.5 and declining according to danielpipes.org. To maintain its current workforce Europe needs 1.6 million immigrants per year but to maintain the current worker to retiree ratio it needs 13.5 million per year. The foregoing is based on looking at Europe as a whole and not at certain individual countries. Far more troubling is the fact that current estimates of Muslims in Europe are just that : "ESTIMATES " ! because most European countries do not bother asking about religion on their census forms
and in other government data gathering. (Kindly re-read that part of the article which you, yourself posted. ) What's worse is the numbers do NOT include MILLIONS of ILLEGAL Muslim immigrants in Europe.

According to islamicpopulation.com in 2001 France had less than 2 million Muslims constituting about 3% of the population. In 2005 France had 6 million composing 10% and those were LEGAL immigrants and asylum seekers so your claim that there would not be a "significant" shift in population patterns in only 4 years is clearly belied by the actual demographic facts. Russia has about 28 million Muslims
currently constituting 20 % of its population and the indigenous Russian birthrate is less than 1 %. In 2005 the U.K. had 1.5 million Muslims equalling 2.5% of the population and Germany 3 million fror 3,7 %. Overall, about 5% of Europe's population is Muslim ( based only on LEGAL residents ) and it's conservatively projected to be 10% by 2020.

Most Muslims in Europe are hard working and law-abiding and are not followers of radical Islam. But radical mosques and leaders are all over Europe actively recruiting. It doesn't take very many to make a lot of mischief. Btw, aside from their own amenability to secularization and liberalization what efforts to promote same among Europe's Muslims are you referring to ? France had an awful time trying to deal with female Muslim children wearing headscarves in school and demands that boys and girls be separated. Remembe that ? Oh another btw, North Koreans have been trying to go to China to escape starvation. They can't get to South Korea - landmines;the People's Army of N.K. shoot on sight policy etc. etc. -little details like that.Nor can they just hop a plane and come to the U.S. So your Korean refugee
scenario looks a little ridiculous to put it mildly.

It's possible that Latin Americans could start immigrating to Europe.Possible but unlikely because it's a lot easier for them to go to other Latin American countries with growing economies and demand for labor or to the U.S. Likewise,India's growing economy has created a demand for a trained labor force and the only likely immigrants are mostly untrained, unskilled and uneducated.

The whole point was NOT the present situation but the FUTURE based on reasonable population estimates and projections coupled with the recognition that radical Islam is a growing movement all over the Islamic world. There are 1.6 billion ( that's Billion with a "B" ) Muslims worldwide. If just 1 % are radicalized that's 16 million ; if .25 %- 4 million; if just 1/10 of 1 % that's still 1.6 million radical
Muslims willing to enage in or support violent attacks against Westerners and Western interests.

Well, see, immigrants from non-Muslim countries could start coming in if world events are such that people need to flee their countries. I don't expect the birth or immigration rates in Europe to change significantly, but the demographics of immigrants may well do.

Wearing headscarfs, in my view, is not necessarily indicative of a refusal to accept democratic values. It is a religious symbol, as is the crucifix. France banned the use of all religious symbols in schools and it's unsurprising that this was met with protest. An Australian school did the same thing and there was also protest and refusals to comply..from Christians. There are also radical Christians as well as radical Muslims (though most are moderates, as with Muslims). In America, in particular, the Christina religious right is quite powerful and is in fact having an impact in terms of things like parental notification or consent laws for abortions. Singling Muslim fundamentalists out without pointing to the dangers of fundamentalism in general is suggestive of discriminatory attitudes.

The North Korea thing was only an example, a hypothetical scenario if you will. Did you ask for one just so that you could pick it apart? The truth is that I don't know how world events and thus future immigration patterns will unfold, and nor does anyone else.

The point may not have been the present, but your future projections are based on the present.

Eric Stoner
04-10-2007, 07:32 AM
Well, see, immigrants from non-Muslim countries could start coming in if world events are such that people need to flee their countries. I don't expect the birth or immigration rates in Europe to change significantly, but the demographics of immigrants may well do.

Wearing headscarfs, in my view, is not necessarily indicative of a refusal to accept democratic values. It is a religious symbol, as is the crucifix. France banned the use of all religious symbols in schools and it's unsurprising that this was met with protest. An Australian school did the same thing and there was also protest and refusals to comply..from Christians. There are also radical Christians as well as radical Muslims (though most are moderates, as with Muslims). In America, in particular, the Christina religious right is quite powerful and is in fact having an impact in terms of things like parental notification or consent laws for abortions. Singling Muslim fundamentalists out without pointing to the dangers of fundamentalism in general is suggestive of discriminatory attitudes.

The North Korea thing was only an example, a hypothetical scenario if you will. Did you ask for one just so that you could pick it apart? The truth is that I don't know how world events and thus future immigration patterns will unfold, and nor does anyone else.

The point may not have been the present, but your future projections are based on the present.

Starting with your last point first- it's statements like that which demonstrate how naive you truly must be. Of course future projections are based on the present situation and current trends ! What else would they be based on ?
ASSUMING ( and reasonable assumptions are part of any and all future projections) a static indigenous birthrate ( and you've pointed to NOTHING that offers any hope, let alone reasonable likelihood of arresting or reversing the current decline ) the indigenous European population will continue to decline.
Assuming Muslim birthrates wil remain current and current population trends continue just for a few years more; not 10; not 20; then it is a virtual demographic certainty that at least one and as many as three or four major European nations will be majority Muslim within the next 30 years. How politically active European Muslims will be and whether or not they'll turn to political violence cannot be predicted with certainty but based on past behavior and current conditions it is reasonable to assume that they will mobilize and organize politically and that terrorist violence will also increase to some extent. There will simply be a much larger pool of young Muslim men from which to recruit.

Lots of things could CONCEPTUALLY occur within the next 20 or 30 years. The Pope could come out for married priests ; Osama Bin Laden could decide to pack it in and join the Hare Krishnas ( wonder how he'd look w/o the beard and with a shaved head ? ) Instead of focusing upon will o the wisps of the imagination I have tried to point out LIKELY outcomes based on current data , trends, political
and socio-economic REALITY and rather low-ball demographic projections.

Btw, in the U.S. the influence of radical Christians has fortunately started to wane a bit as opposition to their most extreme policy positions has mobilized and a number of their prominent spokespeople have been discredited. Even though Bush was reliant on their support he was limited in how much of their bidding he could do politically. More importantly, while there is certainly a wacko fringe that believes in killing doctors and bombing clinics to prevent abortions ; that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that early humans had "pet" and domesticated dinosaurs ( I am NOT making this up- READ some of their Sunday School stuff ! ) again they are fortunately mostly at the margins and mostly just talk as opposed to actually engage in violent attacks.

I don't see where parental notification is just the purview of the religious right.The parental notification laws that have withstood challenge have contained a provision where a judge could decide that parents NOT be required to consent to abortions for MINOR children and where notification would be limited in certain circumstances. Like it or not, an abortion is a Medical procedure and parental consent is usually required for medical procedures except in cases of emergencies.
I'm much more troubled when religious wackos try to re-write history and science text-books ; mandate school prayer; install permanent religious symbols on public grounds ( a Christmas creche for a couple of weeks will not turn us into a theocracy imo. ) and otherwise try to turn the U.S. into their warped vision of a "Christian" country. Eeeeek !

France was absolutely correct in its policy dealing with PUBLIC schools. Even in France, private schools are a different matter. Public schools are secular and ought to remain so, especially if you harbor any serious hope for secularization and liberalization among French and other European Muslims.

I DID ask you for a scenario but please re-read what I wrote. I said a "plausible demographic shift" a "REASONABLE hypothetical scenario"
Your response was anything but and had no viable connection to current data not to mention a reasonable grasp on REALITY. Your Korean scenario was neither likely nor factually based. Btw, back in the 70's South Korea exported workers to the Middle East to work in oil-rich nations like Kuwait and the U.A.E. Almost all have returned as South korea's economy boomed in the 80's and 90's and they were replaced by Pakhistanis and other Muslims to do the local "scut-work". Is it POSSIBLE we could see something similar in Europe ? Not really because it would require economic booms in the native countries from where Muslims are currently leaving to cause them to stay and for European Muslims to want to return to the "old country". It would also probably require dramatic political liberalization to remove the basis for those who currently claim "political asylum" AND it would necessitate the appearance of another replacement group to come to Europe and fill the resulting void. Nothing of the sort exists at present nor are any likely to occur in the next five years or so. Quite the contrary. Most economies in most Muslim countries are either stagnant or getting worse . Most are not liberalizing to counter domestic political threats
and to cooperate with Western anti-terrorist efforts .Most importantly there is NOT a replacement non-Muslim demographic group to go and work in Europe. Therefore it is not just likely; but in fact it is CERTAIN that for the time being the Muslim population in Europe will grow unchecked.

flickad
04-10-2007, 10:02 AM
Starting with your last point first- it's statements like that which demonstrate how naive you truly must be. Of course future projections are based on the present situation and current trends ! What else would they be based on ?
ASSUMING ( and reasonable assumptions are part of any and all future projections) a static indigenous birthrate ( and you've pointed to NOTHING that offers any hope, let alone reasonable likelihood of arresting or reversing the current decline ) the indigenous European population will continue to decline.
Assuming Muslim birthrates wil remain current and current population trends continue just for a few years more; not 10; not 20; then it is a virtual demographic certainty that at least one and as many as three or four major European nations will be majority Muslim within the next 30 years. How politically active European Muslims will be and whether or not they'll turn to political violence cannot be predicted with certainty but based on past behavior and current conditions it is reasonable to assume that they will mobilize and organize politically and that terrorist violence will also increase to some extent. There will simply be a much larger pool of young Muslim men from which to recruit.

Lots of things could CONCEPTUALLY occur within the next 20 or 30 years. The Pope could come out for married priests ; Osama Bin Laden could decide to pack it in and join the Hare Krishnas ( wonder how he'd look w/o the beard and with a shaved head ? ) Instead of focusing upon will o the wisps of the imagination I have tried to point out LIKELY outcomes based on current data , trends, political
and socio-economic REALITY and rather low-ball demographic projections.

Btw, in the U.S. the influence of radical Christians has fortunately started to wane a bit as opposition to their most extreme policy positions has mobilized and a number of their prominent spokespeople have been discredited. Even though Bush was reliant on their support he was limited in how much of their bidding he could do politically. More importantly, while there is certainly a wacko fringe that believes in killing doctors and bombing clinics to prevent abortions ; that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that early humans had "pet" and domesticated dinosaurs ( I am NOT making this up- READ some of their Sunday School stuff ! ) again they are fortunately mostly at the margins and mostly just talk as opposed to actually engage in violent attacks.

I don't see where parental notification is just the purview of the religious right.The parental notification laws that have withstood challenge have contained a provision where a judge could decide that parents NOT be required to consent to abortions for MINOR children and where notification would be limited in certain circumstances. Like it or not, an abortion is a Medical procedure and parental consent is usually required for medical procedures except in cases of emergencies.
I'm much more troubled when religious wackos try to re-write history and science text-books ; mandate school prayer; install permanent religious symbols on public grounds ( a Christmas creche for a couple of weeks will not turn us into a theocracy imo. ) and otherwise try to turn the U.S. into their warped vision of a "Christian" country. Eeeeek !

France was absolutely correct in its policy dealing with PUBLIC schools. Even in France, private schools are a different matter. Public schools are secular and ought to remain so, especially if you harbor any serious hope for secularization and liberalization among French and other European Muslims.

I DID ask you for a scenario but please re-read what I wrote. I said a "plausible demographic shift" a "REASONABLE hypothetical scenario"
Your response was anything but and had no viable connection to current data not to mention a reasonable grasp on REALITY. Your Korean scenario was neither likely nor factually based. Btw, back in the 70's South Korea exported workers to the Middle East to work in oil-rich nations like Kuwait and the U.A.E. Almost all have returned as South korea's economy boomed in the 80's and 90's and they were replaced by Pakhistanis and other Muslims to do the local "scut-work". Is it POSSIBLE we could see something similar in Europe ? Not really because it would require economic booms in the native countries from where Muslims are currently leaving to cause them to stay and for European Muslims to want to return to the "old country". It would also probably require dramatic political liberalization to remove the basis for those who currently claim "political asylum" AND it would necessitate the appearance of another replacement group to come to Europe and fill the resulting void. Nothing of the sort exists at present nor are any likely to occur in the next five years or so. Quite the contrary. Most economies in most Muslim countries are either stagnant or getting worse . Most are not liberalizing to counter domestic political threats
and to cooperate with Western anti-terrorist efforts .Most importantly there is NOT a replacement non-Muslim demographic group to go and work in Europe. Therefore it is not just likely; but in fact it is CERTAIN that for the time being the Muslim population in Europe will grow unchecked.


You said that the point was not the present. Hence my statement. I would surmise that your ideas about my 'naivete' stem mainly from the fact that I don't share your views rather than any actual innocence on my part.

I've already stated that nobody knows the future of world events and hence European immigration patterns. It seems I have to be constantly restating the point.

Given that Muslims currently comprise 5% of the European population (in the three sets of statistics I found), I don't find your proposed 'likely' outcome (ie Sharia law within 50 years) to be very likely at all. Radical Muslims comprise an even smaller percentage of these.

You stated that fundamentalist Christians are at the very margins of the group. The same goes for fundamentalist, violent strains of Islam. Most are peaceful people. The mere fact of an increasing Muslim population does not point to a future involving Jihad and Sharia law.

I'm not keen to turn this thread into an abortion debate, but suffice it to say that I disagree with you about the purpose of parental notification laws.

The wearing of a religious symbol does not turn a secular school into a religious one. Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of the policy, however, my point was that it is not really surprising that followers of ANY religion would be reluctant to give up their symbolism, and indeed in this country that was proved to be the case in regard to crucifix-wearing Christians. Attachment to religious symbols is not unique to Muslims, nor is it (I reiterate) indicative of a desire to subvert democracy.

I stand by my response. It was not unreasonable- if a war broke out in North Korea- or any part of Asia really- it is not unforseeable that refugees would seek to flee the country, in favour of Western democratic countries. I think that you would have sought to tear to shreds any example I gave. You would look for some flaw, bombard me with reasons for the supposed fatality of this flaw, and call me naive or ignorant again. Which is exactly what you've just done. Please don't ask me for hypothetical scenarios in future if it is for bad faith purposes.

I also reiterate that the hypothetical I gave was just that. It was not a projection, nor was I stating that that particular example was a likelihood. Yet again I repeat that I do not know the course of events to unfold within the next fifty years, and I would venture to guess that you don't either.

Eric Stoner
04-10-2007, 12:28 PM
Well, see, immigrants from non-Muslim countries could start coming in if world events are such that people need to flee their countries. I don't expect the birth or immigration rates in Europe to change significantly, but the demographics of immigrants may well do.

Wearing headscarfs, in my view, is not necessarily indicative of a refusal to accept democratic values. It is a religious symbol, as is the crucifix. France banned the use of all religious symbols in schools and it's unsurprising that this was met with protest. An Australian school did the same thing and there was also protest and refusals to comply..from Christians. There are also radical Christians as well as radical Muslims (though most are moderates, as with Muslims). In America, in particular, the Christina religious right is quite powerful and is in fact having an impact in terms of things like parental notification or consent laws for abortions. Singling Muslim fundamentalists out without pointing to the dangers of fundamentalism in general is suggestive of discriminatory attitudes.

The North Korea thing was only an example, a hypothetical scenario if you will. Did you ask for one just so that you could pick it apart? The truth is that I don't know how world events and thus future immigration patterns will unfold, and nor does anyone else.

The point may not have been the present, but your future projections are based on the present.


You said that the point was not the present. Hence my statement. I would surmise that your ideas about my 'naivete' stem mainly from the fact that I don't share your views rather than any actual innocence on my part.

I've already stated that nobody knows the future of world events and hence European immigration patterns. It seems I have to be constantly restating the point.

Given that Muslims currently comprise 5% of the European population (in the three sets of statistics I found), I don't find your proposed 'likely' outcome (ie Sharia law within 50 years) to be very likely at all. Radical Muslims comprise an even smaller percentage of these.

You stated that fundamentalist Christians are at the very margins of the group. The same goes for fundamentalist, violent strains of Islam. Most are peaceful people. The mere fact of an increasing Muslim population does not point to a future involving Jihad and Sharia law.

I'm not keen to turn this thread into an abortion debate, but suffice it to say that I disagree with you about the purpose of parental notification laws.

The wearing of a religious symbol does not turn a secular school into a religious one. Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of the policy, however, my point was that it is not really surprising that followers of ANY religion would be reluctant to give up their symbolism, and indeed in this country that was proved to be the case in regard to crucifix-wearing Christians. Attachment to religious symbols is not unique to Muslims, nor is it (I reiterate) indicative of a desire to subvert democracy.

I stand by my response. It was not unreasonable- if a war broke out in North Korea- or any part of Asia really- it is not unforseeable that refugees would seek to flee the country, in favour of Western democratic countries. I think that you would have sought to tear to shreds any example I gave. You would look for some flaw, bombard me with reasons for the supposed fatality of this flaw, and call me naive or ignorant again. Which is exactly what you've just done. Please don't ask me for hypothetical scenarios in future if it is for bad faith purposes.

I also reiterate that the hypothetical I gave was just that. It was not a projection, nor was I stating that that particular example was a likelihood. Yet again I repeat that I do not know the course of events to unfold within the next fifty years, and I would venture to guess that you don't either.

Yes, according to official E.U. and other sources Europe's Muslim population is only 5 %. As of 2005. The very article you linked to by Mr.Savage (relying on 2003 population stats) in the section headed "Demographic Dynamics" clearly states that European governments know very little about their own Muslim populations including how many there are within their borders ! And the figures quoted by both you and me only include LEGAL immigrants. There is a rough consensus that the ILLEGAL Muslim population of Europe is at least equal to the "legal' population. I trust you don't expect the "illegals" to remain celibate ?

Once again you have ignored the thrust of my argument and the available data.
Looking at Europe as a whole there probably is not nor will there be a serious problem for MOST European countries. BUT, when you look at France which has gone from 3% to 10% Muslim in a very short period of time ; when Russia has a NEGATIVE birthrate among ethnic Russians and is already 20 % Muslim then certain European countries are facing a very serious demographic and cultural threat. Couple that with the fact that most Muslims have NOT assimilated- not learned the host country's language; not moved out of Muslim "ghettos"; not adopted the host country's culture and you already have the conditions necessary for serious ethnic friction and violence which we have already seen in France, Germany, the U.K. and Russia.

Btw, are you remotely familiar with the history of Lebanon ? After W.W. II Lebanon became totally independent from France and was majority Christian with a large Muslim minority. Without significant Muslim immigration and with minimal Christian emigration by the early
1970's the Muslims had become the majority just by having a much higher birthrate. Under the original Constitution the President of Lebanon was always to be Christian and the Prime Minister a Muslim. While Muslims served in both the Army and Police both were dominated by Christians especially among the officer corps and higher Police ranks.
Starting in the early 1970's Lebanese Muslims and their PLO allies began agitating for a flip-flop since they came to outnumber the Christians i.e. a Muslim President and a Christian P.M. plus a proportionate share of seats in the Lebanese Parliament and a fair share of Officer positions in the Army. For years the Christians ( some say secretly backed by Israel- I honestly don't know ) refused to give in and by 1975 there was full scale Civil War.
The Muslims of Lebanon had been heavily influenced by French and European culture; they were successful businessmen ; Muslim women generally wore Western style dress including bikinis at the beach; Beirut was literally the "Paris of the Middle East". And it all fell apart into total anarchy- Christian vs. Muslim; Druze vs. Muslim; Christians vs. PLO etc.etc. Demographics; especially widely disparate Christian and Muslim birthrates played a major role in causing the whole mess.

Silly worry-warts though you may think them to be; many Europeans do NOT want a Lebanon type scenario played out in their country. You yourself admit that you don't expect any changes- not in birthrates nor immigration patterns. So you admit there is NOTHING to increase the indigenous birthrate nor retard the much higher Muslim birthrate. Presumably, you also understand that populations grow geometrically; not arithmetically which means that the rate of Muslim population growth will accelerate over time as the Muslim population increases.

Btw, I was not trying to trick or trap you in asking for a plausible scenario which you could envision that would create or supply an alternative source of low-paid unskilled labor for Europe. I simply pointed out that your "Korean Scenario" was highly unlikely. It's possible that you know something I don't and could seriously come up with a "LIKELY" scenario.

Btw, the REAL motive or purpose behind parental notification laws is clearly to discourage abortions which would not necessarily be a bad thing afaic. Minors are minors and parents ought to know that their daughters are engaging in unsafe sex and are doing something which multiplies their chances of living in relative poverty i.e there is a clear correlation between underage out of wedlock pregnancy and poverty in the U.S. If she can show a reasonable well founded fear of abuse should her parents be notified, the requirement is waived under most such laws that I'm aware of.
And as long as we're on the subject and to try to keep things germane- Muslim women do not get abortions. Christian women in Europe do. Christian women and men pracice birth control. Muslim men and women do not.

flickad
04-10-2007, 08:39 PM
Yes, according to official E.U. and other sources Europe's Muslim population is only 5 %. As of 2005. The very article you linked to by Mr.Savage (relying on 2003 population stats) in the section headed "Demographic Dynamics" clearly states that European governments know very little about their own Muslim populations including how many there are within their borders ! And the figures quoted by both you and me only include LEGAL immigrants. There is a rough consensus that the ILLEGAL Muslim population of Europe is at least equal to the "legal' population. I trust you don't expect the "illegals" to remain celibate ?

Once again you have ignored the thrust of my argument and the available data.
Looking at Europe as a whole there probably is not nor will there be a serious problem for MOST European countries. BUT, when you look at France which has gone from 3% to 10% Muslim in a very short period of time ; when Russia has a NEGATIVE birthrate among ethnic Russians and is already 20 % Muslim then certain European countries are facing a very serious demographic and cultural threat. Couple that with the fact that most Muslims have NOT assimilated- not learned the host country's language; not moved out of Muslim "ghettos"; not adopted the host country's culture and you already have the conditions necessary for serious ethnic friction and violence which we have already seen in France, Germany, the U.K. and Russia.

Btw, are you remotely familiar with the history of Lebanon ? After W.W. II Lebanon became totally independent from France and was majority Christian with a large Muslim minority. Without significant Muslim immigration and with minimal Christian emigration by the early
1970's the Muslims had become the majority just by having a much higher birthrate. Under the original Constitution the President of Lebanon was always to be Christian and the Prime Minister a Muslim. While Muslims served in both the Army and Police both were dominated by Christians especially among the officer corps and higher Police ranks.
Starting in the early 1970's Lebanese Muslims and their PLO allies began agitating for a flip-flop since they came to outnumber the Christians i.e. a Muslim President and a Christian P.M. plus a proportionate share of seats in the Lebanese Parliament and a fair share of Officer positions in the Army. For years the Christians ( some say secretly backed by Israel- I honestly don't know ) refused to give in and by 1975 there was full scale Civil War.
The Muslims of Lebanon had been heavily influenced by French and European culture; they were successful businessmen ; Muslim women generally wore Western style dress including bikinis at the beach; Beirut was literally the "Paris of the Middle East". And it all fell apart into total anarchy- Christian vs. Muslim; Druze vs. Muslim; Christians vs. PLO etc.etc. Demographics; especially widely disparate Christian and Muslim birthrates played a major role in causing the whole mess.

Silly worry-warts though you may think them to be; many Europeans do want a Lebanon type scenario played out in their country. You yourself admit that you don't expect any changes- not in birthrates nor immigration patterns. So you admit there is NOTHING to increase the indigenous birthrate nor retard the much higher Muslim birthrate. Presumably, you also understand that populations grow geometrically; not arithmetically which means that the rate of Muslim population growth will accelerate over time as the Muslim population increases.

Btw, I was not trying to trick or trap you in asking for a plausible scenario which you could envision that would create or supply an alternative source of low-paid unskilled labor for Europe. I simply pointed out that your "Korean Scenario" was highly unlikely. It's possible that you know something I don't and could seriously come up with a "LIKELY" scenario.

Btw, the REAL motive or purpose behind parental notification laws is clearly to discourage abortions which would not necessarily be a bad thing afaic. Minors are minors and parents ought to know that their daughters are engaging in unsafe sex and are doing something which multiplies their chances of living in relative poverty i.e there is a clear correlation between underage out of wedlock pregnancy and poverty in the U.S. If she can show a reasonable well founded fear of abuse should her parents be notified, the requirement is waived under most such laws that I'm aware of.
And as long as we're on the subject and to try to keep things germane- Muslim women do not get abortions. Christian women in Europe do. Christian women and men pracice birth control. Muslim men and women do not.


There are illegal immigrants in all countries, not just the EU, and naturally they're difficult to quantify. The number of illegal immigrants may be very few or it may be very large. It therefore makes no sense to discuss them as if they were quantifiable elements.

According to the article I provided- which you saw as supporting your argument- in 20 years time, at current rates, Muslims will comprise 10% at the most of Europe's overall population. Danielpipes.org said the same thing. Also, there is no evidence that immigrant Muslims are mostly radicalised.

I am familiar with Lebanon's history in this area, yes, though not in intricate detail. However, please note that despite the civil war and eventual Muslim rule in Lebanon, Sharia law has not been applied in full.

I said that I expected no change in birthrates nor did I expect immigration levels as a whole to drop. I did specifically state several times, however, that neither I nor anyone else could predict future immigration patterns and that there could well be a change in this area.

So, people should be stuck with unwanted children? Now there's great social policy. I can't forsee that creating any problems at all. / sarcasm. Also, I do not care who does and who does not obtain abortions. I care about the free availability of both abortion and birth control.

Eric Stoner
04-11-2007, 08:50 AM
There are illegal immigrants in all countries, not just the EU, and naturally they're difficult to quantify. The number of illegal immigrants may be very few or it may be very large. It therefore makes no sense to discuss them as if they were quantifiable elements.

According to the article I provided- which you saw as supporting your argument- in 20 years time, at current rates, Muslims will comprise 10% at the most of Europe's overall population. Danielpipes.org said the same thing. Also, there is no evidence that immigrant Muslims are mostly radicalised.

I am familiar with Lebanon's history in this area, yes, though not in intricate detail. However, please note that despite the civil war and eventual Muslim rule in Lebanon, Sharia law has not been applied in full.

I said that I expected no change in birthrates nor did I expect immigration levels as a whole to drop. I did specifically state several times, however, that neither I nor anyone else could predict future immigration patterns and that there could well be a change in this area.

So, people should be stuck with unwanted children? Now there's great social policy. I can't forsee that creating any problems at all. / sarcasm. Also, I do not care who does and who does not obtain abortions. I care about the free availability of both abortion and birth control.

So, according to you, since we can't put an exact figure down for how many "illegal" Muslims are currently in Europe it's best to just ignore them ? Are you serious ? Estimates do exist btw and the conservative ones put the illegals as roughly equivalent to the number of legals which are widely believed to be drastically UNDERCOUNTED i.e. there are a LOT MORE of them than Europeangovernment figures say there are.

I NEVER said that Muslims would take over all of Europe. You continually ignore what I DID say: that in certain countries there is already a significant number of Muslims both legal and illegal and that their population will grow significantly over the next 30 years or so. In looking at Europe as a whole there are lots of countries included where there are few, if any, Muslims and NO DEMAND for the unskilled labor they generally provide. Iceland gets very few immigrants, period. Poland and other former Soviet bloc countries have little to no need to import unskilled labor and in fact EXPORT labor to other European countries. They and their populations get counted when looking at Europe a a whole and if you do it that way the Muslim population seems very small indeed. BUT when you focus on specific countries; INDIVIDUAL countries like France, the U.K. and Russia and look at their current Muslim populations, both legal and illegal ; AND how those populations have grown just since 2000 ; AND take note of negative brth-rates for the indigenous women ; AND pay attention to the much higher Muslim birthrate; AND recognize that the demand for unskilled labor in those countries will INCREASE and not decline, then it is reasonable to predict fast growing Muslim populations in a few, very important European countries. What is so difficult to understand about any of this ? It's not going to take another ten years of Muslim immigration. Maybe not even another five years. There are plenty of Muslims now, today, as I'm typing this, to cause both current difficulties and to become either a large and significant political bloc or even the majority
in CERTAIN Particular countries given enough time to adequately reproduce.

As far as Lebanon is concerned I pointed to it as an example of what CAN or MIGHT happen if the European Muslim population grows beyond the non-Muslim population. You might also review the history of Bosnia and what happened as soon as a Muslim government was elected. They fired all the Serbian police and civil servants and the next thing anybody knew there was a full scale civil war.

To date you have not pointed to a single solitary piece of evidence that either Eurpean demand or Muslim supply of unskilled labor will decline. If you want to argue that population and immigration patterns will change in the next five years WHAT is that based on ? What can you point to that indicates that there WILL be any change whatsoever ? Not that there might be ! A LOT of things MIGHT happen.
You haven't come up with a shred of evidence that there will be any sort of short term change whatsoever. None ! Zero ! Zip ! Nada ! Naught ! Nothing !
It's like saying :" So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. We don't really know IF they'll really use it. Maybe there will be a change in government and we won't have to worry. "

Who said anything about sticking people with unwanted children ? If Mommy and Daddy are simply notified that their daughter is seeking an abortion how is that going to make the child "unwanted" ? And if they persuade her NOT to abort ; so what ? And btw, HOW are you going to persuade Muslim women to practice birth control ?

flickad
04-11-2007, 09:48 AM
So, according to you, since we can't put an exact figure down for how many "illegal" Muslims are currently in Europe it's best to just ignore them ? Are you serious ? Estimates do exist btw and the conservative ones put the illegals as roughly equivalent to the number of legals which are widely believed to be drastically UNDERCOUNTED i.e. there are a LOT MORE of them than Europeangovernment figures say there are.

I NEVER said that Muslims would take over all of Europe. You continually ignore what I DID say: that in certain countries there is already a significant number of Muslims both legal and illegal and that their population will grow significantly over the next 30 years or so. In looking at Europe as a whole there are lots of countries included where there are few, if any, Muslims and NO DEMAND for the unskilled labor they generally provide. Iceland gets very few immigrants, period. Poland and other fromer Soviet bloc countries have little to no need to import unskilled labor and in fact EXPORT labor to other European countries. They and their populations get counted when looking at Europe a a whole and if you do it that way the Muslim population seems very small indeed. BUT when you focus on specific countries; INDIVIDUAL countries like France, the U.K. and Russia and look at their current Muslim populations, both legal and illegal ; AND how those populations have grown just since 2000 ; AND take note of negative brth-rates for the indigenous women ; AND pay attention to the much higher Muslim birthrate; AND recognize that the demand for unskilled labor in those countries will INCREASE and not decline, then it is reasonable to predict fast growing Muslim populations in a few, very important European countries. What is so difficult to understand about any of this ? It's not going to take another ten years of Muslim immigration. Maybe not even another five years. There are plenty of Muslims now, today, as I'm typing this, to cause both current difficulties and to become either a large and significant political bloc or even the majority
in CERTAIN Particular countries given enough time to adequately reproduce.

As far as Lebanon is concerned I pointed to it as an example of what CAN or MIGHT happen if the European Muslim population grows beyond the non-Muslim population. You might also review the history of Bosnia and what happened as soon as a Muslim government was elected. They fired all the Serbian police and civil servants and the next thing anybody knew there was a full scale civil war.

To date you have not pointed to a single solitary piece of evidence that either Eurpean demand or Muslim supply of unskilled labor will decline. If you want to argue that population and immigration patterns will change in the next five years WHAT is that based on ? What can you point to that indicates that there WILL be any change whatsoever ? Not that there might be ! A LOT of things MIGHT happen.
You haven't come up with a shred of evidence that there will be any sort of short term change whatsoever. None ! Zero ! Zip ! Nada ! Naught ! Nothing !
It's like saying :" So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. We don't really know IF they'll really use it. Maybe there will be a change in government and we won't have to worry. "

Who said anything about sticking people with unwanted children ? If Mommy and Daddy are simply notified that their daughter is seeking an abortion how is that going to make the child "unwanted" ? And if they persuade her NOT to abort ; so what ? And btw, HOW are you going to persuade Muslim women to practice birth control ?

I didn't say it's best to ignore them. I said it's ridiculous to talk about them as if they were quantifiable, since they simply aren't.

You said that Muslims would form the majority in Western Europe within the next fifty years and would institute Sharia law in at least one European country, if not more. If you want me to find your exact words just let me know, but that was the gist of it.

You haven't provided evidence that immigration demographics (as opposed to numbers) will not change. The one thing that is certain in life is change. The patterns will change in some way, in response to changes in world events. However, I can not predict how and thus can not provide evidence of it, apart from the historical evidence pointing to the certainty of change in general.

I don't think it's any of my business whether Muslim women use birth control, nor am I so frightened of Muslim people as a group that I have any desire in particular to encourage them to do so. I believe in free choice in the reproductive arena. I'm not going to get into the abortion or parental notification thing any more than I already have in this already off-topic thread, but suffice it to say that I disagree with you. However, my explanation is fairly long-winded and would doubtless open the floodgates of the abortion debate, so I'll skip it.

Eric Stoner
04-11-2007, 11:52 AM
I didn't say it's best to ignore them. I said it's ridiculous to talk about them as if they were quantifiable, since they simply aren't.

You said that Muslims would form the majority in Western Europe within the next fifty years and would institute Sharia law in at least one European country, if not more. If you want me to find your exact words just let me know, but that was the gist of it.

You haven't provided evidence that immigration demographics (as opposed to numbers) will not change. The one thing that is certain in life is change. The patterns will change in some way, in response to changes in world events. However, I can not predict how and thus can not provide evidence of it, apart from the historical evidence pointing to the certainty of change in general.

I don't think it's any of my business whether Muslim women use birth control, nor am I so frightened of Muslim people as a group that I have any desire in particular to encourage them to do so. I believe in free choice in the reproductive arena. I'm not going to get into the abortion or parental notification thing any more than I already have in this already off-topic thread, but suffice it to say that I disagree with you. However, my explanation is fairly long-winded and would doubtless open the floodgates of the abortion debate, so I'll skip it.

You insist on circular argumentation. I lay out an admittedly plagiarized ( from scholars in the field) demographic scenario for CERTAIN Western Industrialized European countries ( NOT, repeat NOT Europe en toto- PLEASE don't make me keep repeating that part. ) You respond by challenging the data without any basis. Then you question the likely scenario by saying nothing more than the "future is uncertain; anything can happen" and other cliches. I say : "O.K. Your grounds for optimism are what ? " and you come up empty by saying "things will change; they always do ". Your real name wouldn't be CANDIDE or POLLYANNA would it ? Just wondering ?

Btw- I'm not afraid of any topic. Start a thread and post away.

flickad
04-11-2007, 09:03 PM
You insist on circular argumentation. I lay out an admittedly plagiarized ( from scholars in the field) demographic scenario for CERTAIN Western Industrialized European countries ( NOT, repeat NOT Europe en toto- PLEASE don't make me keep repeating that part. ) You respond by challenging the data without any basis. Then you question the likely scenario by saying nothing more than the "future is uncertain; anything can happen" and other cliches. I say : "O.K. Your grounds for optimism are what ? " and you come up empty by saying "things will change; they always do ". Your real name wouldn't be CANDIDE or POLLYANNA would it ? Just wondering ?

Btw- I'm not afraid of any topic. Start a thread and post away.

I don't think I'm the only one insisting on circular argumentation, if indeed I am at all. I also did not say that you applied your scenario to the whole of Europe.

I already said that I didn't care to get into the debate, not that I thought you were afraid. I've debated that issue many times before on other boards and I just don't care to see the same old arguments get dragged out for another round. Not interested.

Things DO always change. Pick up a history book if you disbelieve me.

I think we're done here.

Eric Stoner
04-12-2007, 12:44 PM
[QUOTE=flickad;1036916]
Things DO always change. Pick up a history book if you disbelieve me.

You're right but they don't always change for the better.