Poll: Should only net taxpayers have the right to vote?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
33.33%
2 33.33%
No
66.67%
4 66.67%
Not sure
0%
0 0%
Total 6 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should only net taxpayers have the right to vote?
#16
(07-14-2019, 08:46 PM)Warsaw Wrote: "government in existing Muslim countries." is clearly connected with "ideological offensive"
How Muslims are going to somehow take over Europe?
https://amp.dw.com/en/saudi-arabia-expor...a-39618920
Saudi support isn’t going to take over any part of Europe. Just try to look at this through a logical point of view and not the lens of reactionary alarmism. What do you expect radicalized Muslims to do? Peaceful reform?

Conquest (lol)? Did you forget these countries had armies? Also, if only there was an intergovernmental military alliance between 29 North American and European countries. But that’s just a pipe dream.

Quote:Plus in Western Europe we have so many leftish useful idiots
Trump wants the US to be allies with Saudi Arabia. The republican President supports selling weapons to the regime actively committing genocide. News flash. If you’re blaming the left, you ARE a useful idiot.
Reply
#17
Saudi support isn’t going to accomplish take over anything in Europe. Just try to look at this through a logical point of view and not the lens of reactionary alarmism. What do you expect radicalized Muslims to do?

Did you forget these countries had armies? Also, if only there was an intergovernmental military alliance between 29 North American and European countries. But that’s just a pipe dream.
It's not a Hollywood Movie and war confrontation strategy is not always necessary.Especially at the beginning stage.But we have (at least in Western Europe)
very favorable Times for "ideological offensive"

BTW
"Historians still do not agree how the creation of a new religious movement on the Arabian Peninsula has led to such a significant wave of conquests and, in fact, completely changed the face of Asia, Europe and Africa. The Arabs came with their expansion for very favorable times. The two greatest powers of the then world, that is, the Eastern Roman Empire and Persia were freshly after a bloody and exhausting war....."

Donald Trump wants the US to be allies with Saudi Arabia. The republican President supports selling weapons to the regime actively committing genocide. News flash. You ARE a useful idiot.
And we speaking about Europe.So….
"Are the Hard Leftists Aligned with Radical Islamists?"Offcourse yes.
But“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”—for now.
Reply
#18
(07-15-2019, 04:36 AM)Warsaw Wrote: It's not a Hollywood Movie and war confrontation strategy is not always necessary.Especially at the beginning stage.But we have (at least in Western Europe)
very favorable Times for "ideological offensive"
Yeah, it’s not a Hollywood movie. Those scary Arabic bad guys aren’t defeating a developed country irl. For radical Islam to take over, war and conflict is always necessary.

Quote:The Arabs came with their expansion for very favorable times. The two greatest powers of the then world, that is, the Eastern Roman Empire and Persia were freshly after a bloody and exhausting war....."
Did you actually read this before posting? Islam spread through conquest (aka war). You’ve already admitted that’s not feasible. The two then greatest powers in the (western) world were “bloody and exhausted”. The western world is currently in a military alliance.

Quote:And we speaking about Europe.So….
So nothing. Allying with Saudi Arabia is a right wing, conservative position. Pretending like leftists are the ones doing it is bafflingly ignorant.

Quote:"Are the Hard Leftists Aligned with Radical Islamists?"Offcourse yes.
Of course no. Are hard right wingers aligned with radical islamists? Well they’re helping islamists commit genocide so...
Reply
#19
(07-15-2019, 04:55 AM)Fair Whisper Wrote:
(07-15-2019, 04:36 AM)Warsaw Wrote: It's not a Hollywood Movie and war confrontation strategy is not always necessary.Especially at the beginning stage.But we have (at least in Western Europe)
very favorable Times for "ideological offensive"
Yeah, it’s not a Hollywood movie. Those scary Arabic bad guys aren’t defeating a developed country irl. For radical Islam to take over, war and conflict is always necessary.

Quote:The Arabs came with their expansion for very favorable times. The two greatest powers of the then world, that is, the Eastern Roman Empire and Persia were freshly after a bloody and exhausting war....."
Did you actually read this before posting? Islam spread through conquest (aka war). You’ve already admitted that’s not feasible. The two then greatest powers in the (western) world were “bloody and exhausted”. The western world is currently are in military alliance.

Quote:"Are the Hard Leftists Aligned with Radical Islamists?"Offcourse yes.
Except hardline conservatives are literally allied with a radical Islamic country.

"Yeah, it’s not a Hollywood movie. Those scary Arabic bad guys aren’t defeating a developed country irl. For radical Islam to take over, war and conflict is always necessary. "
At the beginning stage war conflict is always necessary?

" Did you actually read this before posting? Islam spread through conquest (aka war). You’ve already admitted that’s not feasible. "
Did you actually read my post ?" war confrontation strategy is not always necessary *.Especially at the beginning stage"


This is calles as "demographic time bomb".
For example
"Although China signed a diplomatic border agreement with Russia, Moscow remains concerned about the prospect of a Sinification of its Far East. Is Chinese “manifest destiny” into Siberia part of a broader effort to reverse the Century of Humiliation and secure access to natural resources? While many Chinese wish to reunite these annexed territories, China’s relations with Russia are more nuanced than its relations with the rest of Asia as it cannot afford to lose a strategic partner at a time when it is deeply engaged in border disputes on multiple fronts throughout Asia. Therefore, the reclamation of Outer Manchuria will likely remain a long-term goal. This strategy is aimed to avoid straining Sino-Russian relations at a time when China is focused on higher-priority territorial disputes throughout Asia, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.
Russians are concerned about Chinese designs in the Russian Far East. Russian logic is that Beijing could decide to invade on the basis of Chinese historical and demographic claims. This philosophy is exactly the same as the one Russia adopted when it annexed Crimea. Russia is therefore contradicting its own policy by opposing China’s claim over the Russian Far East."
https://othjournal.com/2019/02/06/the-un...vironment/
long-term goal.



"Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern."
And look at the "“high” migration scenario "
https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/euro...opulation/
Yes high” migration scenario " is promote by leftish useful idiots from green part .
And yes European "demographic time bomb" in a long-term perspective is possible and logic strategy IMHO

"So nothing. Allying with Saudi Arabia is a right wing, conservative position. Pretending like leftists are the ones doing it is bafflingly ignorant. "

Tru .Well..You can create another thread about Trump presidenture (Saudi Arabia and Israel are de facto allies. So
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/till...ithout-him

"Of course no. Are hard right wingers aligned with radical islamists? Well they’re helping islamists commit genocide so... "
You are change the subject.
"supercultural socjety" is closery related with European "demographic time bomb" in a long-term perspective

https://www.therebel.media/german_green_...wn_country

But D.Trump
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium...-1.7490199
Reply
#20
Dude. Quotes.

(07-15-2019, 05:00 AM)Warsaw Wrote: "At the beginning stage war conflict is always necessary?
No. for radical Islam to take over, war and conflict is always necessary.

Quote:Did you actually read my post ?" war confrontation strategy is not always necessary *.Especially at the beginning stage"
Yeah I did. You posted a quote about the early spread of Islam through Arabia, Africa, Europe, and Asia. This was done through conquest. You posted a quote about the spread of Islam through warfare, even though you admit warfare is not feasible currently.

Quote:This is calles as "demographic time bomb".
For example
long-term goal.
And yes European "demographic time bomb" in a long-term perspective is possible and logic strategy IMHO
Firstly, this is what the Russians believe. Second, the concern they have is that China will invade due to demographic and historical claims. What is the equivalent to China that would invade them? Muslim birth rates would likely decrease like everyone else’s. They don’t have enough people for demographic claims. There’s is no evidence any significant portion of the Muslim population are extremist. They have no historical claims. This is not applicable.

Quote:"Of course no. Are hard right wingers aligned with radical islamists? Well they’re helping islamists commit genocide so... "
You are change the subject.
No it’s very relevant, by virtue of the fact that you’re claiming it’s leftists who are aligned with islamists when it’s right wingers giving them actual support.
Reply
#21
Love how Carnivora has borderline racists now.
[img=0x0]http://i68.tinypic.com/5u3d6w.jpg[/img]
[-] The following 2 users Like zergthe's post:
  • Kazanshin, Ryo
Reply
#22
@ zergthe, where do you get your "borderline racists" idea from?

AFAIK, Communism & Islam are both essentially non-racist in their ideological doctrines.
Reply
#23
No. for radical Islam to take over, war and conflict is always necessary.
In Western Europe at the beginning stage war conflict is necessary?Ofcourse not



"Yeah I did. You posted a quote about the early spread of Islam through Arabia, Africa, Europe, and Asia. This was done through conquest. You posted a quote about the spread of Islam through warfare, even though you admit warfare is not feasible currently."

The point is

"As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority "
At 40% "war and conflict" is possible


"Firstly, this is what the Russians believe. Second, the concern they have is that China will invade due to demographic and historical claims. What is the equivalent to China that would invade them?"
Demography.Not suprisingly,Russian and Chinese media spreading (true or false) claims about "Chinese presence in RFE" who " is actually growing or declining"


"Muslim birth rates would likely decrease like everyone else’s. They don’t have enough people for demographic claims. There’s is no evidence any significant portion of the Muslim population are extremist. They have no historical claims. This is not applicable. "
The point was about "demographic time bomb" in a long-term perspective'
Not about "historical claims " or " extremist"
Muslim birth rates would likely decrease like everyone else’s
It is possible but for now "have higher fertility" in Western Europe

"No it’s very relevant, by virtue of the fact that you’re claiming it’s leftists who are aligned with islamists when it’s right wingers giving them actual support. "
Only D.Trump and " right wingers giving them actual suport ."Really?The world is more complicated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian_Army
Anyway.
I thought that we speaking about left (pro imigrant) party and leftist allies.

7.4% is an insignificant number. Muslims make up 15% to 20% of the population in Israel and in India but they're clearly not in control of either country.
There is a huge difference between India&Israel and Western Europe (UE ) country.But yes 15% to 20% number is so small even for Western Europe.I agree.



"Also, immigration doesn't matter either. Because immigration only makes a population dramatically increase in the beginning but then levels off. For example, imagine hypothetically, that there are 300,000 Muslims in an European country with a population of 60 million. If 300,000 more Muslims arrive over the following year, that's an increase of 100% over that year. But if Muslims reach a population of 3 million in that same country (still only 5% of the population, inadequate for a 'conquest'), 300,000 arriving in the next year is an increase of only 10%.

If you see the demographics of Muslims in the UK from 1961 to present, you'll see that, as a % of the population, they increased 318% from 1961 to 1971, by 141% from 1971 to 1981, by 68% from 1981 to 1991, by 65% from 1991 to 2001, by 57% from 2001 to 2011 and by 7% from 2011 to 2017, thus clearly the rate of increase is becoming smaller."
But look at numer of register mosques 1961 seven 2015 1500 registered mosques.
Also "According to recent projections the Muslim population in the UK in the year 2050 is likely to number around 13 million.


If it is 8% in 2030, it's unlikely to be over 10% in 2050 because the rate of increase from 2030 to 2050 will likely be slower than the rate of increase from 2010 to 2030 for the reasons I explained above.

Moreover, clearly, future generations of Muslims are going to be less religious on average than their parents and grandparents were. In fact, people are slowly becoming less religious in Muslims countries themselves, with younger generations being less religious than their parents/grandparents.
Probably in Western Europe Muslims are going to be more religious than in some Muslims countries.

"Btw, the United States has directly and indirectly killed tens of millions of people across dozens of countries, some major reasons being that their government wasn't pro-US enough or because they had natural resources which the US wanted, since the end of WW2 up to the present day and there is every indication that this type of foreign policy will remain in place in the foreseeable future but it's easy to look at someone else's evil and ignore your own. "
First of all.
You can create new thread about "United States foreign policy"
And yes U S invasion of Irag destabilize the Middle East
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)