Re: It's the Demography Stupid
-
From It's the Demography, Stupid
MARK STEYN wrote:
Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction.
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
-
From It's the Demography, Stupid
MARK STEYN wrote:
Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction.
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
The area of its implementation has covered a large portion of the Earth for 1300+ years, you could use that as a starting point for your analysis...
Quran Lectures (updated 1/3/06) "They are MUSLIM. It does not matter how you split it up: all msulims (so they say) see every other muslim as a brother, regardless of origin or nationality." -legalAlien. Alhamdullah for the blessing of Islam
-
The area of its implementation has covered a large portion of the Earth for 1300+ years, you could use that as a starting point for your analysis...
Quran Lectures (updated 1/3/06) "They are MUSLIM. It does not matter how you split it up: all msulims (so they say) see every other muslim as a brother, regardless of origin or nationality." -legalAlien. Alhamdullah for the blessing of Islam
A.A. wrote:
The area of its implementation has covered a large portion of the Earth for 1300+ years, you could use that as a starting point for your analysis...
What are you talking about ? What analysis ?
-
A.A. wrote:
The area of its implementation has covered a large portion of the Earth for 1300+ years, you could use that as a starting point for your analysis...
What are you talking about ? What analysis ?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
What are you talking about ? What analysis ?
This was in reference to your question:
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
Quran Lectures (updated 1/3/06) "They are MUSLIM. It does not matter how you split it up: all msulims (so they say) see every other muslim as a brother, regardless of origin or nationality." -legalAlien. Alhamdullah for the blessing of Islam
-
From It's the Demography, Stupid
MARK STEYN wrote:
Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction.
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
YES
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
From It's the Demography, Stupid
MARK STEYN wrote:
Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction.
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
Mark Steyn is a moron. He used to write for the National Post and somehow he managed to get a position/guest author rights at the Wall Street Journal. How? I have no idea. The point is that he craves attention and so he writes these long, long, "shocking" articles in order to justify his existence of a journalist. I wouldn't take what he writes too seriously - he is afterall, just a journalist with an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Mark Steyn is a moron. He used to write for the National Post and somehow he managed to get a position/guest author rights at the Wall Street Journal. How? I have no idea. The point is that he craves attention and so he writes these long, long, "shocking" articles in order to justify his existence of a journalist. I wouldn't take what he writes too seriously - he is afterall, just a journalist with an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
And yet he makes sense, regardless of his background or motivation. And I'm pretty sure that a paper with the stature of the Wall Street journal are not in the habit of publishing articles that could reflect badly on them in any way or did not contain sufficient truth to be defensible in court and will have an army of lawyers stopping them from publishing anything really stupid. Perhaps you should concentrate on refuting the arguments he makes before you attack him as a pretext to rubbish his views.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
What are you talking about ? What analysis ?
This was in reference to your question:
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
Quran Lectures (updated 1/3/06) "They are MUSLIM. It does not matter how you split it up: all msulims (so they say) see every other muslim as a brother, regardless of origin or nationality." -legalAlien. Alhamdullah for the blessing of Islam
Are you saying that by dint of islam already covering a large geographic area for several hundreds of years is justification, of itself, to islamisize the whole planet?
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
And yet he makes sense, regardless of his background or motivation. And I'm pretty sure that a paper with the stature of the Wall Street journal are not in the habit of publishing articles that could reflect badly on them in any way or did not contain sufficient truth to be defensible in court and will have an army of lawyers stopping them from publishing anything really stupid. Perhaps you should concentrate on refuting the arguments he makes before you attack him as a pretext to rubbish his views.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
legalAlien wrote:
Perhaps you should concentrate on refuting the arguments he makes before you attack him as a pretext to rubbish his views.
Oh, I think I'm qualified to criticise him both personally and professionally. I read his "articles" for over 10 years and debated them constantly with others. Like I said: he's a moron on many levels and I'm not prepared to reproduce them here. I'm not saying I disagree with the article, but he presents it sensationally. I have a dislike for that kind (loud-mouth) of journalism. Besides, it's a guest column. He's not even employed by the WSJ. That means that they don't necessarily endorse or condemn his views. His website is here[^]. There's also an interview with him here[^]. Like I said, I just have a distaste for his loud-mouth sensationalism. There are better ways of saying things if you want people to pay you serious attention. I think he raises important points, but it's the way he raises them that rubs me the wrong way.
-
From It's the Demography, Stupid
MARK STEYN wrote:
Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction.
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
Yes, and from 1939 to 1945 the remainder of the west stood up and destroyed the Third Reich. It is obviously long past time to do precisely the same thing for Sharia. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself" -- modified at 5:13 Friday 3rd February, 2006
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
YES
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistpeterchen wrote:
YES
Hmm! Perhaps it's preferrence for what's homegrown; Or you are blond :-D
-
From It's the Demography, Stupid
MARK STEYN wrote:
Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction.
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
First, I'm from Germany. I want to relativate your statement, not because I want to play down the third reich but to answer your question. Well in the third reich 6 or 8 million people were killed. In Hungary the government (which was set in by the german nazis) killed even over 6 million people for itself. In Stalins Russia over twenty million people were killed. It was no phenomenon of germany it was a phenomenon of the time. The other countries let hitler do more than they should. In the first years they could have stopped him, but they thought he would be a good man against russia. So they let him start cage jews, gays or having just another opion. When there is a regime or a religion with restricts human rights, then the world must do something. If we don't there could be a "forth reich". And no country is immune against being corrupted and perverted, if people don't watch. I think there could be scenarios with a much worse case... Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ An bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
legalAlien wrote:
Perhaps you should concentrate on refuting the arguments he makes before you attack him as a pretext to rubbish his views.
Oh, I think I'm qualified to criticise him both personally and professionally. I read his "articles" for over 10 years and debated them constantly with others. Like I said: he's a moron on many levels and I'm not prepared to reproduce them here. I'm not saying I disagree with the article, but he presents it sensationally. I have a dislike for that kind (loud-mouth) of journalism. Besides, it's a guest column. He's not even employed by the WSJ. That means that they don't necessarily endorse or condemn his views. His website is here[^]. There's also an interview with him here[^]. Like I said, I just have a distaste for his loud-mouth sensationalism. There are better ways of saying things if you want people to pay you serious attention. I think he raises important points, but it's the way he raises them that rubs me the wrong way.
thealj wrote:
Like I said: he's a moron on many levels and I'm not prepared to reproduce them here.
Might be interesting if you were to: I'd appreciate a different viewpoint.
thealj wrote:
I'm not saying I disagree with the article, but he presents it sensationally. I have a dislike for that kind (loud-mouth) of journalism.
As do I but I attempted to read the meat of the article whilst ignoring the rest.
thealj wrote:
Besides, it's a guest column. He's not even employed by the WSJ. That means that they don't necessarily endorse or condemn his views.
I'm still pretty sure that they would not wish to be associated with anythign that could bring them into disrepute or land them with protests or lawsuits.
thealj wrote:
There are better ways of saying things if you want people to pay you serious attention. I think he raises important points, but it's the way he raises them that rubs me the wrong way.
Fair enough: as a related aside I read the UK Daily Mail every morning on the train. It is well known as a conservative paper with sensationalist headlines. But once you get past all the bluff and bluster some of the articles are well written and informative.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
legalAlien wrote:
Perhaps you should concentrate on refuting the arguments he makes before you attack him as a pretext to rubbish his views.
Oh, I think I'm qualified to criticise him both personally and professionally. I read his "articles" for over 10 years and debated them constantly with others. Like I said: he's a moron on many levels and I'm not prepared to reproduce them here. I'm not saying I disagree with the article, but he presents it sensationally. I have a dislike for that kind (loud-mouth) of journalism. Besides, it's a guest column. He's not even employed by the WSJ. That means that they don't necessarily endorse or condemn his views. His website is here[^]. There's also an interview with him here[^]. Like I said, I just have a distaste for his loud-mouth sensationalism. There are better ways of saying things if you want people to pay you serious attention. I think he raises important points, but it's the way he raises them that rubs me the wrong way.
thealj wrote:
I just have a distaste for his loud-mouth sensationalism. There are better ways of saying things if you want people to pay you serious attention. I think he raises important points, but it's the way he raises them that rubs me the wrong way.
That amazes me. We are awash in a tidal wave of sensationalism about US christian fundamentalism, Globla warming, Bush the idiot, Bush the Hun, etc, etc. But let some guy rather brilliantly point out a far more significant, far less reported, and far more supportable crisis facing the west and only then do you become concerned about sensationalism. The population numbers he cites are irrefutable. A population that is halving every generation or so is not long for this world. One that is doubling every generation or so is one that will displace the other. And when that population goes, the odds are that its most cherised culturally artifacts will go with it. To not accept that obvious conclusion in order to fixate on the perils of christian fundamentalism is utter insanity. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
Yes, and from 1939 to 1945 the remainder of the west stood up and destroyed the Third Reich. It is obviously long past time to do precisely the same thing for Sharia. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself" -- modified at 5:13 Friday 3rd February, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, and from 1939 to 1945 the remainder of the west stood up and destroyed the Third Reich. It is obviously long past time to do precisely the same thing for Sharia.
AFAIK there is no Sharia in Indonesia, Turkey, Syria (Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population). And partial sharia in most other Muslim countries. Full sharia exists only in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and Libya. India uses sharia for matters related to Muslim personal laws.
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
From 1933 to 1945, most of Europe was under the Third Reich. They killed people for being gay. They killed people for being a leftist. They killed people for being a liberal. Heck, they even killed you for not being blonde. Final toll 6 to 8 million. Could Sharia be a lot worse ?
First, I'm from Germany. I want to relativate your statement, not because I want to play down the third reich but to answer your question. Well in the third reich 6 or 8 million people were killed. In Hungary the government (which was set in by the german nazis) killed even over 6 million people for itself. In Stalins Russia over twenty million people were killed. It was no phenomenon of germany it was a phenomenon of the time. The other countries let hitler do more than they should. In the first years they could have stopped him, but they thought he would be a good man against russia. So they let him start cage jews, gays or having just another opion. When there is a regime or a religion with restricts human rights, then the world must do something. If we don't there could be a "forth reich". And no country is immune against being corrupted and perverted, if people don't watch. I think there could be scenarios with a much worse case... Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ An bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
First, I'm from Germany. I want to relativate your statement, not because I want to play down the third reich but to answer your question.
Sorry for bringing this up. :rose: Just pointing out that intolerance does not always come with a brown (or black) skin. There were and there are other varieties.
ihoecken wrote:
When there is a regime or a religion with restricts human rights, then the world must do something. If we don't there could be a "forth reich". And no country is immune against being corrupted and perverted, if people don't watch.
Exactly!
-
thealj wrote:
I just have a distaste for his loud-mouth sensationalism. There are better ways of saying things if you want people to pay you serious attention. I think he raises important points, but it's the way he raises them that rubs me the wrong way.
That amazes me. We are awash in a tidal wave of sensationalism about US christian fundamentalism, Globla warming, Bush the idiot, Bush the Hun, etc, etc. But let some guy rather brilliantly point out a far more significant, far less reported, and far more supportable crisis facing the west and only then do you become concerned about sensationalism. The population numbers he cites are irrefutable. A population that is halving every generation or so is not long for this world. One that is doubling every generation or so is one that will displace the other. And when that population goes, the odds are that its most cherised culturally artifacts will go with it. To not accept that obvious conclusion in order to fixate on the perils of christian fundamentalism is utter insanity. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
That amazes me. We are awash in a tidal wave of sensationalism about US christian fundamentalism, Globla warming, Bush the idiot, Bush the Hun, etc, etc. But let some guy rather brilliantly point out a far more significant, far less reported, and far more supportable crisis facing the west and only then do you become concerned about sensationalism.
Sure, but it's sensationalism that is most easily dismissed and ignored. Rational and well-thought out arguments are the most difficult to dismiss. More of that is needed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The population numbers he cites are irrefutable. A population that is halving every generation or so is not long for this world. One that is doubling every generation or so is one that will displace the other. And when that population goes, the odds are that its most cherised culturally artifacts will go with it. To not accept that obvious conclusion in order to fixate on the perils of christian fundamentalism is utter insanity.
I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics, but population growth rates (discounting immigration) are not negative to the extent of a 50% decrease over a generation. If population so concerns you, you should worry about China and India, not the Arab countries.
-
ihoecken wrote:
First, I'm from Germany. I want to relativate your statement, not because I want to play down the third reich but to answer your question.
Sorry for bringing this up. :rose: Just pointing out that intolerance does not always come with a brown (or black) skin. There were and there are other varieties.
ihoecken wrote:
When there is a regime or a religion with restricts human rights, then the world must do something. If we don't there could be a "forth reich". And no country is immune against being corrupted and perverted, if people don't watch.
Exactly!
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Sorry for bringing this up. Just pointing out that intolerance does not always come with a brown (or black) skin. There were and there are other varieties.
Totally agree. It's sad but fact. There are many variations of intolerance and there are all to be beyond the pale. ------------------------------ An bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature! -- modified at 7:33 Friday 3rd February, 2006
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That amazes me. We are awash in a tidal wave of sensationalism about US christian fundamentalism, Globla warming, Bush the idiot, Bush the Hun, etc, etc. But let some guy rather brilliantly point out a far more significant, far less reported, and far more supportable crisis facing the west and only then do you become concerned about sensationalism.
Sure, but it's sensationalism that is most easily dismissed and ignored. Rational and well-thought out arguments are the most difficult to dismiss. More of that is needed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The population numbers he cites are irrefutable. A population that is halving every generation or so is not long for this world. One that is doubling every generation or so is one that will displace the other. And when that population goes, the odds are that its most cherised culturally artifacts will go with it. To not accept that obvious conclusion in order to fixate on the perils of christian fundamentalism is utter insanity.
I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics, but population growth rates (discounting immigration) are not negative to the extent of a 50% decrease over a generation. If population so concerns you, you should worry about China and India, not the Arab countries.
thealj wrote:
If population so concerns you, you should worry about China and India, not the Arab countries
You know "I like Chinese" by Monty Python? "I like Chinese. There's nine hundred million of them in the world today. You'd better learn to like them; that's what I say." Well just a joke, but I think no one should fear other countries because of their big population. That fan the fear and prejudices. (You didn't said that but I wanted to point out.) Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ An bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
thealj wrote:
If population so concerns you, you should worry about China and India, not the Arab countries
You know "I like Chinese" by Monty Python? "I like Chinese. There's nine hundred million of them in the world today. You'd better learn to like them; that's what I say." Well just a joke, but I think no one should fear other countries because of their big population. That fan the fear and prejudices. (You didn't said that but I wanted to point out.) Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ An bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
"I like Chinese. There's nine hundred million of them in the world today. You'd better learn to like them; that's what I say."
Prophet Cleese. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!