Fitna - have you seen it? Any comments?

unkel

Linky

wes

Will just copy my post from politics forum:

Watched a few minutes of it. At best its bad propoganda. In fact its propoganda in a grand old far right European tradition.

Of course, Wilders true intention eventually comes out, when he goes on about Muslims, will some how take over Europe (the Islamisation nonsense and the rubbish about population). Has everyone forgotten the fact that European armies (e.g. UK) are currently occupying 2 Muslim countries? So some how Muslims are the ones who are in danger of taking over Europe, even with the European armies occupying Muslims countries. Complete nonsense.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Are thoses Suras in context? Would be interested in Muslim opinions on them & the video's presentation of them.

wes

The comment is free article by Ali Etriaz touches on the Sura's:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2008/03/the_fitna_farce.html

blackthorn

I haven't seen it yet. Is it any good?

unkel

wes wrote: »

Watched a few minutes of it. At best its bad propoganda. In fact its propoganda in a grand old far right European tradition

I get the feeling your post is a bit emotional and angry. Are you upset by it? Maybe you posted after only watching a few minutes of it and not really thinking about it / reflecting on it?

How can you claim things like "fact" and "propaganda" while you've only seen a bit of it?

Have you seen the full film since (it's only about 15 minutes iirc)?

Any new comments?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i thought it was interesting enough until about halfway through when 'omgz, the muslims are breeding' kicked in.

can't say I was surprised though

unkel

blackthorn wrote: »

I haven't seen it yet. Is it any good?

Any good? In what way? Most people (including myself) were afraid it was going to be some slagging off Islam as a bad, cruel, retard and backward religion, but it is not like that at all! Why don't you watch it yourself and make up your own mind?

wes

unkel wrote: »

I get the feeling your post is a bit emotional and angry. Are you upset by it? Maybe you posted after only watching a few minutes of it and not really thinking about it / reflecting on it?

How can you claim things like "fact" and "propaganda" while you've only seen a bit of it?

Have you seen the full film since (it's only about 15 minutes iirc)?

Any new comments?

Angry, hardly. Same old rubbish touted again and again. Its a poor You Tube video, and thats being very kind. I seen enough to make up my mind on it.

How many times does one need to see the same old rubbish? The population nonsense, I pointed out is total scare mongering nonsense and the Islamisation nonsenses is just that. Its the same stuff they said about every minority in Europe. So Wilders true intentions are very clear, he is the same ilk we have always seen of the far right.

unkel

wes wrote: »

Angry, hardly. Same old rubbish touted again and again. Its a poor You Tube video, and thats being very kind. I seen enough to make up my mind on it.

How many times does one need to see the same old rubbish? The population nonsense, I pointed out is total scare mongering nonsense and the Islamisation nonsenses is just that. Its the same stuff they said about every minority in Europe. So Wilders true intentions are very clear, he is the same ilk we have always seen of the far right.

Sorry, you're not making that much sense to me. Did you have a (stiff) drink before posting?

wes

unkel wrote: »

Sorry, you're not making that much sense to me. Did you have a (stiff) drink before posting?

Perhaps, you reading and comprehension skills need a little work? Just a friendly suggestion . Pi$$ taking aside, yeah my post there was pretty terrible.

So, Just to explain things in simpler terms. There is a bit in the movie, where Wilders goes on about Muslim population growth and the suggestion is that Muslims will eventually take over (Europe). This is the same sort of things that far right groups use to say about other minorities groups. Strangely there predictions didn't come to pass.

unkel

wes wrote: »

There is a bit in the movie, where Wilders goes on about Muslim population growth and the suggestion is that Muslims will eventually take over (Europe). This is the same sort of things that far right groups use to say about other minorities groups. Strangely there predictions didn't come to pass.

I agree with you there. It's the kind of politics that plays on peoples fears.

Suff

To me as a Muslim the movie is concentrating on the negative actions of some followers of the Islamic faith. which is fine by me since we do it all the time. however using some lines from the Holy Quraan out of context and after showing images of blowed up trains and dead people is a real indication of how shallow the film's maker information and understanding of the faith and its teachings. which is easy to point out once you view the movie.

Without being pregidous in any shape or form, If some other film maker decided to produce a similar concept movie on either Christianity or Judaism it would need to come out in a Boxset to cover the !

I'm sure we can all agree that thought out the ages many people have used the name of religion to fit their own personal/ political agenda. it's been used in the name of Islam, Christainty and Judaism. the only way we can stop this is by simply having an open and constructive dialogue between the different faiths to help make a clear understanding of each other beliefs, to help eliminate the typical cliches that are now part of ones understanding of a faith.

EamonnKeane

You could pull quotes from the Gospels if you liked:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Mt 11:34-36

Hero Of College

Saw it, thought it was brilliant.

Bottle_of_Smoke

EamonnKeane wrote: »

You could pull quotes from the Gospels if you liked:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Mt 11:34-36

Doesn't make them any more reasonable

Hero Of College

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Doesn't make them any more reasonable

To mention nothing of the fact that Mohammeds input into the Koran was a lot more than that which Jesus had into the Gospel and Scripture.

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

To mention nothing of the fact that Mohammeds input into the Koran was a lot more than that which Jesus had into the Gospel and Scripture.

Christian's still believe the Bible to be the word of God. In fact, someone stated exactly that in elsewhere on the forum.

Schuhart

EamonnKeane wrote: »

You could pull quotes from the Gospels if you liked:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Mt 11:34-36

I don't think the equivalence is valid. The simple fact is that Jesus isn't calling on his followers to take up a sword and fight a war. On the other hand, when Mohammed delivers the message in the Quran to kill the unbelievers after giving them an opportunity to convert, he actually was instructing his followers to kill a particular group of unbelievers after giving them an opportunity to convert - its not a question of it being taken out of context. It is simply a fact that the life of Mohammed and Jesus as presented in the Quran one the one hand and the Gospels on the other are not the same and they are not depicted as reacting to the same kind of threat in the same kind of way.

Yes, there's an amount of the kind of thing you find in the Quran if you read the old Testament. Yes, Jesus says he comes to fulfil the law and not to change it. But, notwithstanding that, I'd ask if anyone can identify a point in the Gospels where he's depicted as leading an assault on his enemies.

That's not to say one is right, or the other wrong. Maybe we should paint ourselves blue and worship Wotan. I'm simply questioning that this equivalence of violent quotes actually holds up to scrutiny.

Just as a footnote, I haven't actually bothered to watch Fitna as I've probably seen and read enough material about Islam at this stage from a wide enough variety of sources to have made up my own mind.

Hero Of College

wes wrote: »

Christian's still believe the Bible to be the word of God. In fact, someone stated exactly that in elsewhere on the forum.

What Christians believe from one man to the next differs greatly. In fact, Muslims are always making the same argument "ooohhh..we're not all radicals".....:mad: Don't be putting words into my mouth. I believe in Jesus, and his teachings as a man. What came after or before him I do not attribute to him- even if I should, per the Church.

We know Mohammed incited war. Jesus did not. Its all good of course- there is nothing wrong with inciting war, per se. If Jesus incited war and Mohammed did not then I would not think any less or any more of either man.

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

What Christians believe from one man to the next differs greatly. In fact, Muslims are always making the same argument "ooohhh..we're not all radicals".....:mad: Don't be putting words into my mouth. I believe in Jesus, and his teachings as a man. What came after or before him I do not attribute to him- even if I should, per the Church.

Isn't most of Christianity founded on whats in the Bible? Fair enough you take a different perspective.

I am not trying to say that all Christian are war mongers or anything like that. Still for a lot of Christians the Bible would be a significant part of there faith, in the same way the Koran would be for Muslims. Each may take different things from the same book, but wouldn't the vast majority hold that book as the basis of there faith?

Btw, I was not trying to put words in anyones mouth. I was always under the impression that the Bible was hugely important text, from which Christians take there beliefs from. Not did I say all Christians believe, the same thing or take the same from the Bible. Nor did I insinuate that your or all Christians were radicals of any description. So your argument here is largely pointless, as I never said what you think I did.

Hero Of College wrote: »

We know Mohammed incited war. Jesus did not. Its all good of course- there is nothing wrong with inciting war, per se. If Jesus incited war and Mohammed did not then I would not think any less or any more of either man.

The Bible isn't just about Jesus. There is as much violence within its pages as the Koran. I am making a comparison of 2 different texts as opposed, to comparing 2 men. If we are to cherry pick isolated passages from the Koran, the point being made is that the same can be done with the Bible.

This does not mean that those passages taken in isolation necessarily represent the beliefs of Muslims or Christians, just that the same can be done to both.

Getting back to the film, the argument being made by Wilders focuses solely on religion, does a large dis-service to what Islamic radicalism is about, as while it has religious elements and they should not be ignored, but at the same time other elements should not be ignored. To discuss this topic without referring to the events in Iraq, Bosnia, Palestine, Womens issues, economics, western backed dictators, western backed coups, Islamism, creation of states in the Middle East after World War 1 and then creation of various countries after the 2nd World War as colonialism was ending etc, does the topic a huge dis-service and over simplifies a highly complex topic.

What Wilder argument boils down to is an anti-immigrant argument (which hardly makes sense as there are plenty of non-Muslim immigrants), shameless self promotion and a hefty dose of old time far right scare mongering. Wilder doesn't want to talk about the whole topic at all, but rather a simplified caricature of it instead, that is to be used for his own purposes.

Schuhart

wes wrote: »

If we are to cherry pick isolated passages from the Koran, the point being made is that the same can be done with the Bible.

Indeed, an amount of this circles around the Old Testament books of the Bible which have plenty of feuding. I just think there is still a significance in the very real contrast between the depiction of the central figure in each faith. You can cherry pick passages about Jesus, but they really are cherry picked out of context. (Its like that old joke about the Bible saying 'there is no god' when the full quote is 'the fool says in his heart "there is no god"').

As far as I know, the most violence Jesus ever gets up to is driving money changers out of the temple with a whip. There's no reports of any fatalities or of unrepentant money changers being pursued to the death. I won't labour the point about Mohammed, but the contrast should be pretty obvious and (it seems to me) not explained in terms of stuff being taken out of context as frequently the statements just mean what they say.

Hero Of College

wes wrote: »

Isn't most of Christianity founded on whats in the Bible? Fair enough you take a different perspective.

I am not trying to say that all Christian are war mongers or anything like that. Still for a lot of Christians the Bible would be a significant part of there faith, in the same way the Koran would be for Muslims. Each may take different things from the same book, but wouldn't the vast majority hold that book as the basis of there faith?

Btw, I was not trying to put words in anyones mouth. I was always under the impression that the Bible was hugely important text, from which Christians take there beliefs from. Not did I say all Christians believe, the same thing or take the same from the Bible. Nor did I insinuate that your or all Christians were radicals of any description. So your argument here is largely pointless, as I never said what you think I did.



The Bible isn't just about Jesus. There is as much violence within its pages as the Koran. I am making a comparison of 2 different texts as opposed, to comparing 2 men. If we are to cherry pick isolated passages from the Koran, the point being made is that the same can be done with the Bible.

This does not mean that those passages taken in isolation necessarily represent the beliefs of Muslims or Christians, just that the same can be done to both.

Getting back to the film, the argument being made by Wilders focuses solely on religion, does a large dis-service to what Islamic radicalism is about, as while it has religious elements and they should not be ignored, but at the same time other elements should not be ignored. To discuss this topic without referring to the events in Iraq, Bosnia, Palestine, Womens issues, economics, western backed dictators, western backed coups, Islamism, creation of states in the Middle East after World War 1 and then creation of various countries after the 2nd World War as colonialism was ending etc, does the topic a huge dis-service and over simplifies a highly complex topic.

What Wilder argument boils down to is an anti-immigrant argument (which hardly makes sense as there are plenty of non-Muslim immigrants), shameless self promotion and a hefty dose of old time far right scare mongering. Wilder doesn't want to talk about the whole topic at all, but rather a simplified caricature of it instead, that is to be used for his own purposes.

Thats just the point. The Bible isn't just about Jesus, but Chrstianity is ALL ABOUT JESUS. Therefore, as a Christian, the bible is only of a certain significance. Compare and contrast that to Islam, which dictates that the Koran is the very word of God dictated to Mohammed by Allah. Mohammed is nothing without the Koran, and Islam is nothing without Mohammed. Not so with Christianity- whose central focus is JESUS and his teachings. Thus what the Bible says about war or pillage cannot be attributed to Christians per se in the same direct fashion that the content of the Koran can be to Muslims-simply because Jesus does not claim {and history shows us anyways} that he did not write the bible under instruction from God.

Ekancone

Rubbish film.

Ekancone

wes wrote: »

Perhaps, you reading and comprehension skills need a little work? Just a friendly suggestion . Pi$$ taking aside, yeah my post there was pretty terrible.

So, Just to explain things in simpler terms. There is a bit in the movie, where Wilders goes on about Muslim population growth and the suggestion is that Muslims will eventually take over (Europe). This is the same sort of things that far right groups use to say about other minorities groups. Strangely there predictions didn't come to pass.

Does Bernard Lewis belong to the far right?

wes

Schuhart wrote: »

Indeed, an amount of this circles around the Old Testament books of the Bible which have plenty of feuding. I just think there is still a significance in the very real contrast between the depiction of the central figure in each faith. You can cherry pick passages about Jesus, but they really are cherry picked out of context. (Its like that old joke about the Bible saying 'there is no god' when the full quote is 'the fool says in his heart "there is no god"').

As far as I know, the most violence Jesus ever gets up to is driving money changers out of the temple with a whip. There's no reports of any fatalities or of unrepentant money changers being pursued to the death. I won't labour the point about Mohammed, but the contrast should be pretty obvious and (it seems to me) not explained in terms of stuff being taken out of context as frequently the statements just mean what they say.

The point I am making is exactly that, things can be taken out of context in the Bible. The comparison being made by people is between 2 books and not Jesus and Muhammad. Basically we are talking about 2 different things.

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

Thats just the point. The Bible isn't just about Jesus, but Chrstianity is ALL ABOUT JESUS. Therefore, as a Christian, the bible is only of a certain significance. Compare and contrast that to Islam, which dictates that the Koran is the very word of God dictated to Mohammed by Allah. Mohammed is nothing without the Koran, and Islam is nothing without Mohammed. Not so with Christianity- whose central focus is JESUS and his teachings. Thus what the Bible says about war or pillage cannot be attributed to Christians per se in the same direct fashion that the content of the Koran can be to Muslims-simply because Jesus does not claim {and history shows us anyways} that he did not write the bible under instruction from God.

So your basically saying the Bible isn't that important to Christians? Fair enough, that news to me.

Ekancone

wes wrote: »

So your basically saying the Bible isn't that important to Christians? Fair enough, that news to me.

He didn't say that at all.

wes

daithifleming wrote: »

Does Bernard Lewis belong to the far right?

Don't know who he is, so don't know.

However, if he is making the same population argument Wilders is, he is certainly repeating views associated with the far right. As this argument has been made about other minorities in Europe, typically by the far right.

**EDIT**

Just did a quick Google, and he seems to a Orientalist and not to mention a denier of the Armenian genocide and a supporter of the illegal war of aggression against Iraq. So calling him a right winger in foreign policy terms seems apt to me.

Ekancone

wes wrote: »

Don't know who he is, so don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

Bernard Lewis (born May 31, 1916 in London, England) is a British -American historian, Orientalist, and political commentator. He is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He specializes in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West, and is especially famous in academic circles for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire. Lewis is a widely-read expert on the Middle East, and has been described as the West’s leading specialist on that region. His advice has been frequently sought by policymakers, including the current Bush administration. In the Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing Martin Kramer, whose Ph.D. thesis was directed by Lewis, considered that, over a 60-year career, he has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East."

wes wrote: »

However, if he is making the same population argument Wilders is, he is certainly repeating views associated with the far right. As this argument has been made about other minorities in Europe, typically by the far right.

So if he is drawing just one conclusion that the far-right also uses, although for entirely different agendas, that means he is of the far-right? Don't you think that is a little overly simplistic?

wes

daithifleming wrote: »

So if he is drawing just one conclusion that the far-right also uses, although for entirely different agendas, that means he is of the far-right? Don't you think that is a little overly simplistic?

I never said holding that singular views make him far right, just that it could give the impression that he is one.

His other views however, certainly make him seem like a typically right winger and his genocide denial certainly seem pretty far right to me.

Ekancone

wes wrote: »

I never said holding that singular views make him far right, just that it could give the impression that he is one.

His other views however, certainly make him seem like a typically right winger and his genocide denial certainly seem pretty far right to me.

No, thats just twisting the facts to make it look the way you want it to look. His rebuttal to such ludicrous claims:

There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempts to prevent it, which were not very successful. Yes there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain but a million may well be likely, ...[and] the issue is not whether the massacres happened or not, but rather if these massacres were as a result of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government... there is no evidence for such a decision

Yet you try to make him look like David Irving. You must face up to the reality that some people, like Bernard Lewis, can look at the demographic trend in Europe and say that it may become Islamic by the end of the century. That does not make said person a fanatical xenophobe.

wes

daithifleming wrote: »

No, thats just twisting the facts to make it look the way you want it to look. His rebuttal to such ludicrous claims:

Yet you try to make him look like David Irving. You must face up to the reality that some people, like Bernard Lewis, can look at the demographic trend in Europe and say that it may become Islamic by the end of the century. That does not make said person a fanatical xenophobe.

His rebuttal is a very bad joke. It was a genocide and he is denying it. As for there being no evidence, take a look at Taner Akcam's (a Turkish historian) book "A Shameful Act", which provides plenty evidence. So the comparison is apt in my opinion.

When someone start repeating the same rubbish as "fanatical xenophobes", its hard not to associate him with them. Then there are his other views as I mentioned earlier. Simply put the demographic argument has been made about plenty of other minorities in the past, all by the far right. The current argument is exactly the same.

Ekancone

wes wrote: »

His rebuttal is a very bad joke. It was a genocide and he is denying it. As for there being no evidence, take a look at Taner Akcam's (a Turkish historian) book "A Shameful Act", which provides plenty evidence. So the comparison is apt in my opinion.

Well I don't know enough about the subject to have a strong opinion on the events, but Bernard Lewis does not have a history of fascist leanings. Quoting a couple of controversial comments is not going to change that. In fact, I regard Lewis' documenting of Islamic history from a Western perspective to be very progressive.

wes wrote: »

When someone start repeating the same rubbish as "fanatical xenophobes", its hard not to associate him with them. Then there are his other views as I mentioned earlier. Simply put the demographic argument has been made about plenty of other minorities in the past, all by the far right. The current argument is exactly the same.

This assertion that Europe could be populated by a Muslim majority within a century is not complete fabrication, and it is not exclusive to fascist circles, sorry to disappoint you. I suppose if I went and shaved my head tommorrow, does that make me a neo-nazi because they tend to have shaved heads as well? Of course not, people can discuss similar issues but can have entirely different agendas. I think the demographic argument is a valid one, and is unique compared to others due to the nature of white european reproduction patterns today. I have no agenda in believing this, I'm just looking at the evidence presented.

wes

daithifleming wrote: »

Well I don't know enough about the subject to have a strong opinion on the events, but Bernard Lewis does not have a history of fascist leanings. Quoting a couple of controversial comments is not going to change that. In fact, I regard Lewis' documenting of Islamic history from a Western perspective to be very progressive.

Well, he is considered to be a Orientalist by many, so progressive would be a stretch imho.

daithifleming wrote: »

This assertion that Europe could be populated by a Muslim majority within a century is not complete fabrication, and it is not exclusive to fascist circles, sorry to disappoint you. I suppose if I went and shaved my head tommorrow, does that make me a neo-nazi because they tend to have shaved heads as well? Of course not, people can discuss similar issues but can have entirely different agendas. I think the demographic argument is a valid one, and is unique compared to others due to the nature of white european reproduction patterns today. I have no agenda in believing this, I'm just looking at the evidence presented.

The argument presented isn't unique. Its the same old thing. Btw, there a "White" Muslims. Not all Muslims are non-White, what does colour have to do with anything in anyways? Strange that you mention colour at all, isn't it? As I said earlier, same old argument, just with a new coat of paint.

**EDIT**

An interesting review of the Book America Alone By Mark Steyn, reviewed by Joahnn Hari. The review, raises several good points about this topic.

Ekancone

wes wrote: »

Well, he is considered to be a Orientalist by many, so progressive would be a stretch imho.



The argument presented isn't unique. Its the same old thing. Btw, there a "White" Muslims. Not all Muslims are non-White, what does colour have to do with anything in anyways? Strange that you mention colour at all, isn't it? As I said earlier, same old argument, just with a new coat of paint.

**EDIT**

An interesting review of the Book America Alone By Mark Steyn, reviewed by Joahnn Hari. The review, raises several good points about this topic.

Ah you know what i meant. It has nothing to do with colour. Interesting review, btw, but America is hardly the last bastion of western values. If anything, that is the very place where they are being eroded.

wes

daithifleming wrote: »

Ah you know what i meant. It has nothing to do with colour. Interesting review, btw, but America is hardly the last bastion of western values. If anything, that is the very place where they are being eroded.

Alright fair enough .

I don't think everyone who holds the view is necessarily far right.

Steyn, seems to pop up whenever people mention this particular argument, hence why I taught the review would be appropriate. As from what I seen, quite a few people in Europe refer to the guy and his book.

Ekancone

Anyway.

Fitna = **** film.

Schuhart

daithifleming wrote: »

Anyway.

Fitna = **** film.

I'm resisting the feeling I should watch it, just because life is too short and I have a feeling it will be tripe. On the other hand, I have read a book by Bernard Lewis and, in fairness, he does actually put in the legwork in terms of his research. My impression was that he would be on the right - but not an extreme right ideologue. His work is actually within the realms of decent and meaningful discussion.

That said, I think Malise Ruthven best manages to write about Islam in a way that makes you feel he is employing as much objectivity as a human is capable of.

Hero Of College

wes wrote: »

Alright fair enough .

I don't think everyone who holds the view is necessarily far right.

Steyn, seems to pop up whenever people mention this particular argument, hence why I taught the review would be appropriate. As from what I seen, quite a few people in Europe refer to the guy and his book.

Steyn is on the money. Personally, I don't think he's correct about Israel and Jews, they are swine, IMHO, {Zionists, not all Jews} who are bullies too. But on immigration, and the threat posed by immigrant muslims and their offspring, he is 100% correct. I mean, one way to prevent a Catholic Democrat Irish-American president would have been to keep the Irish out, right??

How long do you give this Dutch guy to live???

Ekancone

Hero Of College wrote: »

I mean, one way to prevent a Catholic Democrat Irish-American president would have been to keep the Irish out, right??

Or to assassinate him when either is elected and/or running for nomination.

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

Steyn is on the money. Personally, I don't think he's correct about Israel and Jews, they are swine, IMHO, {Zionists, not all Jews} who are bullies too. But on immigration, and the threat posed by immigrant muslims and their offspring, he is 100% correct. I mean, one way to prevent a Catholic Democrat Irish-American president would have been to keep the Irish out, right??

How long do you give this Dutch guy to live???

Well, the problem with Steyn, is that he doesn't actually have a clue what he's on about. He is hardly an expert in demographics. Basically he is trying to predict the future (considering he has no expertise to make an educated guess on future demographics).

Hobbes

I'm on holiday. Haven't read the thread but have taken note of the reported posts. If the thread isn't behaving by the time I look at it again I'll start my usual banning. So as usual, charter, stay on topic, etc.

Ekancone

What posts were reported?

Hero Of College

daithifleming wrote: »

Or to assassinate him when either is elected and/or running for nomination.

Well, thats not likely to succeed in the long run. The source is still there, all you have done is block up the mouth. Eventually the pressure will build and blow the blockage away.

Hero Of College

wes wrote: »

Well, the problem with Steyn, is that he doesn't actually have a clue what he's on about. He is hardly an expert in demographics. Basically he is trying to predict the future (considering he has no expertise to make an educated guess on future demographics).

How much of an expert does one need to be to know that the first mosque was built in Bury in 1893 and that there are now 1.5 million muslims in Britain with 75% of their adherents under the age of 30??

How much of an expert do you need to be to know that there are Clerics {like the one who accosted John Reid} who are quite happy to refer to certain parts of London as "Muslim Areas".

Its not Rocket Science man. Just common sense.

In 1893 wholescale Islamic terror a la Glasgow Airport, a la Londo Tube bombings, a la the Rice/Peroxide attempts, a la the liquid Airline bombers, would have been a pipe dream. Not because Britain was not in "Muslim Lands" {which it was, as well as a whole lot of other lands} but because the numbers were too small, PC was non existant and the means, perhaps, were not there.

If there were 3 catholics in England in the 1600's what chance do you think Guy Fawkes would have had of crawling under Parliament with barrells of gun powder? None.

As the numbers rise, the "reason" rises with it, and the ability to disguise and mingle with the crowd does too. Safety in numbers.

As the song {Kaiser Chiefs- Angry Mob} goes, " And its only cos you came here with your brothers too, if you came here on your own you'd be dead"

It's pretty obvious that degrees and dotorates in quantitative statistics are not required to figure out that the numbers game is a pretty serious one.

If there were NO Irish in England in 1974 how many attacks do you think the IRA could have carried out. Its no surprise the cops got the wrong Irish in Guildford. The IRA made deliberate use of sympathies in the Irish community under which they could conduct their operations, like a fish in a shoal, they felt that bit safer.

Same again when the Americans rounded up all Japanese in America and held them over the course of the war.

Ekancone

Hero Of College wrote: »

Well, thats not likely to succeed in the long run. The source is still there, all you have done is block up the mouth. Eventually the pressure will build and blow the blockage away.

I was referring to the Kennedys. How many Catholics have run since then?

Hero Of College

daithifleming wrote: »

I was referring to the Kennedys. How many Catholics have run since then?

I know who you were referring to.

Well Regan had Irish roots and was Episcopalian. Not a dyed in the wool Catholic, but not a million miles off it.

They are saying the same about Barack Obama. What chance does he have of election if he is the only "black" man in America?? They also say he will be shot, why, I don't know, because he poses no threat to the system.

Anyways...off topic.:eek:

wes

Hero Of College wrote: »

How much of an expert does one need to be to know that the first mosque was built in Bury in 1893 and that there are now 1.5 million muslims in Britain with 75% of their adherents under the age of 30??

One would have to be an expert to take the current population information and trend and use them to make a estimate of future trends. Anyone can state past/current information, trying to make an estimate on future trends needs some knowledge of demographics, statistics and Maths.

Hero Of College wrote: »

How much of an expert do you need to be to know that there are Clerics {like the one who accosted John Reid} who are quite happy to refer to certain parts of London as "Muslim Areas".

Its not Rocket Science man. Just common sense.

You have proven nothing here once again. The words of a single man mean nothing whatsoever in trying to estimate future population trends. In fact the incident your talking about has nothing to do with demographics, but a rambling idiot screaming at someone.

Hero Of College wrote: »

In 1893 wholescale Islamic terror a la Glasgow Airport, a la Londo Tube bombings, a la the Rice/Peroxide attempts, a la the liquid Airline bombers, would have been a pipe dream. Not because Britain was not in "Muslim Lands" {which it was, as well as a whole lot of other lands} but because the numbers were too small, PC was non existant and the means, perhaps, were not there.

Which has no bearing on future populations trends once again.

You also leave out the Iraq war, seeing as home grown Islamic terrorism in the UK has a massive boost after it.

Regardless of that, what you said once again, has no bearing on estimating future population trends.

Hero Of College wrote: »

If there were 3 catholics in England in the 1600's what chance do you think Guy Fawkes would have had of crawling under Parliament with barrells of gun powder? None.

As the numbers rise, the "reason" rises with it, and the ability to disguise and mingle with the crowd does too. Safety in numbers.

Again, no bearing on estimating future population trends. A polemic and estimates of future population trends are 2 very different things.

Also, in the case of Catholics of England, I think the persecution of Catholics had something to do with Guy Fawkes actions.

Hero Of College wrote: »

As the song {Kaiser Chiefs- Angry Mob} goes, " And its only cos you came here with your brothers too, if you came here on your own you'd be dead"

Once again no real relevance to estimating future population trends.

Hero Of College wrote: »

[/B][/I]It's pretty obvious that degrees and dotorates in quantitative statistics are not required to figure out that the numbers game is a pretty serious one.

If you consider the number game to be serious, would not expect those peddling predictions to be qualified to do so? Steyn can say as he please, but at the end of the day, I can point out he is full of it and has no expertise on what he's talking about. His book is a fantasy and thats being nice about it.

Your own current argument has nothing to do with estimating future population trends btw.

Hero Of College wrote: »

If there were NO Irish in England in 1974 how many attacks do you think the IRA could have carried out. Its no surprise the cops got the wrong Irish in Guildford. The IRA made deliberate use of sympathies in the Irish community under which they could conduct their operations, like a fish in a shoal, they felt that bit safer.

One could also say that if the UK didn't cause a big old mess in the North, there would have been no trouble.

Hero Of College wrote: »

Same again when the Americans rounded up all Japanese in America and held them over the course of the war.

Yeah, a pretty terrible and racist thing that they officially regret and are ashamed of now.

Still almost nothing you said has no bearing on future population trends. You went on a rant about that Muslims living in the UK are the problem, while ignoring the fact, the UK did not experience suicide bombing until after they decided to engage in an illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Thats also a case that can be easily made.

Regardless, almost nothing you said supports Steyns demographic arguments at all. In fact you completely ignored that topic and instead decided to have a rant about various different situations that have nothing to do with estimating future demographic trends.

Hobbes

Hero Of College wrote: »

Its not Rocket Science man. Just common sense.

It is not exactly using logic either. A negative event doesn't automatically prove the opposite. Also correlation does not imply causation.

a la the liquid Airline bombers

Actually the liquid attack was a total hoax and has been known for some time. It is only the UK/US that appear to disallow liquids on the plane.

but because the numbers were too small

Sorry but that is total BS. Terrorist attacks normally hit soft targets. Lack of people with overlapping beliefs (or perception of) doesn't mean more terrorism will happen.

Terrorism happens when a person has no other recourse against what they believe is an unjust superior force. When we are on their side we call them freedom fighters and resistence. When we are against them we they are terrorists.

The only way to combat terrorism is to combat the reasons that the particular terrorism exists. Northern Ireland for example the IRA only really came into power during the UK civil rights abuses against Catholics. Once civil rights were restored the support and structure stopped.

As the numbers rise, the "reason" rises with it, and the ability to disguise and mingle with the crowd does too. Safety in numbers.

At the risk of pulling a godwin, prehaps we can apply your comments to pre-WWII Germany?

If there were NO Irish in England in 1974 how many attacks do you think the IRA could have carried out.

The exact same amount of attacks. Not all IRA members were Irish or Irish born.

Same again when the Americans rounded up all Japanese in America and held them over the course of the war.

Which just means you have no knowledge of that event. I recommend you go read up on it, you will see how a travesty it was and has no bearing on what you are going on about.

If I was you I would also go and read up what happened when the UK rounded up Catholics into camps and held them without trial during the 60's. Terrorism actually increased.

This forum is also not to discuss that material unless you can form it in relation to the objective of this forum.

In regards to the OP. I haven't seen the movie, but I can only say this. Never take any documentry at face value (tend to be more docu-dramas these days). Research it. If the writer of the documentry is any good they would of given links to the research material.

Also in future (to all) if your going to post wide reaching statements you better back it up with a reputuble source.

Hero Of College

wes wrote: »

One would have to be an expert to take the current population information and trend and use them to make a estimate of future trends. Anyone can state past/current information, trying to make an estimate on future trends needs some knowledge of demographics, statistics and Maths.

People do it all the time. MORI polls do it all the time. The Markets do it all the time. Auctioneers do it all the time. Estate agents do it. You take current trends and make projections. They are usually there or there abouts. If an Estate agent tells me that my house will be worth 10% extra in 1 year the information he is relying on is present and past combined, and is usually accurrate. Sure, its not failsafe.

wes wrote:

You have proven nothing here once again. The words of a single man mean nothing whatsoever in trying to estimate future population trends. In fact the incident your talking about has nothing to do with demographics, but a rambling idiot screaming at someone.

Of course. The words of this man indicate the manifestation of the present trend based on the past trend. Of course, its convenient to dismiss him as a loo-la, thats par for the course, but the statement he makes today could not have been made 60 years ago. Is it unlikely or likely that regions and sectors of major cities will continue to become "dominated" by people of a predominantly Islamic persuasion?? Yes or no?? Evidently, there is some past trend there, otherwise our nutty friend could not make the "outrageous" claim he makes today.....and I see no reason how that past trend is likely to be upset anytime soon.

Wes wrote:

Which has no bearing on future populations trends once again.

Past trends are always influencing future trends. Always.

wes wrote:

You also leave out the Iraq war, seeing as home grown Islamic terrorism in the UK has a massive boost after it.

Sure. The Iraq war turned these rational decent folk into killers. They weren't like that already.:rolleyes: What heinous acts did Canda commit to warrant a plot to behead its PM??? What heinous acts did Australia commit to warrant a threat/plot to bomb nuclear facilities?? Is China in Iraq too?? Please.....The Iraq war has merely precipitated a dormant sentiment, allowed it to sprout a bit faster.

wes wrote:

Again, no bearing on estimating future population trends. A polemic and estimates of future population trends are 2 very different things.

Do you KNOW what "Polemic" means. Population is going up, not down. GET WITH THE PROGRAMME. HOW THE FCUK is my suggestion that the Islamic population of GB is rising a "polemic"...don't get thick with me Wes.

Wes wrote:

Also, in the case of Catholics of England, I think the persecution of Catholics had something to do with Guy Fawkes actions.

Fawkes tried to use that as an excuse alright. Really what Fawkes wanted to do was install a Catholic monarch. Political motivations passed off as a plea for justice and fairness. Sound familiar?? And besides, you missed the point...Fawkes machinations were possible as he hid behind Catholic apologia to effect his means. Notice that Irish Catholics, who had a far worse deal, were not behind the plot and were of no concern to Fawkes.

Wes wrote:

If you consider the number game to be serious, would not expect those peddling predictions to be qualified to do so? Steyn can say as he please, but at the end of the day, I can point out he is full of it and has no expertise on what he's talking about. His book is a fantasy and thats being nice about it.

How qualified is an Estate Agent who can tell me that my house will be worth X in a year, and gets it right? How qualified is a used car salesman that accurately guesses what a punter will pay for a motor??? Again, its not rocket science.

Wes wrote:

One could also say that if the UK didn't cause a big old mess in the North, there would have been no trouble.

Do you know how the UK caused a mess??? It planted Ulster with Scots-Protestants who came to constitute a majority of population, quite quickly, a situation which is persistent to this day. Sound familiar? Or is the Protestant majority in the 6 counties another "fantasy" sir????:rolleyes:

Wes wrote:

Yeah, a pretty terrible and racist thing that they officially regret and are ashamed of now.

It wasn't racist. They won the war. They did what they thought necessary in the circumstances. And the world is better for it. Fight fire with fire. Love it or leave it.

wes wrote:

Still almost nothing you said has no bearing on future population trends. You went on a rant about that Muslims living in the UK are the problem, while ignoring the fact, the UK did not experience suicide bombing until after they decided to engage in an illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Thats also a case that can be easily made.

And easily dismissed. You have to love the phrase "experience suicide bombing".......the US Air Force, long before it mounted an invasion of Iraq, mounted a campaign of Aerial bombardment IN DEFENCE of Kosovar Albanians. I guess you forgot that. The British army is STILL in Northern Ireland but the last bombing of London was...1997?? Explain that....Iraq did not experience Invasion till it invaded Kuwait. Iraq did not experience invasion until 9/11. Did Muslims sit back and philosophically muse that they should take the rough with the smooth?? Nope. Did they look at it and say "Well...the Yanks helped out in Kosovo, Saddam invaded Kuwait and 9/11 was out of order"...NOPE.

wes wrote:

Regardless, almost nothing you said supports Steyns demographic arguments at all. In fact you completely ignored that topic and instead decided to have a rant about various different situations that have nothing to do with estimating future demographic trends.

Steyns arguments are valid. Muslims have big families, marry earlier, don't partake of abortions, the most commonly registered boys name in Amsterdam is Mohammed, 75% of the Muslim pop of GB is under 30, yeah, I guess they are just going to die of typhus in the morning. Having more kids is unlikey.:rolleyes: