I hope this is not a repetition from earlier postings but I am currently reading a book ('The story of Mohammed' by Harry Richardson), in it the author describes a document called 'The Project' that was discovered by Swiss authorities in 2001. The document was written in 1982 by leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood and is a master plan of 12 points as to infiltrate and overtake western democracies and establish a worldwide Muslim theocracy under Sharia.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4476
This document should have been on front pages in all newspapers and other media but was completely ignored by the western outlets. The Project is "a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents the greatest danger for western societies". The scary thing is that many of the 12 points have been already implemented and are working just fine for establishing "an Islamic government on earth". Terrorist attacks in the west, immigration and a mandated higher birth rate are just the beginning.
We should be all scared and prepared.
I'm not concerned.
Every country wants to conquer the world, not just Germany. Every political party dreams of leading a nation by the nose wherever they want to take it. Of course I prefer the American kind over the Muslim Brotherhood kind. And having some inside document doesn't count for much ... one should be forewarned based on past history, not on a possibly forged document (see Protocols of the Elders of Zion).
Politically speaking, as I pointed out before, the Europeans (not N Americans) have a unique problem of having a more or less land connection to the ME, and all those angry young men there. As long as immigration is under reasonable controls in N America, there isn't an existential threat, just an annoyance. Given the poor response of Europe to the immigrant crisis (yes, they are both refugees and job seekers) under the Schengen suicide pact ... I don't see Europe existing much longer, whether Britain stays in or not. What started as resistance to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, is turning into a Europe ending event ;-(
Of course there will be appropriate suspension of civil liberties in N America, due to paranoia and political exploitation by R-wing politicians ... and that is bad enough.
Quote from: reasonist on June 22, 2016, 07:23:24 PM
That's what Chamberlain said.
The extent to which quislings in Britain and France undermined the resistance to Hitler, can't be underestimated, even after the war started. Basically Vichy France came about because the French hated the British more than the Germans (except the communist French, who provided all the manpower for the Resistance, but only after the Soviet Union was invaded and Stalin gave them the green light). Britain couldn't surrender to Germany because the French beat them to it ;-) The American POV at the time was that the British would fold like the French ... and without Churchill they would have. Chamberlain and Lord Halifax were traitors of the worst sort ... along with ex-King Edward. Chamberlain only wanted to put up a token resistance and fold, partly because of the Nazi-Stalin pact. Churchill was generous in not providing convenient accidents for them. If Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, Stalin would have attacked him eventually. Hitler tried to avoid a two-front war, and failed, just like the Kaiser.
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2016, 07:46:36 PM
The extent to which quislings in Britain and France undermined the resistance to Hitler, can't be underestimated, even after the war started. Basically Vichy France came about because the French hated the British more than the Germans (except the communist French, who provided all the manpower for the Resistance, but only after the Soviet Union was invaded and Stalin gave them the green light). Britain couldn't surrender to Germany because the French beat them to it ;-) The American POV at the time was that the British would fold like the French ... and without Churchill they would have. Chamberlain and Lord Halifax were traitors of the worst sort ... along with ex-King Edward. Chamberlain only wanted to put up a token resistance and fold, partly because of the Nazi-Stalin pact. Churchill was generous in not providing convenient accidents for them. If Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, Stalin would have attacked him eventually. Hitler tried to avoid a two-front war, and failed, just like the Kaiser.
Not sure if Hitler tried to avoid a two front war, he started Barbarossa against the cautioning of his generals. Maybe it was an opium induced urge or the need for raw materials but it sure changed the dynamics of the time. Hess was late and nobody believed him anyways, so things unfolded without hardly any opposition until it was too late. Kaiser Willy II stood by the Austrians when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo. Didn't turn out so well for the Germans either. My point was that the whole current scenario is nothing but appeasement. We have to name it for what it is, a slow and steady erosion of the EU and subsequently of North America. Simple math tells us that a birth rate of 4.4 compared to 1.6 is a time bomb waiting to go off. 2 maybe 3 generations and we are under Allah's 'guide' and laws.
Well one can always reduce the reproduction rate by not feeding them. But that would be impossible if they are already in Europe. I am less concerned about Hispanics over-populating and sharing their population ... provided it is controlled at the N American end, not at the Latin American end. The mess in Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina ... as usual ... is not encouraging.
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2016, 11:02:10 PM
Well one can always reduce the reproduction rate by not feeding them. But that would be impossible if they are already in Europe. I am less concerned about Hispanics over-populating and sharing their population ... provided it is controlled at the N American end, not at the Latin American end. The mess in Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina ... as usual ... is not encouraging.
Yep, 5 million already in the EU and more arriving daily. But I am not so much concerned about race than I am about religion. The Q'ran has no clause for peaceful co-existence. It's convert or kill and we are fighting a war against followers of a dogma that makes it's adherents look forward to die for Allah as martyrs. Europe is a mess and disintegrating as we speak. Crime rates are spiking and the financial burden on countries is unsustainable. Not much of that in the news here but we are part of it, economically, culturally and politically. No time to ignore that anymore. Islam s going to take over without having to fire a single shot.
Europe is weak, because it relies on the US ... Europe should have kicked the US out of Nato in 1991.
Don't forget to wear a tin foil hat while reading the book. I hear it protects you from Muslim BrotherGoons' radar.
Quote from: Baruch on June 23, 2016, 07:11:00 AM
Europe is weak, because it relies on the US ... Europe should have kicked the US out of Nato in 1991.
Your 'disdain' against America trembles me to my core, Baruch. And I am just writing this to protect other posters who might read your posts!
:lol:
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 23, 2016, 07:55:59 AM
Don't forget to wear a tin foil hat while reading the book. I hear it protects you from Muslim BrotherGoons' radar.
Ignorance is still bliss.
Well, I found out that 'ignorance' can have a lot of different meanings when it comes to conforming people's beliefs.
It's not the idea of a fanatic religious group desiring to 'seize the world' that I found ridiculous, that's given with humans, but the concern and belief that some groups might actually manage to do this.
It's pretty much like the difference between ideas of alien abductions & secret invasion claimed going on and the possibility of other intelligent life forms existing in the universe. The former is bullshit and a mixture of fears and dreams of an egomaniac, selfish, arrogant primate thinking the whole fucking universe is out to get his precious ass, the latter is a very highly possible result of nature.
While the idea that extremely violent terrorist groups is against all of us is a natural result of fucked up collective world politics coming for a loong time, the claim that seizing the world is seizing the USA and that this is some sort of an autonomic force/event at work that is likely to be a real threat that deserves concern is pretty much like seeing yourself as the only possible intelligent life exists in the whole universe, because you were put here as one.
There are systems based on this principle. We call them Abrahamic religions.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 23, 2016, 09:35:56 AM
It's not the idea of a fanatic religious group desiring to 'seize the world' that I found ridiculous, that's given with humans, but the concern and belief that some groups might actually manage to do this.
And you think that there aren't any? Too bad so many can't see the writings on the wall. If one checks the events in Europe objectively, it is crystal clear that the steps in the manifest (and in the Q'ran) are implemented step by step.
It is happening right now under our noses. Only because we are not really impacted for now, doesn't mean the problem is non existent.
I am the last to buy into conspiracy theories and hyped up fear. Facts is what I go by. We are spoon fed filtered news 24/7 and think this won't happen to us. Think again. Europe is imploding and we are not affected by it? This will never happen here? Me thinks the tinfoil hat is on many heads already.
Quote from: Baruch on June 23, 2016, 07:11:00 AM
Europe is weak, because it relies on the US ... Europe should have kicked the US out of Nato in 1991.
True but the US is the main money and weapons contributor for NATO. It always comes down to money.
Quote from: reasonist on June 23, 2016, 10:12:51 AM
And you think that there aren't any?
I just said, yes this makes sense. There are many in fact.
QuoteToo bad so many can't see the writings on the wall.
I guess there is a difference between 'seeing the writings on the wall' and making interpretations of those 'writings'.
QuoteIf one checks the events in Europe objectively, it is crystal clear that the steps in the manifest (and in the Q'ran) are implemented step by step. It is happening right now under our noses. Only because we are not really impacted for now, doesn't mean the problem is non existent.
I am the last to buy into conspiracy theories and hyped up fear. Facts is what I go by. We are spoon fed filtered news 24/7 and think this won't happen to us. Think again. Europe is imploding and we are not affected by it? This will never happen here? Me thinks the tinfoil hat is on many heads already.
I believe that there is danger. Actually very soon it could happen in where I live. And I might even die in the aftermath, I don't see any safe or good future.
As much as it is difficult to get from a Westerner's point, Muslims are not one army ready to march to the West. They are combination of many different cultures, peoples and languages living in poverty and war.
You want me to see one group as an imminent threat in a global scale. How about other fanatic groups that conflicts in benefits and profits with this one? How about other big power zones in the ME and in the West?
These panic and fear is the result of living in a fantasy world BEFORE all these came out. Before, people in certain cultures were living in delusion, because violence in a certain region was contained. And now as it spread the impact of reality is harsh. I have always lived with this sharia fear being born in a muslim country. Seriously since like 18. And people treated me as a crazy pessimist. They are not doing it anymore. And like you, secular people think the same here.
:arrow: Europe is NOT imploding. UK is not living the EU, I could be wrong of course, but I don't think so. Refugees are not invading Europe. USA is not going to be seized by some muslim cult. Calm down.
There is nothing going on in the world that was really different than before 9/11. It's become different for the West, because terrorism has become a part of their daily lives too. It's just the policies has changed; channels of profit has changed. Some have run its course and there is a need of new ones; shifts and this is what we are going through.
Do you know what is the biggest problem in the world? Humans are still breeding. That's the core problem.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 23, 2016, 11:09:35 AM
:arrow: Europe is NOT imploding. UK is not living the EU, I could be wrong of course, but I don't think so. Refugees are not invading Europe. USA is not going to be seized by some muslim cult. Calm down.
Don't be condescending. I am polite, extend the same courtesy to me.
You really think that Muslim hordes would invade the US and conquer? Wow! That is not going to happen. If you read the Hadith, maybe you change your mind. Either way, it matters not to me. I can see it, you can't. Millions of Europeans actually live with the situation I described. Denial is not going to change that.
People breeding is not the biggest problem in the world. Naive and superstitious people breeding is.
Too bad we can't emulate Zeus ;-) He had the goddess of wisdom emerge fully formed from his head ;-)) Think of all the time and money that saves!
Quote from: Baruch on June 23, 2016, 01:17:17 PM
Too bad we can't emulate Zeus ;-) He had the goddess of wisdom emerge fully formed from his head ;-)) Think of all the time and money that saves!
LOL. There is a statue of Athena in front of the Parliament building in Vienna. Didn't and doesn't do much good either. :-))
Quote from: reasonist on June 23, 2016, 12:16:17 PM
Don't be condescending. I am polite, extend the same courtesy to me.
You really think that Muslim hordes would invade the US and conquer? Wow! That is not going to happen. If you read the Hadith, maybe you change your mind. Either way, it matters not to me. I can see it, you can't. Millions of Europeans actually live with the situation I described. Denial is not going to change that.
People breeding is not the biggest problem in the world. Naive and superstitious people breeding is.
I didn't mean to sound condesceding, I said those because you seem to be in some stupid panic after a stupid book, but you sure do sound condescending. What do you think that you see I or other people don't? I have relatives living in Europe and in the US. What is that described way of living in Europe millions of people suffer?
-15 years ago nobody even knew one thing about muslims.
-10 years ago, nobody had an idea where these people lived in their own cities.
-5 years ago, there was no issue of demograpics or sexual crimes and this and that.
Right now 'suddenly' the fucking end is nigh, everybody is raped in streets, muslims are overflowing from walls and we are about to be devoured by some zombie army.
What the fuck are you talking about, seriously?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 23, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
I didn't mean to sound condesceding, I said those because you seem to be in some stupid panic after a stupid book, but you sure do sound condescending. What do you think that you see I or other people don't? I have relatives living in Europe and in the US. What is that described way of living in Europe millions of people suffer?
-15 years ago nobody even knew one thing about muslims.
-10 years ago, nobody had an idea where these people lived in their own cities.
-5 years ago, there was no issue of demograpics or sexual crimes and this and that.
Right now 'suddenly' the fucking end is nigh, everybody is raped in streets, muslims are overflowing from walls and we are about to be devoured by some zombie army.
What the fuck are you talking about, seriously?
Just making things up. You win.
Quote from: reasonist on June 23, 2016, 02:01:49 PM
Just making things up. You win.
Oh come on. Really? I never said there is no danger, reasonist. I live in Turkey. May be I'll have to run away to a foreign country soon. I'm the last one here to take this lightly.
But you sound like the western civilisation is about to end in a few decades. :sad2: How can you believe in something like this?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 23, 2016, 02:07:14 PM
Oh come on. Really? I never said there is no danger, reasonist. I live in Turkey. May be I'll have to run away to a foreign country soon. I'm the last one here to take this lightly.
But you sound like the western civilisation is about to end in a few decades. :sad2: How can you believe in something like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wqHdR1tDD4
This video is 8 years old. Double the numbers for 2016
I have seen similar videos. My observation about this one.
At 4:01 it says that "40 % of Russian army will be Islamic in a few years". Over all among the Western countries counted one by one in the video, it only states the army percentage for Russians. Not one other. Just this is enough which group this video is designed to target.
Also what is 'England' in the video? We call that country UK (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Another detail that gives away the target group of propaganda by the way. Have to be said.
German government didn't issue a statemen saying "We'll be an islamic state in 2050", they said Europe failed with population growth...that's how media 'translated' it. Actually all this bullshit started after that statement. These are two different things. [Also as you know what people call ISIL or ISIS the islamic state. (It's obviously used on purpose in the video.) Also islamic republic is used too and I don't get the calculation there.]
All the fertility rates and numbers given end with a statement of 'will be an Islamic state in 2050 or later' with a green islamc flag covering the country in the map. Then it says in 20 years there will be 104 millions of muslim in today's 742.5 million Europe. It will be 2046 20 years later and add that a 4 years to reach 2050, and you think these countries will be Islamic States as in administrated by sharia law in 2050? Are you serious?
-What will happen to hundreds of millions of European citizens -which will be more than 10 times of the muslim population at that date in EU?
-Their administrations run by Europeans?
-How many islamic political parties in all over EU? 5? 6? Do you believe that there could be a islamic party that muslims could vote for that could direct these ocuntries? In any level?
- How about the armies? Or any other armed forces in EU.
There is not one thing reasonable about this fear, but obvious propaganda notes. It's not realistic and designed to scare-agitate people. Life will change in 2050? Yeah it will. Probably in 2020 and 2030 too. It was very different where I live 10 years ago. But Europe becoming a muslim just by demographic growth; human source by 2050 is pretty far fetched.
But if you generally mourn after a defined, certain European culture it has been destroyed and built again many times. Or it can completely perish and there would be new ones. How old is it to begin with? How old is written history to begin with? Yeah probably the world will be very different place after a 100 years from now.
But Europe being an 'islamic state' 50 years later or much later is an irrational fear.
If the economy starts getting better in the EU; if the desired slices are distributed as wanted you won't even hear about this refugee crisis again or how Europe is imploding until it is made an issue again for politics.
By the way, some video rates are different in eurostat chart.
France 1.8 -EU Chart is 2.01
England 1.6 - Chart (UK) 1.81
Germany 1.47 -Chart 1.3
Italya - 1.2 -Chart 1.32
Spain -1.1 - Chart 1.32
(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/thumb/2/21/Total_fertility_rate%2C_1960%E2%80%932014_%28live_births_per_woman%29_YB16.png/800px-Total_fertility_rate%2C_1960%E2%80%932014_%28live_births_per_woman%29_YB16.png)
So many wrongs, so little time. Here are the #s from the German govmnt. office of statistics:
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2012/09/PE12_329_12612.html
Naturally your sources must be more reliable than the German govmnt.
"Meanwhile, the migration crisis shows no sign of abating. At a summit on migration held in Vienna on August 27, the EU Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, Johannes Hahn, said: "There are 20 million refugees waiting at the doorstep of Europe. Ten to 12 million in Syria, 5 million Palestinians, 2 million Ukrainians and about 1 million in the southern Caucasus."
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6423/germany-muslim-demographic
Germany: Muslim migrants linked to 69,000 crimes in first three months of 2016
Belgium: 35% of prison population is Muslim, who make up only 6% of population
Sweden: 2015 Muslim hordes to cost 14x the National Defence budget
Germany: Merkel Muslim crimes increased by 79% in 2015, or 208,344 incidents
UK: Muslims fill 44% of high security prisons, out of a 5% Muslim population
35 million Muslim migrants set sights on Europe
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/page/6/
This is my last post on the subject. Quite frankly, I give two fucks what you believe. I am not here to convince you, just stating facts. Inconvenient maybe, but facts nevertheless. You can learn from them or ignore them. Makes no difference to me.
G'day
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 23, 2016, 07:59:51 AM
Your 'disdain' against America trembles me to my core, Baruch. And I am just writing this to protect other posters who might read your posts!
:lol:
Natural result of dependence. Marshall Plan and Nato served a purpose 1946 - 1991. But it should be over now. There was talk way back before 1991, that aside from being the future battlefield carnage ... the Europeans weren't pulling their own weight, and sucking up to Moscow too much. The current policy of insulting and challenging the Russians, would be bad enough if it was just the US what was doing it ... but what the hell are the Europeans thinking! Maybe the Czar's army needs to arrive in Paris once again, like in 1814.
So do I think that the US is powerful or wonderful? Hardly. We have gone straight to hell in a hand basket since 1965. I would like the Europeans better, if they hadn't decided to go all stupid on us.
Quote from: reasonist on June 23, 2016, 05:27:19 PM
This is my last post on the subject. Quite frankly, I give two fucks what you believe. I am not here to convince you, just stating facts. Inconvenient maybe, but facts nevertheless. You can learn from them or ignore them. Makes no difference to me.
G'day
Nobody is here to convince anyone. If you don't know that you do not understand general characteristics of this forum, actually people in general. People share their opinions and when conflicted defend them naturally. And it doesn't make any difference for any of us. Nobody is here to learn anything. Neither you, nor do I have some superior take on the issues.
But if you define a half wit right wing propaganda video designed to agitate a certain society in the world as 'facts', I'll call on your bullshit.
It's very simple, really. If the world runs on the scenario given in 5 mins right wing propaganda of the western apocalypse, may be it's about time humanity should close shop. Yeah. Well, No.
Quote from: Baruch on June 23, 2016, 06:19:58 PM
Natural result of dependence. Marshall Plan and Nato served a purpose 1946 - 1991. But it should be over now. There was talk way back before 1991, that aside from being the future battlefield carnage ... the Europeans weren't pulling their own weight, and sucking up to Moscow too much. The current policy of insulting and challenging the Russians, would be bad enough if it was just the US what was doing it ... but what the hell are the Europeans thinking! Maybe the Czar's army needs to arrive in Paris once again, like in 1814.
So do I think that the US is powerful or wonderful? Hardly. We have gone straight to hell in a hand basket since 1965. I would like the Europeans better, if they hadn't decided to go all stupid on us.
I was joking with writing what Nonsensei wrote to me because I keep criticising US. :lol:
I was reading the links reasonist posted. I wondered about this Gatestone Institute.
It's a
privately funded far right wing 'think-tank' apparently it is an offshoot of the Hudson Inst. which is another far right inst. Looking into Gatestone, the institution follows a typical extreme right wing rhetoric which supported by the majority in the US. :lol: Yeah well, surprising? Of course not. Bunch of rich people trying to hold on to the ideology AND the made up fears of policies of profit that fucked up their counrty sideways along with the world to begin with trying to brainwash how the end is niiiigh.
The founder of Gatestone Inst, Nina Rosenwald is described as "The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate" -lol- by the Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate/
Right Web link:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/gatestone_institute/
QuoteThe Gatestone Institute is a New York-based advocacy organization that is tied to neoconservative and other right-wing networks in the United States and Europe.[1] Chaired by John Bolton, a former Bush administration diplomat and a conservative foreign policy hardliner, Gatestone is a clearinghouse for right-wing commentaries on national security, the Middle East, and Islam, as well as a convener of high-dollar events on security and energy issues. It is an offshoot of the neoconservative Hudson Institute.
The institute was founded in 2011 by Nina Rosenwald, an heiress of the Sears Roebuck empire who has been a key philanthropic backer of anti-Muslim groups and individuals in the United States. Describing Gatestone’s origins, journalist Max Blumenthal writes: “Through her affiliation with the Washington-based Hudson Institute, where Norman Podhoretz is an adjunct fellow, Rosenwald established a branch of the think tank in New York City. Operating under the Hudson banner, Rosenwald brought [the controversial anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders] to town in 2008 to warn against the Muslim plot to ‘rule the world by the sword.’ Wilders’s tirade during that visit against the prophet Muhammad, whom he described as ‘a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile,’ was strident even by the standards of the hawkish Hudson Institute. By 2011 … Rosenwald separated Hudson New York City from Hudson’s national branch, changing her organization’s name to the Gatestone Institute.â€[2]
Among its activities, the institute holds what it calls “Briefing Council events," which have included talks by Walid Phares, Charles Krauthammer, Andrew McCarthy, Elliott Abrams, William Kristol, and a host of other well-known right wingers and Gatestone principals.[3] Among its past have been a presentation by Zuhdi Jasser on the “battle for the soul of Islamâ€; a talk by former CIA director James Woolsey titled “War on Americaâ€; a presentation in which Geert Wilders called Islam a "violent ideology that wants to impose Islamic Sharia law on the whole world";[4] and a 2014 event featuring Woolsey, former General David Petraeus, right-wing videographer James O'Keefe, and a host of conservative activists extolling the virtues of "fracking" for natural gas and oil.[5] A notice on Gatestone's website, which has since been removed, described the events as “invitation only, exclusively for our members,†with a "minimum donation of $10,000 required for participation."[6]
Gatestone’s other activities include red-carpet events for personalities like Wilders and policy briefings by sympathetic speakers. The institute has also announced plans to publish books. But the bulk of the organization’s day-to-day output consists of blog posts by Gatestone fellows and likeminded writers offering neoconservative commentary on current events and alarmist dispatches about the spread of Islam. Frequent topics include Israeli security, purported Palestinian malfeasance, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, and the supposed threat of Sharia law in Europe and North America.
Commentaries
Many of Gatestone's commentaries offer standard neoconservative tropes urging a more forceful and aggressive U.S. foreign policy. An April 2014 offering from Elliott Abrams, for example, complained that the Obama administration's foreign policy "really is the foreign policy of Belgium: negotiations, negotiations, negotiations. … What is missing in this formulation? In one word: power." Referring to President Barack Obama and his past affiliations with figures commonly vilified by his Republican critics, Abrams added, "This is the man who learned foreign policy from Rashid Khalidi and William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. The habits [to be broken], as the Administration might see them, are 'militarism,' 'aggression,' 'Cold War thinking' and an alleged effort to dominate the world, 'Imperialism'â€"or what many others might call patriotism."[7] Other Gatestone posts have urged a second military intervention in Libya[8] and inveighed against a diplomatic agreement over Iran's nuclear program.[9]
Gatestone contributors often espouse views associated with the far right. Posts by Gatestone writers have alleged an impending "Islamic takeover" in the United Kingdom,[10] warned that France is on the verge of "submitting to Islam,"[11] fretted that “Islamic Sharia law could easily become a permanent reality in Spain and across the [European] continent,â€[12] and accused the U.S. government of "promoting Islam" in the Czech Republic and other European countries.[13] In a 2014 posting, Gatestone fellow Soeren Kern quoted Geert Wilders' quip, seemingly approvingly, that "The fewer Moroccans [in the Netherlands], the better." Kern claimed that "Dutch Moroccan criminals are known to be highly indifferent to sentences in Dutch prisons," concluding that "it is only the threat of deportation, more than any other measure, that is likely to deter young Moroccans from a life of crime."[14]
Kern, who authors the Gatestone Institute’s annual reports on the “Islamization of France,†also took a hyper alarmist tone after the January 2015 attack on the French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo. “The situation is out of control, and it is not reversible.†Kern said of France. “Islam is a permanent part of France now. It is not going away. I think the future looks very bleak.â€[15]
Gatestone's writers take a hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, harshly criticizing Palestinian negotiators and political authorities and offering support to Israel's right-wing government. When Israel pulled out of U.S.-brokered talks after Hamas and Fatah reached a tentative reconciliation in April 2014, Gatestone contributor Richard Kamp asserted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "had no choice other than to suspend the peace process. … How could he possibly continue to negotiate with an entity that is itself negotiating with a vicious, murderous and unrelenting terrorist group hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and outlawed around the world?"[16]
Observers generally credited an Israeli refusal to release certain Palestinian prisoners as part of an agreed upon prisoner exchange, as well as a general Israeli intransigence of settlement construction and other final-status issues, as major factors in the demise of the talks. But Gatestone writers were adamant that the Palestinian Authority, which was created by an agreement with Israel, was to blame. "The Palestinian Authority [PA], meant to be the 'partner' for peace, seems incapable of giving up on the culture of violence, death and anti-Semitism which has always been its trademark," claimed Gatestone senior fellow Douglas Murray. Although the PA's leaders had long recognized Israel's right to exist, and even though many Israeli coalition partners were openly hostile to the creation of a Palestinian state, Murray claimed that "the PA seems no closer than their forebears were in 1948 to recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people."[17]
After the failure of the 2014 Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Friends of Israel Initiative member Richard Kempan wrote an op-ed for the Gatestone Institute criticizing efforts to reach a two-state solution. “The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bankâ€"either now or at any point in the foreseeable future,†Kemp wrote. “There can be no two state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be.â€[18]
Kemp added: “Nor can there be a one-state solution with democratic rights for all because that would spell the end of the one and only democratic and Jewish state and the beginning of a new autocracy and the next exodus of the Jews. For those who do not want that to happen, the harsh reality is continuation of the status quo.â€[19]
Gatestone writers have been particularly hostile towards the "Boycott, Divest, and Sanction" (BDS) movement, a nonviolent campaign organized by Palestinian civil society groups and their supporters to pressure Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territoriesâ€"in part by urging international cultural figures to refrain from visiting Israel or collaborating with Israeli-financed cultural and academic institutions. In one exceptionally bombastic post, Gatestone senior fellow Denis MacEoin accused BDS campaigners of genocidal ambitions. "This BDS campaign against Israel is dishonest," he wrote. "It tells less than half of a complex story, borrowing Palestinian lies and fables to bewitch unthinking Westerners whose only formula for peace lies in the destruction of the only national home for the Jews, possibly as well as the post-Nazi destruction of the Jews themselves." Drawing a straight line from boycott to Holocaust, MacEoin added, "The Nazis invented the Jewish Boycott, and went on from there to the Holocaust." BDS, he concluded of the nonviolent movement, "supports and rewards whoever worksâ€"often through violenceâ€"to abolish the state of Israel and then possibly the rest of the Jews."[20]
In November 2014, Gatestone published an article from Alan Dershowitz arguing for more congressional intervention in the on-going nuclear negotiations with Iran. “Congress plainly has the power to refuse to reduce sanctions and indeed to strengthen them,†Dershowtiz stated, echoing comments from a host of other neoconservatives and hardliners. “Congress should demand a role in the ongoing negotiations with Iran.â€[21] Many analysts have argued that greater intervention in the talks by Congress, particularly through imposing additional sanctions on Iran, would scuttle the entire negotiating process.[22]
Leadership and Funding
Gatestone’s president is Nina Rosenwald. Its board, as of 2014, included chairman John Bolton, Georgette Gelbard, Zuhdi Jasser, Lawrence Kadish, Douglas Murray, Naomi Perlman, Ingebord Rennert (spouse of the controversial junk bond investor Ira Rennert), Rebecca Sugar, and Christine Williams. Its European board of governors includes chairman Amir Taheri, Josef Josse, and Anne-Elisabeth Moutet.[23]
Gatestone's senior fellows include Arab Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, European scholars Soeren Kern and Guy Millière, and former Pentagon official Harold Rode, among several others. Amhed Charai, Petra Heidt, Elie Weisel, and former chairman James Woolsey are listed as advisers.[24] At one point Gatestone also listed “Fjordman†as a distinguished scholar,[25] using the pseudonym for Peder Jensen, a far-right Norwegian blogger whose writings were featured in the manifesto of mass-murderer Anders Breivik.[26]
GateStone's website lists dozens of other contributing authors, including foreign policy hawks like Elliott Abrams, Anne Bayefsky, Kenneth Timmerman, MEMRI president Yigal Carmon, Alan Dershowitz, Steven Emerson, former Pentagon official Doug Feith, neoconservative firebrand David Horowitz, Hudson Institute president Herbert London, the right-wing NGO Monitor, Daniel Pipes, Emergency Committee for Israel spokesman Noah Pollak, former AIPAC director Steven Rosen, American Enterprise Institute fellow Michael Rubin, Natan Sharansky, Foundation for Defense of Democracies fellow Lee Smith, and anti-Islamic writer Robert Spencer.[27]
Gatestone reported approximately $1.4 million on its 2013 Form 990.[28]
Bolton is a psychopath, like most of the neoCons. It is a wonder, after 8 years of Shrub, we aren't dead yet. Unfortunately, R-wing is the default position of most societies in most times in history ... because status quo equals conservative politics. Most people don't benefit from change, when only 1/10 are successful, and 9/10 lose their shirt in the course of the social experiment.
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2016, 07:46:36 PM
The extent to which quislings in Britain and France undermined the resistance to Hitler, can't be underestimated, even after the war started. Basically Vichy France came about because the French hated the British more than the Germans (except the communist French, who provided all the manpower for the Resistance, but only after the Soviet Union was invaded and Stalin gave them the green light). Britain couldn't surrender to Germany because the French beat them to it ;-) The American POV at the time was that the British would fold like the French ... and without Churchill they would have. Chamberlain and Lord Halifax were traitors of the worst sort ... along with ex-King Edward. Chamberlain only wanted to put up a token resistance and fold, partly because of the Nazi-Stalin pact. Churchill was generous in not providing convenient accidents for them. If Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, Stalin would have attacked him eventually. Hitler tried to avoid a two-front war, and failed, just like the Kaiser.
Before the Americans got into the War, the Germans could have finished off the British, then attacked the Russians. The move on Russia was premature. The British had only to hold on until the Americans got into the war, which was inevitable. The British had been foolish in not building up their military after WW I - in not being prepared for WW II. They very nearly lost everything for this short-sightedness on their part. By diverting resources to Russia and dividing his own attention, Hitler let Britain off the hook long enough for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor - the excuse that Roosevelt waiting for to goad the Congress into declaring war. Hitler's timing had been perfect, up until his ill-timed invasion of Russia.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 25, 2016, 10:48:35 AM
Before the Americans got into the War, the Germans could have finished off the British, then attacked the Russians. The move on Russia was premature. The British had only to hold on until the Americans got into the war, which was inevitable. The British had been foolish in not building up their military after WW I - in not being prepared for WW II. They very nearly lost everything for this short-sightedness on their part. By diverting resources to Russia and dividing his own attention, Hitler let Britain off the hook long enough for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor - the excuse that Roosevelt waiting for to goad the Congress into declaring war. Hitler's timing had been perfect, up until his ill-timed invasion of Russia.
Yes, one of the greatest mistakes of all time. Perhaps Stalin would have attacked Hitler given time, but the timing is important. See the Germans think they are better than the French, and Hitler is better than Napoleon. So hubris rolled the dice. Also the progress of Imperial Germany against Imperial Russia was exaggerated ... without the secret weapon of Lenin, the Germans wouldn't have gotten all that far. On the other hand, it was a question of air superiority ... to invade Britain via barges. Goering was a big fat failure. Hitler actually defeated the Luftwaffe, by diverting it from attacking airfields to attacking London.
Britain was pacifist like France, after WW I. So you can blame the politicians in both countries for their defeat/near-defeat. An idiot would have been smart enough to attack Germany while it was still in Poland, not wait for them to turn around. And reinforced Norway before the Germans got their first. But then at that time, they had that traitor, Chamberlain (who betrayed Czechoslovakia before he betrayed Poland) running things at that time. The Italians and the Japanese weren't the best allies to have either. The Italian forces were 10 years behind Germany in quality, as were the Japanese (aside from their Navy). The Vichy navy was taken out by the British, and so was the Italian navy (thanks to a coded intercept). Aside from the U-boats, the German navy wasn't very useful either.
1939 - 1940 was good for Germany/Italy. But then the Allies started to get wise to their tricks. 1937-1942 was good for Japan, first in China, then in the Pacific.
Quote from: reasonist on June 22, 2016, 11:35:26 AM
We should be all scared and prepared.
I live in a fairly affluent town in the UK with about 75,000 people. About a decade ago there were hardly any muslim women wearing hijabs, bringing us to about 8yrs ago when an islamic preacher visited town and very quickly about half were wearing hijabs. About 2yrs ago this shifted to most muslim women wearing hijabs, and about a year ago shifted once again to the tiny minority
not wearing a hijab.
There were never any burqas worn up until a few weeks ago when a flurry of women began wearing full, black coverings. It's become quite the spectacle for some of our residents who are looking on in disbelief! Most doctors, pharmacists, shop-assistants and taxi drivers are clearly muslims and people are increasingly feeling overrun. Once the local council opted to cease displaying the St George's Cross on national holidays (purely to avoid offending the local muslim population) people felt largely disgusted!
Many of our national, fast-food outlets (kfs/subway etc) are now shifting to halal meat when only a small percentage of customers are muslims; our culture, choices and heritage are changing.
In our town
alone over the past 4yrs, sIx taxi drivers have been convicted of raping or sexually assaulting their white, female passengers. This is not normal or a random occurrence, but is a national / continental issue and has not been seen in our history of immigration.
In this country there is an ever-growing anti-muslim sentiment not because the far right are particularly good at what they shout over a megaphone while pissed-up on watered-down lager and football-induced adrenaline, but because people are beginning to stand up to an overly-aggressive PC brigade and are finding the courage to speak up about what they really feel is happening to the indigenous culture here.
There's an ever-increasing grass-roots uprising of people feeling hopeless for the future of British culture, and it's unprecedented, and it's often anger-fueled, but mostly it is a fear that isn't irrational or 'islamophobic'.
I've lived here most of my life and was married to an islamic apostate for 13yrs, but if I had the money I'd emigrate without hesitation. This doesn't feel like the UK to me anymore.
I don't advocate a hysteric fear of the average muslim as an individual, but I certainly have fears for the future of the culture I was born into. I've seen many cultures integrate here, but with the islamic culture there seems to be little integration and a clear, overt desire to infiltrate and takeover the country with a view to implementing sharia law (or should I say
more sharia law than already exists).
If one lives here, that is, lives outside of privileged suburban utopias, it isn't a debate that's early in its' proceedings, it's a cultural shift occurring at an alarming rate for most of the population, and there is a more-frequently spoken fear of 'islamic' violence, aggression, sexual assault, discrimination, sexism, mysoginy, homophobia, child-abuse, grooming, intolerance, zealotry, no-go zones, entire towns being ghettoised and non-muslims being targeted for the aforementioned by islamic gangs.
These are the mainsream concerns of the majority, not of a fringe-group of radical right-wingers or 'racists' (not anymore, at least) and it's a sentiment shared far more vehemently across most of the European nations (especially Germany, Sweden & the Netherlands).
Generally-speaking, people are scared of islamisation in an unprecedented manner, more for their children's futures than their own!
Personally, I've already given up on the UK as I see no way this can be reversed, so I'll soon be renouncing my citizenship / passport and adopting my birthright to Irish nationality.
Jake :/
Edited: Shameful typos!
QuoteWe should be all scared and prepared.
Yeah, no. If you are living in fear, you aren't living.
Quote from: reasonist on June 22, 2016, 07:23:24 PM
That's what Chamberlain said.
Let's not forget that WW1 weighed heavily in Chamberlain's mind. While he obviously waited too long, it's hard to blame the guy for not wanting to send men out into that kind of living hell all over again.
Interesting video about Lebanon and their civil war between muslims and non muslims.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=abyBT0-_nyA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqptfViOmH8
We have a small brush war between African-American folk and police here in the US. And many African-Americans are Muslim. So you got what you wanted ... happy now?
https://youtu.be/joXLdNnxKd8
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 24, 2016, 11:00:59 PM
Let's not forget that WW1 weighed heavily in Chamberlain's mind. While he obviously waited too long, it's hard to blame the guy for not wanting to send men out into that kind of living hell all over again.
Yes, but there is a difference between 'not wanting to send men out' to war and appeasement. The writing was on the wall but was ignored way too long.
Lol. I'll let Gawdzilla Sama critique the history of WW2 because that is his field.
Everybody leaves out global warming; what will happen is happening- loss of crops and water, continual conflicts created from that mixed with ideological designs to expand and control. It doesn't take all of Islam to conquer Europe. Secular states have typically low birth rates. Islam taking root in a country simply out populates the other cultures and grows inside the country to eventually have a vocal minority and then a majority. That is what is happening in Britain. In case nobody noticed, the mayor of London is a Muslim. there is a significant population of Islam in Britain and that group is growing faster than any other. Another generation and they will be dominant.
Religion works on the basis of tacit approval. Most people are content to let others do the decision making. As long as it is not controversial and status quo, everyone happily abides. But when the revolution in any form appears to be or becomes the status quo, then tacit approval shifts in that direction. It doesn't take an army of believers, just an army of tacitly approving members.
Quote from: stromboli on July 27, 2016, 11:20:03 AM
Lol. I'll let Gawdzilla Sama critique the history of WW2 because that is his field.
Everybody leaves out global warming; what will happen is happening- loss of crops and water, continual conflicts created from that mixed with ideological designs to expand and control. It doesn't take all of Islam to conquer Europe. Secular states have typically low birth rates. Islam taking root in a country simply out populates the other cultures and grows inside the country to eventually have a vocal minority and then a majority. That is what is happening in Britain. In case nobody noticed, the mayor of London is a Muslim. there is a significant population of Islam in Britain and that group is growing faster than any other. Another generation and they will be dominant.
Religion works on the basis of tacit approval. Most people are content to let others do the decision making. As long as it is not controversial and status quo, everyone happily abides. But when the revolution in any form appears to be or becomes the status quo, then tacit approval shifts in that direction. It doesn't take an army of believers, just an army of tacitly approving members.
Muslims account for 2.71% of the UK's population. I do not think that they will be the majority in a single generation.
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2016, 07:39:10 PM
Every country wants to conquer the world, not just Germany. Every political party dreams of leading a nation by the nose wherever they want to take it. Of course I prefer the American kind over the Muslim Brotherhood kind. And having some inside document doesn't count for much ... one should be forewarned based on past history, not on a possibly forged document (see Protocols of the Elders of Zion).
There's no need for secret documents, the Muslim brotherhood is an openly Islamist organization which seeks to subvert current governments through more scheming methods compared to jihadists.
Islam in Britain is around 5%. Some parts of London are 50% Islamic. You got the part about the mayor being Muslim.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/muslims-in-the-uk-top-3-million-some-parts-of-london-almost-50-muslim
In France 9.6% or about 6 million. Point being the same in countries becoming more secular, they reproduce at a higher rate and don't forget, unlike a disassociated group of cultures in a country, they are very homogeneous in their culture and stance on issues. The numbers of Islamic can only grow. Besides the influx of refugees that will continue and grow in both numbers and percentage-displaced by politics, war and global warming- the living population is expanding out of proportion to the rest of the countries.
Quote from: stromboli on July 27, 2016, 05:51:22 PM
Islam in Britain is around 5%. Some parts of London are 50% Islamic. You got the part about the mayor being Muslim.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/muslims-in-the-uk-top-3-million-some-parts-of-london-almost-50-muslim
In France 9.6% or about 6 million. Point being the same in countries becoming more secular, they reproduce at a higher rate and don't forget, unlike a disassociated group of cultures in a country, they are very homogeneous in their culture and stance on issues. The numbers of Islamic can only grow. Besides the influx of refugees that will continue and grow in both numbers and percentage-displaced by politics, war and global warming- the living population is expanding out of proportion to the rest of the countries.
Yes, sorry - I double-checked, and my stats were outdated. The Muslim population did grow. But that should slow down now that Brexit has been passed. The fastest growing segment of the population is, in fact, the non-religious, which, to my way of thinking, is good ... Don't get my wrong: as the descendant of English people, I worry about Britain. I do not want it overrun by non-Brits of any kind, whether Muslim or Hindu or anything - not even Americans, like myself. I support the Monarchy (despised Diana), would vote Conservative were I a British citizen, and I was heartily against Lords Reform - and I was HORRIFIED to learn that a Muslim had become Mayor of London ... Britain needs to do what Ireland did - overhaul its immigration policies!
Quote from: reasonist on July 27, 2016, 10:51:38 AM
Yes, but there is a difference between 'not wanting to send men out' to war and appeasement. The writing was on the wall but was ignored way too long.
Many Anglo-Americans wanted a strong leader like Hitler, just as some want Putin today.
Like the Ides of March, Brexit has come, but not yet finished.
Quote from: Baruch on July 27, 2016, 07:01:43 PM
Like the Ides of March, Brexit has come, but not yet finished.
That could be said about any event. Since we don't know what the World would have been like had Caesar lived, there's no point in speculating - the same goes for Brexit not having passed.
Like Stalin said, it isn't what the vote count is, or even who counts the votes, but who implements the supposed policy ;-) The Franco-German Axis already said that GB isn't going anywhere.
Quote from: Baruch on July 27, 2016, 07:38:31 PM
Like Stalin said, it isn't what the vote count is, or even who counts the votes, but who implements the supposed policy ;-) The Franco-German Axis already said that GB isn't going anywhere.
And maybe they're right. Time will tell. A large number of people in France want out of the EU ...
Quote from: marom1963 on July 27, 2016, 11:19:04 PM
And maybe they're right. Time will tell. A large number of people in France want out of the EU ...
Last time they called those people The Resistance ...
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2016, 06:55:27 PM
Last time they called those people The Resistance ...
:rotflmao:
Quote from: marom1963 on July 28, 2016, 07:28:28 PM
:rotflmao:
All the French were collaborators, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. The Resistance were all French Communists, under orders from Moscow. I love the French in spite of this.
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2016, 07:51:59 PM
All the French were collaborators, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. The Resistance were all French Communists, under orders from Moscow. I love the French in spite of this.
The reason that Americans do not like the French is that the French are too like Americans. The French believe in - French Exceptionalism, w/the same fervor that Americans believe in American Exceptionalism. The French Government may have gotten its way w/the EU for decades, but further integration would rub against French nationalism - and I am quite sure that the French do not wish to become Germans! ... I don't just love the French; I like them, as well.
@marom1963 QuoteThe reason that Americans do not like the French is that the French are too like Americans. The French believe in - French Exceptionalism, w/the same fervor that Americans believe in American Exceptionalism.
I think most Canadians where I am from find this exceptionalism/nationalism thing quite odd. The problem I see with nationalism is that it seems to be a little extreme and just another flavor of religion without all the omniscient all knowing being nonsense. In fact we Canadians are characterized by a near complete lack of nationalism which even we find strange sometimes.
I was contemplating this fact not long ago, I like Canada and I was born here. It's a nice place to live with very nice people and lot's of wide open spaces and very beautiful places. However it's simply the place I choose to live and I'm sure I would be quite happy living somewhere else if I wanted...more so a warmer place.
However if I moved South to the United States or France should I assume I am somehow now superior or better?... well no that is absurd. Being born in one place on this planet or moving to another place does not change who we are and obviously geography does not miraculously make anyone a better person.
To be honest I just don't get this nationalism thing because it looks like extremism to me, it looks like a poor excuse to rationalize fanatic if not psychotic behavior.
Quote from: Fickle on July 29, 2016, 02:32:19 AM
@marom1963
I think most Canadians where I am from find this exceptionalism/nationalism thing quite odd. The problem I see with nationalism is that it seems to be a little extreme and just another flavor of religion without all the omniscient all knowing being nonsense. In fact we Canadians are characterized by a near complete lack of nationalism which even we find strange sometimes.
I was contemplating this fact not long ago, I like Canada and I was born here. It's a nice place to live with very nice people and lot's of wide open spaces and very beautiful places. However it's simply the place I choose to live and I'm sure I would be quite happy living somewhere else if I wanted...more so a warmer place.
However if I moved South to the United States or France should I assume I am somehow now superior or better?... well no that is absurd. Being born in one place on this planet or moving to another place does not change who we are and obviously geography does not miraculously make anyone a better person.
To be honest I just don't get this nationalism thing because it looks like extremism to me, it looks like a poor excuse to rationalize fanatic if not psychotic behavior.
I don't buy into the exceptionalism thing. However, a country is an established fact. One's fate is very dependent upon its fate, so it only makes sense to be something of a cheerleader for one's own country.
Canada got lucky in its vastness and its richness because it was north of the United States, which eventually - well, really, rather quickly - became tight allies w/the UK. Your country's mommy country is why your country has never been molested the way that Mexico has. It would have been worse than bad manners for us to go up north and start gobbling the way we have done out west and to the south. As long as a British monarch sits on the Canadian throne, Canada is guaranteed peace and prosperity and good wishes from America.
I am pro Canadian, because Canada isn't Mexico. Ironically I am pro-Mexican as well ;-) Ever hear of the Ugly American? Americans are exceptional everywhere they go ... so of course as you say, a Canadian isn't exceptional, so they won't feel exceptional outside their country either ;-) In the cartoon, Hitalia, the American character is a brother to the Brit, but fight like brothers, together and against each other. But the American is a bombastic asshole that the other characters barely tolerate. I think that is a fair characterization.