quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
There are about 44 million Muslims in Europe at the moment. In 2030 there will be about sixty million. How is that not an invasion by nearly one million Muslims per year?

quote:

Also, Why do you think I missed that fact that colonization was not optional? Colonialization, however was probably a better choice for them than extinction. The same choice that has been made millions of times in history. And the opposite is also true - do you know the location of carthage? Of course not, because the Romans, tired of the wars, executed the carthaginian solution. They killed every man, woman and child, and sowed the fields with salt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
There are about 44 million Muslims in Europe at the moment. In 2030 there will be about sixty million. How is that not an invasion by nearly one million Muslims per year?

Well, like, because they enter with permission of the target country and according to its laws.
BTW the same happens with the dutch people who enter in Germany. Somehow this is also not an invasion. I don't know why you consider it only "invasion" if they are Muslims.

quote:

The contempt expressed ("It is *laughable* that you want peace and justice") for peace shows us the war mongering heart of your discourse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

Anyway I still didn't see anybody agree with me the Kurds deserve their own country too.
So obviously you are all against those people having the right to govern themselves.
That's why people in general are hypocrites when they cry about palestinians.
And I know why nobody enters this argument cause your world will be turned upside down.
Hope it's a comfortable ride in the tunnel of denial.

And again history stops at about the year 1900. It's like talkin to christians who say the world was made in 6 days and it's not older then a couple millenia?
Ah why bother? Oh yeah, I know, ignorance just fuels my discontent of so called civilized people.
You know they say the birth of civilisation started with cities. It's also in those cities the all out wars started. There is your cradle of civilisation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Also, Why do you think I missed that fact that colonization was not optional? Colonialization, however was probably a better choice for them than extinction. The same choice that has been made millions of times in history. And the opposite is also true - do you know the location of carthage? Of course not, because the Romans, tired of the wars, executed the carthaginian solution. They killed every man, woman and child, and sowed the fields with salt.

You give a misrepresentation of the process of colonization in the Middle East by the French, British, and Americans. Also, you propose a false choice between colonization and extinction. Although the British were involved in Persia before 1914, and the Germans to a greater extent in Arabia and the Levant, the major dislocations took place as consequence of the Ottoman entry into WW1 on the side of Germany. The Allies engaged local tribesmen against the Ottomans with promises of Independence (T.E. Lawrence) and then betrayed those promises. Not to say some of the locals were not complicit in forming joint oil ventures with their new masters. Until Mosaddeq rebelled against the inequity of the dispersal of income from British Petroleum.

It is also a misrepresentation for anyone to say the Allies willfully became colonizers of the area in the same way Africa and the Americas were colonized or the way India was colonized. Colonization of the ME was more the result of a clash between Empires in a war that began elsewhere.

btw, kudos for your assumed name, dawg.

quote:

Because dutch people speak fluent german.
Because more then half our inmates are muslim.
Because it's a silent invasive tactic called we breed the christians out.
Because they don't adapt to the culture like we dutchies do in dubai.
Because they have no respect for our culture.
Because this is the oldest non agressive invasive tactic of muslims.
But it's not colonizing a country, it's takin over one through immigration.
Different tactic same result except it's more effective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I didn't say we never invaded anyone for oi. I said we didn't invade afghanistan for oil.

We didn't invade for the oil fields, we invaded for the pipelines. Chevron said (in 1997) that they couldn't proceed with their venture until the Taliban were evicted. Billions are not spent for ideological prosthletization, but for a solid return on equity, capitalized by tax payers and soldiers, with no return to either of them for that investment.

You didn't know that that's how capitalism works for the mentally deranged, did you?


Almost any of us would like to see the Taliban evicted from the planet, but Chevron had no interest in that regard other than their precious pipelines.

quote:

The afghan oil fields were shut down prior to american invsion, fwiw.

What timing.

What strategical enui on their part.

quote:


I do see the invasion of Palestine as an imperialist issue, not colonialist, and I think I can support it with very good facts. But make no big difference on the moral aspect so yes, it may count as "technicality" in this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
I have read in news sources here in the States that the recent rioting in Sweden and previously in Paris had its origins from barriers to assimilation in those countries and the inability to gain any but low wage labor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
In the States, no matter how much people rail against our international behaviour, assimilation of immigrants has been historically successful. Currently, Latinos are prospering with businesses and comfortable homes. A look around the Miami suburbs will confirm that observation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
And previously German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, and Asian immigrants have assimilated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
We also have populations of Iraqi and Iranians, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
More than 70 different languages are spoken in New York City.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
So, how is it the immigrating/assimilating of Muslims into European cultures different? What is the problem? Is it basically an irreconcilable religious conflict? Is it really all the blame and evil intentions of the Muslims or do the Euros share blame? Curious to know.

quote:


In the States, no matter how much people rail against our international behaviour, assimilation of immigrants has been historically successful. Currently, Latinos are prospering with businesses and comfortable homes. A look around the Miami suburbs will confirm that observation. And previously German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, and Asian immigrants have assimilated. Mostly all of these groups began with low paying wages. According to Pew Research the third generation are fluent in English. We also have populations of Iraqi and Iranians, etc. More than 70 different languages are spoken in New York City.

So, how is it the immigrating/assimilating of Muslims into European cultures different? What is the problem? Is it basically an irreconcilable religious conflict? Is it really all the blame and evil intentions of the Muslims or do the Euros share blame? Curious to know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Thanks for the kudos. I don't know why you said I made a misrepresentation about the process of colonization in the Middle East. I made NO representations about the process of colonization there, at all.

The original poster said all colonizers were evil. The west is terrible. The sky is falling! Why can't you recognize how evil you are etc etc. I said that colonization is one data point in a spectrum of statecraft for both the dominant and subdominant culture. And it is. Certainlly cultures can (and have) resisted to the death before - but this is not actually to what I was referring.

Areas become colonies (or client states) voluntarily as well. For example the US (and britain, to some extent) set up the hashemites as kings in Saudia Arabia and Jordan. And while our influence with these client states is fading - nonetheless this has been a profitable for both countries.

As I said, client states, colonies, allies (like the us/britain) - all are just points on the continuum of statecraft where states try to effect results to the benefits of their nations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Latinos are of mostly Christian descend. They therefore mostly are civilized people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The french have historically had very successful assimilation, among the Europeans. But assimilation is half of the rate it was occuring in the late 50's and 60's.
A number of factors of involved, but essentially the larger the group of immigrants, and the more cohesive and centralized - the slower assimilation proceeds.

But thats *not* the effect thats occuring here. The muslims in france are for the most part fluent in french, coming from typically french influenced areas in northafrica such as algeria. However while the 'immigrants' are fluent in french and have some experience with culture, political norms etc -they are not assimilating.

Certainly I think statist institutions have exacerbated the problem. But the fundamental problem, IMO is the issue or idea of uma. Muslims are emigrating with the idea of expanding the muslim world. According to muslim ideology the community of believers trumps arbitrary boundaries of statecraft.

Just like in the southwest illegals are crossing the border with the idea of 'la reconquista' - the reconquest - I think the people immigrating with these ideas logically more resistant to assimilation - versus previous generations of immigrants that merely wanted a place to be free and to live their life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Thanks for the kudos. I don't know why you said I made a misrepresentation about the process of colonization in the Middle East. I made NO representations about the process of colonization there, at all.

The original poster said all colonizers were evil. The west is terrible. The sky is falling! Why can't you recognize how evil you are etc etc. I said that colonization is one data point in a spectrum of statecraft for both the dominant and subdominant culture. And it is. Certainlly cultures can (and have) resisted to the death before - but this is not actually to what I was referring.

Areas become colonies (or client states) voluntarily as well. For example the US (and britain, to some extent) set up the hashemites as kings in Saudia Arabia and Jordan. And while our influence with these client states is fading - nonetheless this has been a profitable for both countries.

As I said, client states, colonies, allies (like the us/britain) - all are just points on the continuum of statecraft where states try to effect results to the benefits of their nations.

and what is a state for 100?

nothing more than an association of businesses for profit, mostly their own, who eventually force all inhabitants to into their religion worshiping the almighty dollar. Meantime and over time they claim they have jurisdiction over every fucking thing, and through corporate loans et al the bank comes in and ultimately enslaves the whole 9 yards.

You unwittingly proved how states are created and hence their illegitimacy of jurisdiction over ANYONE but their own signed sealed delivered members.


good post