If a certain community within your nation multiplies exponentially...

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
seriously.what in the world is this? this reminds me of a hitler propoganda thread..

oh no they will out-reproduce us..

that is the most paranoid and delusional concern i have ever seen..

Originally posted by: Todd33
Ya, I'm lost. This thread is about Muslims want to take over the world through reproducing? I that that was the plan of the Mormons?

The Algerian President, Boumedienne, in 1974, addressed the United Nations General Assembly and declared unequivocally,

"One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one, but not as friends. They will burst in to conquer and they will conquer by populating it with children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women."

Enough said, this is what is happening and you people are blind enough to ignore this. The problem is that this danger would span out well over a century, i.e beyond our lifetimes, but it would be minute compared to the march of history and the timeline of that of human civilization. In my nation the Islamic population increased 500% in less than 50 years and by next fifty they would outpopulate us ending our democracy....

Oh sorry,

I must have awoken both of you from your slumber, please go back to sleep.

Some no name African guy says something so it's true? Maybe we should gather up the world's Muslims into "freedom camps" and then kill them? Sorry, I'm from a planet where we judge individuals on their actions and not generalize to 1 billion+ people based on religious hatred. I guess I'll go to sleep now and leave your weird nightmare world.

 

[magomago]

Wooo lot of mis information.

Some Muslim rulers in India were absolutely horrible, to the point where they even killed Muslims who didn't share their EXACT view. I've read about Muslims in India and some extremely sad things were done by rulers CLAIMING to be Muslims. Others were MUCH more tolerant. I don't see how that is the religion itself: rather it is called a "mixed bag of rulers outside the bounds of religion. IF it was the religion you would see that the rulers all would be one side or another, and I said you get a mixed bag.

Also your "examples" are a sad case....Thailand? IT is the Buddhist government ACTIVELY oppressing the Muslims. The government back in the 1800s annexed the land these guys lived on, and since then they have been systematically discriminated against by the government. Anyone with the right mind would be actively resisting. Chechnya is an extremely complex issue on its own, and to boil it down to "Muslims attacking teh infidels" is a simplistic view of the situation. Almost EVERY instance where "Muslims" or a group of people fights back is because an outside force is fvcking with their own business.

And LumbergTech put it right:

eriously.what in the world is this? this reminds me of a hitler propoganda thread..

oh no they will out-reproduce us..

that is the most paranoid and delusional concern i have ever seen..

Have fun dreaming that Muslims want to take over the world. You sound very similar to people down here who think the USA's "whiteness" is threatened by "Mexicans popping out six kids per family".

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
seriously.what in the world is this? this reminds me of a hitler propoganda thread..

oh no they will out-reproduce us..

that is the most paranoid and delusional concern i have ever seen..

Originally posted by: Todd33
Ya, I'm lost. This thread is about Muslims want to take over the world through reproducing? I that that was the plan of the Mormons?

The Algerian President, Boumedienne, in 1974, addressed the United Nations General Assembly and declared unequivocally,

"One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one, but not as friends. They will burst in to conquer and they will conquer by populating it with children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women."

Enough said, this is what is happening and you people are blind enough to ignore this. The problem is that this danger would span out well over a century, i.e beyond our lifetimes, but it would be minute compared to the march of history and the timeline of that of human civilization. In my nation the Islamic population increased 500% in less than 50 years and by next fifty they would outpopulate us ending our democracy....

Oh sorry,

I must have awoken both of you from your slumber, please go back to sleep.

Dude... who cares about Algeria

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Drop the Propoganda BS already.

I would do so, if you can provide credible, consistent proof contrary to my views.

Stop being the apologist.

There are numerous parts of the World dominated by Muslims where no Genocide is taking place.

Care to point out to me the places?

Iran.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Both sides are slaughtering people becasue of british idiocy drawing the borders of kashmir area, contested areas do make conflict. So here we are again, imperialism ftl.

But yeah british and muslims have screwed over India, join the club with the Native Americans, Central Americans, European Jews, Soviet Dissidents sent to gulags, millions in The congo area in africa becasue of dutch, it is not one religion who commits genocide, it is generally poverty/greed which is non-denominational.

When was the last time muslims killed millions in india anyhow? 100s and 100s of years ago, I can see where the anger comes from but the two peoples have lived together mostly in peace for a long time barring the pakistani thing, that is a land dispute, not religon, you are the one bringing religion into it.

I have no grudges against what happened. I shall not walk around with a victimized complex. What I have grudges against that they still continue to do it today with impunity and coverup their past crimes with whitewashing by apologists like you. If they reform, I would have no problems with them whatsoever. I have plenty of Muslim friends.

Reform is up to them, but a people in constant state of warfare because of outside meddling tend to stagnate and become reactionary, it is happening here in america right now, our most fundamentalist christians are up in arms now becasue of terrorist attacks.

Instability warfare and poverty tends to bring out the backward conservative warring aspect of a culture.

Sounds like you defending the Israelis...good for you!! Finally!! Somebody who agrees!!

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Show me where I told Muslims=inferior.

Originally posted by: Braznor


Rise and fall of civilizations is inevitable, but if an existing one is good and fair, I would see nothing wrong in fighting to preserve it, especially if the one planning to takeover the current one is worse than the one getting replaced.

You are stating muslims are less "worse" in other words you consider muslim people a lesser race and unworthy of having families as they see fit, should we send you some boxcars to ship them off now, or later?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Show me where I told Muslims=inferior.

Originally posted by: Braznor


Rise and fall of civilizations is inevitable, but if an existing one is good and fair, I would see nothing wrong in fighting to preserve it, especially if the one planning to takeover the current one is worse than the one getting replaced.

You are stating muslims are less "worse" in other words you consider muslim people a lesser race and unworthy of having families as they see fit, should we send you some boxcars to ship them off now, or later?

since when is muslim = race ?

i understand what the poster is saying. If there is a culture that practices canablism, is it better for that culture to be influenced/replaced by one that does not?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Show me where I told Muslims=inferior.

Originally posted by: Braznor


Rise and fall of civilizations is inevitable, but if an existing one is good and fair, I would see nothing wrong in fighting to preserve it, especially if the one planning to takeover the current one is worse than the one getting replaced.

You are stating muslims are less "worse" in other words you consider muslim people a lesser race and unworthy of having families as they see fit, should we send you some boxcars to ship them off now, or later?

since when is muslim = race ?

i understand what the poster is saying. If there is a culture that practices canablism, is it better for that culture to be influenced/replaced by one that does not?

WTF?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Braznor
In Afghanistan, there are these mountains named Hindu Kush, do you know what it means, it means slayer of Hindus.

Why do you think the mountains are called Hindu Kush?

called Hindukush, which means "Slayer of Hindus," because the slave boys and girls who are brought from Hind (India) die there in large numbers as a result of the extreme cold and the quantity of snow."

Hindu originally referred to any inhabitant of the Indian subcontinent (Hindustan), or Hind, rather than to followers of Hinduism as it does now. At that time inhabitants of India were mostly Hindu or Buddhist.

Hindu Kush

Originally posted by: Braznor
Steeplerot,

Quit trying to teach me MY NATION's history.

I take it then, your not American? Your just visiting NC?
I just watched a doc the other night about the storming of the Sikh holy shrine of the Golden Temple. So much blood shed and death between the Hindus and Sikhs. Such a beautiful country ( and so spiritual ), so many great people that I have met its really all so hard to understand

This thread is really confusing, how are you determining a *native population*?
Native as in the people in a certain country right now?, no matter where they came from? Native as in the people who orginally were in a country?

I think things will always be changing

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Braznor
Steeplerot,

Quit trying to teach me MY NATION's history.

p.s.

CanOworms (as far as I can gather, he is an Indian who's now an American) has opened my eyes a few times about my country (Canada)

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Show me where I told Muslims=inferior.

Originally posted by: Braznor


Rise and fall of civilizations is inevitable, but if an existing one is good and fair, I would see nothing wrong in fighting to preserve it, especially if the one planning to takeover the current one is worse than the one getting replaced.

You are stating muslims are less "worse" in other words you consider muslim people a lesser race and unworthy of having families as they see fit, should we send you some boxcars to ship them off now, or later?

since when is muslim = race ?

i understand what the poster is saying. If there is a culture that practices canablism, is it better for that culture to be influenced/replaced by one that does not?

Eh, cannibalism is actually a great idea, you kill it you eat it would change the state of modern warfare and people would think twice before getting into petty wars.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Show me where I told Muslims=inferior.

Originally posted by: Braznor


Rise and fall of civilizations is inevitable, but if an existing one is good and fair, I would see nothing wrong in fighting to preserve it, especially if the one planning to takeover the current one is worse than the one getting replaced.

You are stating muslims are less "worse" in other words you consider muslim people a lesser race and unworthy of having families as they see fit, should we send you some boxcars to ship them off now, or later?

since when is muslim = race ?

i understand what the poster is saying. If there is a culture that practices canablism, is it better for that culture to be influenced/replaced by one that does not?

Eh, cannibalism is actually a great idea, you kill it you eat it would change the state of modern warfare and people would think twice before getting into petty wars.

You make light, but the point is some cultures are better then others.

 

[Rainsford]

I wonder about the premise of this thread...what gives a particular group a right to call it "their nation"? After all, being the majority does not give you a totaly and complete right to forever remain the majority, and history tends to show that these things shift from time to time. Believe it or not, at one time the "more cultured" Europeans in this country were agast at being displaced by later immigrant groups like the Irish and the Italians. And you know what, they were to some extent. We may speak English, but you'll have to look kind of hard to find an American with a British background any more. That's how things go, demographics shift, and then shift back. I'm not sure why it's worth getting worked into a lather over.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Show me where I told Muslims=inferior.

Originally posted by: Braznor


Rise and fall of civilizations is inevitable, but if an existing one is good and fair, I would see nothing wrong in fighting to preserve it, especially if the one planning to takeover the current one is worse than the one getting replaced.

You are stating muslims are less "worse" in other words you consider muslim people a lesser race and unworthy of having families as they see fit, should we send you some boxcars to ship them off now, or later?

since when is muslim = race ?

i understand what the poster is saying. If there is a culture that practices canablism, is it better for that culture to be influenced/replaced by one that does not?

Eh, cannibalism is actually a great idea, you kill it you eat it would change the state of modern warfare and people would think twice before getting into petty wars.

You make light, but the point is some cultures are better then others.

That is true...and I honestly think our culture could use a little improvement.

New cultures won't displace the previous one, at least in this country, the new culture will simply be integrated into the whole. And while some people may think we'd be better off without certain cultures, I'm not sure history backs you up. After all, hatred aside, the Muslim culture has a lot of redeeming traits...and if integrated into the US, I think a lot of the negative traits would be filtered out, leaving us with another point for improvement. Can you honestly say that there is NOTHING we have to gain from the Muslim community, or the Hispanic community, or any other community of immigrants?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: magomago
Wooo lot of mis information.

Some Muslim rulers in India were absolutely horrible, to the point where they even killed Muslims who didn't share their EXACT view. I've read about Muslims in India and some extremely sad things were done by rulers CLAIMING to be Muslims. Others were MUCH more tolerant. I don't see how that is the religion itself: rather it is called a "mixed bag of rulers outside the bounds of religion. IF it was the religion you would see that the rulers all would be one side or another, and I said you get a mixed bag.

Also your "examples" are a sad case....Thailand? IT is the Buddhist government ACTIVELY oppressing the Muslims. The government back in the 1800s annexed the land these guys lived on, and since then they have been systematically discriminated against by the government. Anyone with the right mind would be actively resisting. Chechnya is an extremely complex issue on its own, and to boil it down to "Muslims attacking teh infidels" is a simplistic view of the situation. Almost EVERY instance where "Muslims" or a group of people fights back is because an outside force is fvcking with their own business.

And LumbergTech put it right:

eriously.what in the world is this? this reminds me of a hitler propoganda thread..

oh no they will out-reproduce us..

that is the most paranoid and delusional concern i have ever seen..

Have fun dreaming that Muslims want to take over the world. You sound very similar to people down here who think the USA's "whiteness" is threatened by "Mexicans popping out six kids per family".

Most Muslims in Islam controlled India were genocidal brutes. Their genocidal actions were motivated by the Koran, their desire to be a ghzi (slayer of kafirs) If they slayed muslims too for not been islamic enough, then the blame can be placed solely at the altar of Islam. One ruler, Akbar who was least intolerant of the lot was known to slaugther atleast 30000 Hindu Rajputs in one stroke. Bahmanid Sultans had an agenda of slaughtering a hundred thousand hindus (their own subjects) every year to pay homage to Islam's concept of Jihad. The record of these genocides comes from the muslims themselves, paying proud homage to the jihad of the muslim kings. Those who left the hindu live did so by the imposition of Jagizya (infidel tax)

And stop hiding behind the standard excuse saying "these people were not muslims or claiming to be muslims" This excuse of yours is old as Islam itself. Accept them and move on, do not provide excuses. It was Islam which was the primary movtiation for their evil deeds. And yes, it was a clear case of black and white then. Unable to bear these atrocities, Hindus rebelled and gave rise to Kings like Shivaji who always treated their muslim subjects and mosques with benevolence.

And it is funny how you claim the incidents in places like Thailand as a case of muslim oppression. It is funnier considering other communities learn to live in peace while only muslims percive oppression and resume Jihad, thanks to the cover provided by people like the leftists and liberals in this forum.

As for your third point, Jihad is a primary duty within Islam. You would once again claim that the Jihad is 'internal' All the evidence in the world proves this is not the case and the primary goal of Jihad is the Islamification of the world, the establishment of the caliphate and establishment of Dar-ul-Islam.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Some no name African guy says something so it's true? Maybe we should gather up the world's Muslims into "freedom camps" and then kill them? Sorry, I'm from a planet where we judge individuals on their actions and not generalize to 1 billion+ people based on religious hatred. I guess I'll go to sleep now and leave your weird nightmare world.

Sure, that gu was just another no name dude, sure, Osama is just another dude and in your world, I'am sure even the bombers who were caught in Canada were just another few misinformed dudes getting oppressed by the unfair state hating their right to commit Jihad.

Even I would not judge individuals by their actions, but when group of individuals throughout the timeline of relevant history perform consistent actions on a consistent ideology, then you would be blind not to correlate their actions with their ideology and find the root cause. I never advocated your 'freedom camps' point, it is a fear from your deluded mind of leftism. The truth is I have no solution to this problem and that's what frightens me and THIS WAS THE FREAKING POINT OF THIS THREAD.

Do yourself a favor and go back to sleep.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

You are stating muslims are less "worse" in other words you consider muslim people a lesser race and unworthy of having families as they see fit, should we send you some boxcars to ship them off now, or later?

Ha Ha Ha, you are a crackhead if you cannot qualitatively judge civilizations and place them on a scale. So what you saying is that it is not PC to call muslim societies backward.

Tell me, who in America would like to see an imposition of Saudi Arabian society upon it?
I say it here and I will say it again, muslim societies are the nadir of human civilization.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

You are stating muslims are less "worse" in other words you consider muslim people a lesser race and unworthy of having families as they see fit, should we send you some boxcars to ship them off now, or later?

Ha Ha Ha, you are a crackhead if you cannot qualitatively judge civilizations and place them on a scale. So what you saying is that it is not PC to call muslim societies backward.

Tell me, who in America would like to see an imposition of Saudi Arabian society upon it?
I say it here and I will say it again, muslim societies are the nadir of human civilization.

All culltures are in a state of change, in a lot of ways imo american culture has gone backwards, it's not a matter of one being better then another, just where they are coming from atm. You have this paranoia trip that we are going to wake up and be outbred, this is silly. Even if we killed off our borders and the mexicans all took viagra the whites would still be majority for a long long time. I suggest you relax, the boogeyman is in your head.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

I take it then, your not American? Your just visiting NC?
I just watched a doc the other night about the storming of the Sikh holy shrine of the Golden Temple. So much blood shed and death between the Hindus and Sikhs. Such a beautiful country ( and so spiritual ), so many great people that I have met its really all so hard to understand

This thread is really confusing, how are you determining a *native population*?
Native as in the people in a certain country right now?, no matter where they came from? Native as in the people who orginally were in a country?

I think things will always be changing

Wakey, Wakey, we do have computers in India. The govt which killed those poor sikhs was the legacy of the same govt which meekly allowed the quarter million hindus to be driven out by their peaceful muslim 'brothers'

It is very simple to determine who is a native population. I would claim anyone who shares either the cultural or political identity and aspirations of the existing population of the nation to be a native. This would include most immigrants and this may include or not include economic aspirations. In my point, if the majority of the existing Islamic population anywhere would like to see the imposition of the Sharia upon the existing nation's secular constitution, this in my opinion would lead to the destruction of current civilization.

Things would always be changing, but it is our duty to make sure that they do not for the worse.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I wonder about the premise of this thread...what gives a particular group a right to call it "their nation"? After all, being the majority does not give you a totaly and complete right to forever remain the majority, and history tends to show that these things shift from time to time. Believe it or not, at one time the "more cultured" Europeans in this country were agast at being displaced by later immigrant groups like the Irish and the Italians. And you know what, they were to some extent. We may speak English, but you'll have to look kind of hard to find an American with a British background any more. That's how things go, demographics shift, and then shift back. I'm not sure why it's worth getting worked into a lather over.

The key point here is integration, my addition to this is that muslims never manage or prefer to integrate into any nation.

And if you think that a people of a nation cannot call it their nation, then the Mexicans are fully entitled to illegally immigrate to the U.S and call it their home.

My fear here is not muslims immigrating to the U.S, but their destroying it.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot




All culltures are in a state of change, in a lot of ways imo american culture has gone backwards, it's not a matter of one being better then another, just where they are coming from atm. You have this paranoia trip that we are going to wake up and be outbred, this is silly. Even if we killed off our borders and the mexicans all took viagra the whites would still be majority for a long long time. I suggest you relax, the boogeyman is in your head.

Everything is in constant flux, except Islamic ones. The outlook of my fear is long term and for nations with rapidly climbing muslim nations like France.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: Braznor
Steeplerot,

Quit trying to teach me MY NATION's history.

p.s.

CanOworms (as far as I can gather, he is an Indian who's now an American) has opened my eyes a few times about my country (Canada)

My point here is not teaching, but falsifying and whitewashing the crime of muslims.

What Steeplerot was saying is that I should STFU about muslim atrocities because the British did the same to us.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
I just watched a doc the other night about the storming of the Sikh holy shrine of the Golden Temple. So much blood shed and death between the Hindus and Sikhs. Such a beautiful country ( and so spiritual ), so many great people that I have met its really all so hard to understand

That was a really sad affair. Sikhs call it their own 9/11. I would call it a genocide on a smaller scale. The golden temple is a beautiful building. I even added an article about it to my blog on the 5th of June, the date on which Operation Blue Star was carried out in 1984.

http://www.asadasif.com/?itemid=6

As to Braznor's OP, I find it interesting that in most threads on P&N, Braznor spews this same rhetoric. I believe what he is trying to do is "Lie so much that it is assumed to be a fact". LumbergTech got it down right.

eriously.what in the world is this? this reminds me of a hitler propoganda thread..

oh no they will out-reproduce us..

that is the most paranoid and delusional concern i have ever seen..

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: asadasif

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
I just watched a doc the other night about the storming of the Sikh holy shrine of the Golden Temple. So much blood shed and death between the Hindus and Sikhs. Such a beautiful country ( and so spiritual ), so many great people that I have met its really all so hard to understand

That was a really sad affair. Sikhs call it their own 9/11. I would call it a genocide on a smaller scale. The golden temple is a beautiful building. I even added an article about it to my blog on the 5th of June, the date on which Operation Blue Star was carried out in 1984.

http://www.asadasif.com/?itemid=6

As to Braznor's OP, I find it interesting that in most threads on P&N, Braznor spews this same rhetoric. I believe what he is trying to do is "Lie so much that it is assumed to be a fact". LumbergTech got it down right.

eriously.what in the world is this? this reminds me of a hitler propoganda thread..

oh no they will out-reproduce us..

that is the most paranoid and delusional concern i have ever seen..

Where the ****** didn't I acknowledge those poor sikhs did not get killed?

Also the interesting thing is that it was Pakistan which instigated Sikh separatism from India. Also govt which killed those Sikhs (who I consider one of the best people I have known) is the same legacy of the govt which promotes 'secularism' between India and Pakistan, whitewashes muslim crimes. Muslim double talk. You and your nation are part of the problem. STFU Asadasif, disprove my points if you can.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I wonder about the premise of this thread...what gives a particular group a right to call it "their nation"? After all, being the majority does not give you a totaly and complete right to forever remain the majority, and history tends to show that these things shift from time to time. Believe it or not, at one time the "more cultured" Europeans in this country were agast at being displaced by later immigrant groups like the Irish and the Italians. And you know what, they were to some extent. We may speak English, but you'll have to look kind of hard to find an American with a British background any more. That's how things go, demographics shift, and then shift back. I'm not sure why it's worth getting worked into a lather over.

The key point here is integration, my addition to this is that muslims never manage or prefer to integrate into any nation.

And if you think that a people of a nation cannot call it their nation, then the Mexicans are fully entitled to illegally immigrate to the U.S and call it their home.

My fear here is not muslims immigrating to the U.S, but their destroying it.

And my point is that you are basing your view of the majority of Muslims based on the well publicized actions of a very small percentage. There are more than 5 million Muslims in the US currently, how many of them are "never managing or prefering to integrate"? You've fallen into the common trap, you watch the news are forget that it's the news because it covers rare events. Most Muslims aren't blowing anyone up, or rioting, or otherwise failing to get along with their non-Muslim peers. But since we don't see THEM on Fox News, everybody forgets.

As for Mexicans being entitled to illegally immigrate, clearly you didn't understand what I said. I'm saying that when a country has some form of diversity among citizens of that country, I don't think a particular group has a right to declare that it's THEIR country, and that the other groups are alright so long as they realize the order of things.