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

[Braznor]

First of all, I must give credit to FutureShock for raising this point in another thread :

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1871262&enterthread=y

I would not pretend that this community is anything other than the Islamic one.

Unless you have just awoken from a slumber spanning the past two millenia, you would know that Islam conquers either through the sword or through the womb.

So when the Islamic community has birth rates of double or triple of that the native or other immigrant communities, how would they (the native and other minorities) prevent this community from engulfing the nation demographically?

The point here is that to enforce a one child or a two child norm is illegal, neither can one community claim a special protected status claiming to be the native population.

So how can the native population preserve their hold over a nation?

or do you think that they deserve to be driven out of power or atleast nothing can be done about it? or they do not deserve any special consideration?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Unless you have just awoken from a slumber spanning the past two millenia, you would know that Islam conquers either through the sword or through the womb.

And? Like christians haven't? matter of fact muslims are small time compared to the westeners genocide and invasions. Muslims raise hell when invaded or provoked, like anyone would.

Notice muslims are not a issue until we started messing with them in soviet afgani war, we encouraged the old mostly outdated concept of jihad to have them fight the commies by proxy for us, now it has come back to bite us in the ass like a baby pet croc flushed down a toilet, 404 conspiracy not found, just more blowback for idiotic cold-war foreign policys.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Braznor
First of all, I must give credit to FutureShock for raising this point in another thread :

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1871262&enterthread=y

I would not pretend that this community is anything other than the Islamic one.

Unless you have just awoken from a slumber spanning the past two millenia, you would know that Islam conquers either through the sword or through the womb.

So when the Islamic community has birth rates of double or triple of that the native or other immigrant communities, how would they (the native and other minorities) prevent this community from engulfing the nation demographically?

The point here is that to enforce a one child or a two child norm is illegal, neither can one community claim a special protected status claiming to be the native population.

So how can the native population preserve their hold over a nation?

or do you think that they deserve to be driven out of power or atleast nothing can be done about it? or they do not deserve any special consideration?

double or triple the rate of hispanic immigrants? Highly doubtful. When I was in Mexico I remember meeting an 84 year old man with toddlers. Producing children in thier culture is a very macho thing.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Unless you have just awoken from a slumber spanning the past two millenia, you would know that Islam conquers either through the sword or through the womb.

And? Like christians haven't? matter of fact muslims are small time compared to the westeners genocide and invasions. Muslims raise hell when invaded or provoked, like anyone would.

Notice muslims are not a issue until we started messing with them in soviet afgani war, we encouraged the old mostly outdated concept of jihad to have them fight the commies by proxy for us, now it has come back to bite us in the ass like a baby pet croc flushed down a toilet, 404 conspiracy not found, just more blowback for idiotic cold-war foreign policys.

If you can learn to look beyond the West, you would notice the scale of suffering heaped by Islamic invasions on other civilizations eg. my nation, India. Islamic terrorism, conquest and genocide existed much, much, much, much before the Soviet invasion of Afghan.

Stop being the Ostrich.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Braznor
First of all, I must give credit to FutureShock for raising this point in another thread :

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1871262&enterthread=y

I would not pretend that this community is anything other than the Islamic one.

Unless you have just awoken from a slumber spanning the past two millenia, you would know that Islam conquers either through the sword or through the womb.

So when the Islamic community has birth rates of double or triple of that the native or other immigrant communities, how would they (the native and other minorities) prevent this community from engulfing the nation demographically?

The point here is that to enforce a one child or a two child norm is illegal, neither can one community claim a special protected status claiming to be the native population.

So how can the native population preserve their hold over a nation?

or do you think that they deserve to be driven out of power or atleast nothing can be done about it? or they do not deserve any special consideration?

double or triple the rate of hispanic immigrants? Highly doubtful. When I was in Mexico I remember meeting an 84 year old man with toddlers. Producing children in thier culture is a very macho thing.

I'am speaking about regions like Europe. The Americans are lucky (????) that they have the hispanic community to outdo the Islamic one when it comes to birth rates

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Unless you have just awoken from a slumber spanning the past two millenia, you would know that Islam conquers either through the sword or through the womb.

And? Like christians haven't? matter of fact muslims are small time compared to the westeners genocide and invasions. Muslims raise hell when invaded or provoked, like anyone would.

Notice muslims are not a issue until we started messing with them in soviet afgani war, we encouraged the old mostly outdated concept of jihad to have them fight the commies by proxy for us, now it has come back to bite us in the ass like a baby pet croc flushed down a toilet, 404 conspiracy not found, just more blowback for idiotic cold-war foreign policys.

If you can learn to look beyond the West, you would notice the scale of suffering heaped by Islamic invasions on other civilizations eg. my nation, India. Islamic terrorism, conquest and genocide existed much, much, much, much before the Soviet invasion of Afghan.

Stop being the Ostrich.

And this is different then any other part of history or any other group? I guess the british who occupied and slaughtered Indians for so long were muslim too :roll:

Wise man from the east once say: Beekeeper who pisses on hive gets stung.

If we were serious about chilling muslims out countries would quit with the imperialism crap they have been doing and let them build up their economy in peace so they can get up to speed and chill with the radical stuff, warfare and poverty is the cause of terrorism, not any religion, all people across the world have the ability to become monsters when backed into a corner for long enough. Poverty breeds desperation.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot



And this is different then any other part of history or any other group?

Wise man from the east once say: Beekeeper who pisses on hive gets stung.

Unlike other colonists, Islamic invasions were particularly brutal, especially against the native hindu populations of the then Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent. Anyway the European colonists only captured political control of their colonies, not genocide. The American ones may have commited genocide against the native Indian population, but they have atoned for the sins unlike the Islamic ones. And in any case, please do not foist your civilization's guilt upon me.

No one pissed on their hive, they were motivated by Jihad. In Afghanistan, there are these mountains named Hindu Kush, do you know what it means, it means slayer of Hindus.


Stop being an aplogist for the muslim jihad

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

And this is different then any other part of history or any other group? I guess the british who occupied and slaughtered Indians for so long were muslim too :roll:

Wise man from the east once say: Beekeeper who pisses on hive gets stung.

You changed your post,

Yes, the British killed Indians, but never in scale the Muslims did and never for us simply being hindus. The muslims and people like you should stop hiding their crimes behind the British ones.

And in any case, please stick to the topic or STFU.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

And this is different then any other part of history or any other group? I guess the british who occupied and slaughtered Indians for so long were muslim too :roll:

Wise man from the east once say: Beekeeper who pisses on hive gets stung.

You changed your post,

Yes, the British killed Indians, but never in scale the Muslims did and never for us simply being hindus. The muslims and people like you should stop hiding their crimes behind the British ones.

And in any case, please stick to the topic.

Ahh, you may want to check up on Indian history Braz, british killed and starved millions.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

And this is different then any other part of history or any other group? I guess the british who occupied and slaughtered Indians for so long were muslim too :roll:

Wise man from the east once say: Beekeeper who pisses on hive gets stung.

You changed your post,

Yes, the British killed Indians, but never in scale the Muslims did and never for us simply being hindus. The muslims and people like you should stop hiding their crimes behind the British ones.

And in any case, please stick to the topic.

Ahh, you may want to check up on Indian history Braz, british killed and starved millions.

Yes, but muslims killed tens of millions, muslims destroyed and reduced our entire civilization to dust.

Anyway what's your point?

That I should not point out how the Muslims conquered my nation and slaughtered, simply because the British did the same thing? :disgust:

One big difference, the British have stopped doing so, but the muslims are still doing the same thing and getting away with it, thanks to apologists like you.

Also British also introduced good things like railways to a nation reduced to dust by Islamic rule.

So STFU and stick to the topic


Edited to add STFU to the post.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

And this is different then any other part of history or any other group? I guess the british who occupied and slaughtered Indians for so long were muslim too :roll:

Wise man from the east once say: Beekeeper who pisses on hive gets stung.

You changed your post,

Yes, the British killed Indians, but never in scale the Muslims did and never for us simply being hindus. The muslims and people like you should stop hiding their crimes behind the British ones.

And in any case, please stick to the topic.

Ahh, you may want to check up on Indian history Braz, british killed and starved millions.

Yes, but muslims killed tens of millions, muslims destroyed and reduced our entire civilization to dust.

Anyway what's your point?

That I should not point out how the Muslims conquered my nation and slaughtered, simply because the British did the same thing? :disgust:

One big difference, the British have stopped doing so, but the muslims are still doing the same thing and getting away with it, thanks to apologists like you.

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.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot


They still 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.

The Kashmir problem is not a british problem, it is a pakistan problem and in more particular a muslim problem. And sorry, the muslims have never lived in peace with the Hindus, that was why the demand for Pakistan and its creation. Also note that Kashmir is the only state in India with a muslim majority population. The primary reason why it is a religious dispute is because Pakistan cannot stand to see Muslims being administrated by a nation of infidels.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot


They still 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.

The Kashmir problem is not a british problem, it is a pakistan problem and in more particular a muslim problem. And sorry, the muslims have never lived in peace with the Hindus, that was why the demand for Pakistan and its creation. Also note that Kashmir is the only state in India with a muslim majority population. The primary reason why it is a religious dispute is because Pakistan cannot stand to see Muslims being administrated by a nation of infidels.

You do realize that the borders with pakistan were drawn by the idiotic british? Same kind of foolish british imperialism that led to the patchwork multiculturism that makes iraq such a mess, lets not get into the mess of israel.

People tend to group up with like minded people, you can see this anywhere, even in a waiting room at a doctors office. The british could have cared less and drew borders based off of resources and other silliness, not the people living there.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot


You do realize that the borders with pakistan were drawn by the idiotic british? Same kind of foolish british imperialism that led to the patchwork multiculturism that makes iraq such a mess, lets not get into the mess of israel.

People tend to group up with like minded people, you can see this anywhere, even in a waiting room at a doctors office. The british could have cared less and drew borders based off of resources and other silliness, not the people living there.

You do realize that the muslims demanded and created Pakistan themselves right?

Kashmir was originally not a part of either independant Pakistan or India. Pakistan invaded Kashmir (under panislamic ideology) and Kashmir joined India to protect itself from Pakistan.

 

[Braznor]

Steeplerot,

Quit trying to teach me MY NATION's history.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Braznor
Steeplerot,

Quit trying to teach me MY NATION's history.

You do not have the whole story:

Kashmir&endash; another legacy of British Imperialism

Effectively what happened was the British pulled out and the ruler of this province, the Raja, dithered when deciding to link up with one of his choices, India (Hindus) or Pakistan (Muslims). When he finally decided to link with India the two thirds of the population that's Muslim felt aggrieved and split setting up free (Azad) Kashmir. In May 1948 troops went in from both sides and by 1949 a line of confrontation had been drawn.



Wherever you find pissed off muslims if you dig a bit you will find imperialism and its consequences from the west somewhere in the recent past, glossing over the bigger picture and blaming a religion alone for the conflict is a surefire way how these wars are guarenteed to NEVER end.
Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Like I said, poverty and exploitation = terrorism

Want less terrorists? Help the people out of poverty and to join the rest of us, a stable society will liberalize and the most fanatic aspect of the religious population fades.

 

[sandorski]

I considered this very scenario(not specifically about Muslims though) just within the last week. I concluded, "So what?"

I was thinking moore about Race than Religion and was considering the "dilemna" of the Racist. The idea that the "superior race" was being taken over. When talking about Religion though, the similarities are quite similar and the situation not that much different.

With that I ask, "What if they do?" Is my present existance negated by the potential fact that my Race or Religion is no longer the dominant Race/Religion at some future point in time? Is History not littered with scores of significant Religions and People who believed those Religions as fervently as anyone alive today?

Civilizations come and go. Times of Enlightenment are followed by periods of Chaos. Yet as time passes each successive Civilization builds and improves on those of the Past. It seems almost a part of Humanities Destiny and the Natural Order of things that they progress in this way.

The Good of every period of Human Progress becomes corrupted. When it becomes Corrupted it eventually fails. From the ashes a new and improved Good rises up propeling Humanity to new heights. Then it Corrupts and fails. Thus the cycle continues.

Christians sort of believe that, to the extent as to why They exist. To the Christian, Judaism was just a step towards Christianity. Once the purpose of Judaism was fulfilled(coming of Christ), that period of History ended and the Christian Period began. Muslims kind of believe the same thing(as far as I can tell) about Christianity as Christians do to Judaism. That doesn't necessarily mean that Islam will eventually replace Christianity, but it might.

It is my belief that the "Second Coming of Christ" Christians wait for will probably be the same for them as the "First Coming" was for the Jews. Something they will not recognize, because their concepts and interpretations of what it really means are antiquated and Corrupted by Millenia of self-absorption of the Idea of their own importance. The problem is and always has been that in the big picture they are and always were totally irrelevant. The only relevant part of Religion are the Ideas and Principles that the Religion is founded upon, the existance of the followers of that Religion only matter until the better Ideas and Principles come to replace the Old.

So I say "So what?" Are we to think that this situation hasn't occured countless times to countless others throughout History? I think an Egyptian Pharoah may have at one time seen the inevitable demise of His/Her gods. He/She may have lamented the failure of Egypt and the Decline into oblivion of all the Glory it had acheived. He/She may never have imagined that anything better than Egypt was even possible, yet we know that despite the Glory of Egypt much greater was Humanities Destiny, much greater the Glory would be acheived.

So what?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot


You do not have the whole story:

Kashmir&endash; another legacy of British Imperialism

Effectively what happened was the British pulled out and the ruler of this province, the Raja, dithered when deciding to link up with one of his choices, India (Hindus) or Pakistan (Muslims). When he finally decided to link with India the two thirds of the population that's Muslim felt aggrieved and split setting up free (Azad) Kashmir. In May 1948 troops went in from both sides and by 1949 a line of confrontation had been drawn.



Wherever you find pissed off muslims if you dig a bit you will find imperialism from the west somewhere or another who egged it on, glossing over the bigger picture and blaming a religion for the conflict is a surefire way how these wars are guarenteed to NEVER end.

So what you are saying is that the Muslims will have always have a grieverance with any one not a muslim.

By the way, a nice site you have back there, let me quote it's heading here for the benefit of others:

The struggle site provides a home for pages concerned with the struggle for freedom. This includes; social struggles in Ireland; the Zapatistas, Irish history, anarchist theory and history, globalisation and many others. In 2004 there were over 5,000 documents and images on this site. :disgust:

Tell me Steeplerot, is this how you damaged your brain?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I considered this very scenario(not specifically about Muslims though) just within the last week. I concluded, "So what?"

I was thinking moore about Race than Religion and was considering the "dilemna" of the Racist. The idea that the "superior race" was being taken over. When talking about Religion though, the similarities are quite similar and the situation not that much different.

With that I ask, "What if they do?" Is my present existance negated by the potential fact that my Race or Religion is no longer the dominant Race/Religion at some future point in time? Is History not littered with scores of significant Religions and People who believed those Religions as fervently as anyone alive today?

Civilizations come and go. Times of Enlightenment are followed by periods of Chaos. Yet as time passes each successive Civilization builds and improves on those of the Past. It seems almost a part of Humanities Destiny and the Natural Order of things that they progress in this way.

The Good of every period of Human Progress becomes corrupted. When it becomes Corrupted it eventually fails. From the ashes a new and improved Good rises up propeling Humanity to new heights. Then it Corrupts and fails. Thus the cycle continues.

Christians sort of believe that, to the extent as to why They exist. To the Christian, Judaism was just a step towards Christianity. Once the purpose of Judaism was fulfilled(coming of Christ), that period of History ended and the Christian Period began. Muslims kind of believe the same thing(as far as I can tell) about Christianity as Christians do to Judaism. That doesn't necessarily mean that Islam will eventually replace Christianity, but it might.

It is my belief that the "Second Coming of Christ" Christians wait for will probably be the same for them as the "First Coming" was for the Jews. Something they will not recognize, because their concepts and interpretations of what it really means are antiquated and Corrupted by Millenia of self-absorption of the Idea of their own importance. The problem is and always has been that in the big picture they are and always were totally irrelevant. The only relevant part of Religion are the Ideas and Principles that the Religion is founded upon, the existance of the followers of that Religion only matter until the better Ideas and Principles come to replace the Old.

So I say "So what?" Are we to think that this situation hasn't occured countless times to countless others throughout History? I think an Egyptian Pharoah may have at one time seen the inevitable demise of His/Her gods. He/She may have lamented the failure of Egypt and the Decline into oblivion of all the Glory it had acheived. He/She may never have imagined that anything better than Egypt was even possible, yet we know that despite the Glory of Egypt much greater was Humanities Destiny, much greater the Glory would be acheived.

So what?

So what you claim is that since civilizations get destroyed and replaced anyway, then the muslims are entitled to destroy the existing world order and replace it with their retrograde one ?

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.

 

[Steeplerot]

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.

Well your statement that one culture is superior is part of the problem right there.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: sandorski
I considered this very scenario(not specifically about Muslims though) just within the last week. I concluded, "So what?"

I was thinking moore about Race than Religion and was considering the "dilemna" of the Racist. The idea that the "superior race" was being taken over. When talking about Religion though, the similarities are quite similar and the situation not that much different.

With that I ask, "What if they do?" Is my present existance negated by the potential fact that my Race or Religion is no longer the dominant Race/Religion at some future point in time? Is History not littered with scores of significant Religions and People who believed those Religions as fervently as anyone alive today?

Civilizations come and go. Times of Enlightenment are followed by periods of Chaos. Yet as time passes each successive Civilization builds and improves on those of the Past. It seems almost a part of Humanities Destiny and the Natural Order of things that they progress in this way.

The Good of every period of Human Progress becomes corrupted. When it becomes Corrupted it eventually fails. From the ashes a new and improved Good rises up propeling Humanity to new heights. Then it Corrupts and fails. Thus the cycle continues.

Christians sort of believe that, to the extent as to why They exist. To the Christian, Judaism was just a step towards Christianity. Once the purpose of Judaism was fulfilled(coming of Christ), that period of History ended and the Christian Period began. Muslims kind of believe the same thing(as far as I can tell) about Christianity as Christians do to Judaism. That doesn't necessarily mean that Islam will eventually replace Christianity, but it might.

It is my belief that the "Second Coming of Christ" Christians wait for will probably be the same for them as the "First Coming" was for the Jews. Something they will not recognize, because their concepts and interpretations of what it really means are antiquated and Corrupted by Millenia of self-absorption of the Idea of their own importance. The problem is and always has been that in the big picture they are and always were totally irrelevant. The only relevant part of Religion are the Ideas and Principles that the Religion is founded upon, the existance of the followers of that Religion only matter until the better Ideas and Principles come to replace the Old.

So I say "So what?" Are we to think that this situation hasn't occured countless times to countless others throughout History? I think an Egyptian Pharoah may have at one time seen the inevitable demise of His/Her gods. He/She may have lamented the failure of Egypt and the Decline into oblivion of all the Glory it had acheived. He/She may never have imagined that anything better than Egypt was even possible, yet we know that despite the Glory of Egypt much greater was Humanities Destiny, much greater the Glory would be acheived.

So what?

So what you claim is that since civilizations get destroyed and replaced anyway, then the muslims are entitled to destroy the existing world order and replace it with their retrograde one ?

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.

If they manage it, yes. Since we are talking about birth rates, then Hell yes. It would be harder to find a more peaceful method of "conquest" than popping out babies. Unless the popping was to raise Soldiers.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: sandorski
[

If they manage it, yes. Since we are talking about birth rates, then Hell yes. It would be harder to find a more peaceful method of "conquest" than popping out babies. Unless the popping was to raise Soldiers.[/quote]

No conquest is peaceful and I would not be all that concerned if muslim conquest did not involve genocide, cultural extermination and oppression of other minorities.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: sandorski
[

If they manage it, yes. Since we are talking about birth rates, then Hell yes. It would be harder to find a more peaceful method of "conquest" than popping out babies. Unless the popping was to raise Soldiers.

No conquest is peaceful and I would not be all that concerned if muslim conquest did not involve genocide, cultural extermination and oppression of other minorities.

[/quote]

Drop the Propoganda BS already.