Why would you make such a silly assertion (regarding the responses)?
I have seen none of the posters you have now libeled ever offer a defense of the Saudi government. I have never seen any of those posters offer a defense of Wahabbism. Our objection to your rants is your insistence that Islam is a monolithic bloc of people hell-bent on world domination.
You will refrain from making specious predictions about my reactions to your imaginary scenarios. OK?
As far as I can tell, Valteron’s only 100% fact based argument is that Muslims are making more babies. As for the other stuff, it wouldn’t be too hard to make the same claims about any religious people in part.
So Muslims are making more than twice as many babies as Westerners? Where’s the numbers on the Chinese and Indians? Why are we not worried about them taking over the world? They seem to be expanding (population-wise as well as economically) just as much if not moreso than Muslims.
Also, can’t this problem for Westerners be solved by promoting procreation? 
Once again, I ask if you have read these presentations. I don’t recall any of these people saying their opinion is the only one, or that they are infallible. Nor did I claim that their academic credentials make them infallible. I am simply saying that these professors, law experts, ex-Muslims and other academics meeting for two days in the buildings of the European Parliament hardly sound or read like raving lunatics or idiots.
When you are debating a point, it is kind of ridiculous to bring up the accusation that your opponent believes his opinion to be right and opposing opinions wrong.
If people did not believe their opinions were right they would not hold these opinions, unless they are illogical or insane.
And if they hold an opinion to be right, they must logically hold that opposing opinions are wrong. This is hardly something for which you would qualify someone as a “Nutter”.
Your argument reminds me of the time that someone said to Al Capp, the cartoonist: “You seem to feel there are only two opinions: Yours and the wrong one.”
To which Capp replied “So what do you have, yours and the right one?”
You may not like the idea that a CounterJihad is forming in the west, but I think there is at least some evidence that it is.
I suppose that you could say that the more the Muslim population grows per capita against that of say, the West, the more suicide bombers there will be.
Just saying.
Thanks for your patronage. . . .I mean for patronizing me.
I am well aware of who Forrest and Simmons were. I just chose to ignore that level of ad hominem debating.
So would it also be true that the more Christians there are, the more Timothy McVeighs we’ll have? The more Hitlers? Would more Atheists breed more Stalins? Would more Japanese lead to more Kamikazes?
My point is the increased demographic of one particular group does not change the overall craziness of a small minority. The crazies just have different ways of killing people.
We don’t need to worry about the Muslims outbreeding us here in America. The Mexicans will outbreed them. Or the Mormons will. One way or another.
We should probably ask Lou Dobbs where the biggest threat lies.
*the above bigotry is sarcastic and for entertainment purposes only
It was not ad hominem. I made no claim to any fault of your person. However, I did draw the clear parallel to people who have presented arguments (and raised movements) against other groups while claiming that the other groups were “threats” to good, local society and that one of the chief weapons the other were going to employ was to outbreed all the good local people. Another obvious comparison (for those interested in actually examining facts) is that the claims were made over 100 years ago and that the dire warnings never came close to actually occurring.
I am afraid that I am unimpressed by your appeals to authority. J. Phillipe Rushton has a doctorate and many papers published in biology, but that does not make his claims that black people are oversexed idiots and Asians are undersexed geniuses any less wrong. Paul Duesberg is a working scientist who claims that there is no connection between HIV and AIDS. I see no reason to accept his judgment, either. So, in the midst of a bit of immigration hysteria, you can find a bunch of people, even educated people, lining up to repeat the same old shopworn complaints in Europe, today, that were advanced against blacks and Asians in the U.S. in the 1880s? Hysteria can make nutters of people who really should know better.
Have I read the presentations? Some of them. It is hard to get through such drivel when the keynote address presents “Eurabia” as the result of a vast plan that looks remarkably like a conspiracy (as presented) and lays its origins to the Nazis with assistance (or something–the syntax is pretty murky) from Fascism and Communism.
And note that I have never claimed that Islamism is not a serious problem, nor have I claimed that there are not many serious issues with Europe (or North America) accepting large numbers of immigrants from societies and cultures that are very different than our current one. I simply reject the Chicken Little approach that claims that all those hordes of evil people are intent on suppressing our culture and that we need to do “something” RIGHT NOW to prevent the destruction of our way of life. The “evidence” presented for such claims always tends to be an accumuilation of individual incidents (often with conflicting problems and resolutions and coincidental or irrelevant details) that are described as exaggerated assaults on our lives.
I do not see David Duke or William Luther Pierce as heroes, only as hate-mongering kooks, and I see no reason to use their tactics or their twisted logic when looking for solutions to genuine problems.
No, actually I didn’t. Since you’ve never met any of them, how do you know that any one of them want to ‘Islamize the West’, as you put it?
Straw man. I have claimed proof of nothing; I have simply stated that according to my own experience, your repeated and apparently uninformed claims that a monolithic Islam is attempting to take over the world appear to be bunk.
Numerous posters, in this thread and others, have repeatedly said that they recognize the dangers posed by radicalized Islamic factions. That such dangers exist is a boring cliche and there is little debate on this. Despite this, however, you persist in accusing every person who does not share your precise degree of bigoted hysteria over the Islamic bogeyman of being insufficiently enthusiastic in joining you in your bigotry. If obtaining uncritical, nodding agreement rather than actual debate is your intention in posting to this forum, as certainly seems to be the case, then I’m afraid you are doomed to unending disappointment.
If we abstract all the ad hominem arguments, suggestions that I am like a racist Klansman (Islam is a race ??. . . 
) and other hostile reactions to my question, it would appear that there is indeed enough concern about Islamization and jihad for organizations in the west to be coming together and networking, for Danish cartoonists to once again risk their lives to assert our freedoms, and for public revulsion at the attempts by people like Imam Syed Soharwardy in Calgary to try to silence publishers like Ezra Levant.
Indeed, it would seem that mainstream newspapers like the Calgary Herald are no longer willing to give people like Soharwardy “benefit of clergy” but willing to challenge them with their own comments as evidenced by this Feb. 16 article.
Authors like Mark Steyn and his best-selling “America Alone” are starting to ask the hard questions about the growing power of Islam. They must be touching a nerve, because authors like him have been subjectyed to charges of racism.
So I would have to say, yes, we are seeing the beginning of CounterJihad as concern grows in the West.
If you wish to keep this thread going with insults and personal attacks against me, please feel free to do so. Many thanks for your participation, even if I do not agree with you. The right to disagree is one of the most precious rights we posses in a democracy.
Yes, that would also be true. Except Japanese Kamikazes don’t exist anymore, and Stalin and his regime are dead also.
I’m not sure where you were taking this, but yes, in general, the more people you have the more bad apples you will have also. I think that applies across cultures.
You will note that I have made no claims regarding racism. When you pretended that my comments were ad hominem (they were not), I very carefully pointed out that the reaction was against “other,” not against some perceived race. Racism is simply a subset of xenophobia, but the actions of Simmons and Hearst were clearly xenophobic–as are the plaintive cries of your fearmongers in Brussels.
In fact, we do not have evidence that “there is enough concern about Islamization and jihad for organizations in the west to be coming together and networking.” What we see, instead, is that there are enough xenophobes within Western society to gather together to “fight” their imaginary foes.
I don’t understand this thread.
Valteron asserts a theory which he is convinced of. Others disagree with him. Valteron ends his participation on the same page by noting that he is convinced of his theory still.
What was the point of this thread, if the OP considers it done when he finds himself rejecting all arguments and sticking to his own position? If it was opening up his idea to scrutiny, i’m not entirely sure i’d consider one page, of which half the posts were my own, to be the sum of all possible argument against my theory. If it was to convince others, likewise I wouldn’t finish on the note that I still believed my point, but not until i’d convinced others. What was the goal of this thread?
Anyway, on the more on-point note, I think Valteron is misreading other’s posts considerably, so while it’s possible his theory has truth to it I don’t think he’s a very good spokesman for it.
You are misreading my observation. I noted that among the two groups whom I would categorize as nutters, one group would be those who believe their “way” is the only correct way. I suppose, considering your misreading of other statements, that I should have been more clear: nutters in the first category are those who not merely believe that they have the truth, but that they have the whole and only truth and that anyone who challenges that truth is deliberately seeking to foist falsehood into the world. (That would be why I explicitly used as an example the extreme Islamists, and not their merely xenophobic opponents. It is also why I explicitly said that I do not yet put you into either category although you appear to be a great fan of the latter, not the former, group.)
I do not expect anyone to hold or express a view in which they do not believe, but they only roll into the nutter category when they believe that there is no possibility that there is any error of fact or logic in their position and that all who oppose them are dishonest and they have a moral compulsion to overcome, even physically, any who disagree with them. Islamist extremists fall into that category. The other billion or so Muslims do not.
(On the other hand, people who believe that all billion+ Muslims are part of that extreme Islamist movement qualify as nutters in my lexicon, as well.)
Not in Muslim countries, They are likely to receive capital punishment if they do.
I must admit, I’m still confused here. There’s a bunch of religions on the planet. AFAIK, only one of them currently says that people who leave their religion should be killed in a cruel and inhumane fashion.
Anyone who thinks that the religions are somehow equivalent has not looked at the facts. Religions that kill people who try to leave the religion are not really religions at all. They are destructive cults.
Now, I am aware that not all Muslims call for the death of apostates. However, the ones that do make that call are not excoriated by their “liberal” brethren. And in some countries, such as Pakistan, it’s written into the criminal code, in this case Pakistani Penal Code 295-C:
I don’t see many Muslims saying that this is a crime against humanity … but it is one nonetheless. Or at least Amnesty International thinks so …
Finally, please don’t insult us by pretending that this doesn’t happen today. My friend’s father was killed in Iran a few years ago for the crime of being a Baha’i, she would not be amused by your ignorance …
Is there a counter-jihad forming?
I sincerely hope so.
w.
I’m not particularly fond of many of Islam’s 12th Century interpretations either, but Muslims comprise almost a quarter of the Earth’s population, and I’m sure amongst that billion or so are people there are those that dislike killing, dying, maiming, etc.
Just a guess.
Possibly, but the point is that this is evidence of Valteron’s counter-jihad. The existance of peace loving farmer Muslims is rather irrelevant to the whole thing as wars are fought by minorities who suck the rest of the populace up in their political agenda in nearly 100% of circumstances. Minority of Muslims riot and burn stuff to the ground in Europe, and minority of Europeans perform an ethnic cleansing to rid themselves of the problem demographic. Regardless Valteron has an entirely valid point regardless of what people would LIKE to think.
Oh, I never thought his point was invalid. There is most certainly an insidious group of terrorists plotting the demise of perceived enemies worldwide, including you and I and our families. There’s no doubt that there IS an actual “War On Terror” and we are engaging in it, perhaps not as purposefully or with as good intentions as we’d like to believe…but it’s there, and it’s real.
And I hope that the West gets it’s shit together, doesn’t kowtow to concessionary tactics to subvert it, and crushes it utterly with malice aforethought.