Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran’s 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament.
There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of Iran’s rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.
The neoconservatives are even claiming that the United States has been at war with Iran since 1979. As Glenn Greenwald points out, this assertion is absurd. In the ’80s, the Reagan administration sold substantial numbers of arms to Iran. Some of those beating the war drums most loudly now, like think-tank rat Michael Ledeen, were middlemen in the Reagan administration’s unconstitutional weapons sales to Tehran. The sales would have been a form of treason if in fact the United States had been at war with Iran at that time, so Ledeen is apparently accusing himself of treason.
Ahmadinejad is being portrayed as an enemy head of state because, well, he’s an enemy head of state. It’s true that he’s not the head of government — the Supreme Leader and his council of ayatollahs are the chief policymakers — but he’s the public face of the country.
It’s technically true that he’s “never invaded any other country.” How could he given that the clerics control the military? But, again, he’s the public voice of the chief state sponsor of terrorism, a country supplying our enemies in Iraq with weapons used to kill Americans and supplying our enemies throughout the Middle East with weapons used to kill Jews.
Focusing our attention on Ahmadinejad as a somewhat sloppy shorthand for our troubles with Iran doesn’t pass scholarly muster. It’s close enough, however, for conducting the debate. After all, people debating American policies routinely focus on our president even though Congress, the Supreme Court, the fifty states, and even independent bodies like the Federal Reserve Board have a large hand in the process.
Pat Buchanan is a combative populist; Ahmadinejad is a powerful man stoking dangerous sentiments. That he denies being anti-Semitic is nice, I suppose, but somewhat obviated by his routine calls for their destruction.
The “at war since 1979” meme is indeed rather shopworn. Still, it’s undeniable that the accession of the theocrats to power and then their seizure of our embassy radically changed our relationship. That the Reagan Administration nonetheless made back door deals with the regime in an ill-fated attempt to secure the release of hostages is unfortunate but hardly evidence that our relations weren’t hostile; we made all manner of deals with the Soviets during the Cold War.
Are there people agitating for war with Iran? Sure. All indications thus far, though, point to the Bush Administration preferring a different path. Not only does virtually every expert on the subject agree that there is no viable military solution to their nuclear program, but almost every public utterance of Bush and his team dating back to the 2000 campaign pointed to optimism that regime change in Iran would happen peacefully and naturally.
I’m still pissed at Queen Elizabeth for her invasion of the Falklands.
Further, Cole’s charge of cowardice simply doesn’t ring true. Cowardice isn’t the issue. That the man as a thug is. But the man as a terrorist, it is. That the man has American blood on his hands, he is.
I’m not very keen on the idea of giving them a legitimate see while he has weapons pointed at our troops, and is using those weapons.
And let’s be honest; the only reason he’s even in the country at all, is because of the contemptible United Nations. Bad enough that we have to let him in for that. (And if there was a good reason for removing ourselves from United Nations, frankly, I can think of a better one. )
Do we have to let him speak at one of our places of higher education, thus giving him legitimacy?
Pres Ballinger was quite correct in his introduction yesterday. At least insofar as the criticism went. however, the time to issue those complaints, was before he stepped foot on American soil, and without making plans to allow the animal to speak.
Cole’s free speech arguments don’t wash, either.
As I said the other evening:
Let’s also be honest about what his visit here was all about. That he manages to swing a couple of people here in the United States away from a pro U.S. sentiment, is all the better, (And of course, there are people like coal, and Klien, and the Kossacks who will gladly oblige him) But its secondary to the primary purpose for his being here, which is generating propaganda within his own country and in the remainder of the Middle East. And what kind of opportunity for free speech to suppose is going to be available there? What opposing views dare be voiced there?
Which enemies is Iran supplying weapons to?
The neoconservatives involved in Iran Contra ought to be careful because if we really were at war with Iran, their involvement would most certainly be treason. After all, if selling weapons to the enemy isn’t perfectly within the legal definition of treason, then I don’t know what is. That is the one thing Cole is right about. By this logic, many of the Reaganites should be hung or shot for betraying their country.
Perhaps you’ve not heard of the Iranian weapons being used against us by outsiders in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Oh sure, I’ve heard. And at least in Afghanistan I know they are supposedly supplying the Taliban, which are indeed enemies of the USA. I’m just not sure who Iran is supplying in Iraq since as far as I am aware, the only enemy of the USA there is Al Qaeda, and I haven’t heard that Iran is supplying them.
Anyone who will fight for them. Al-Qaida in Iraq, for one.
“All indications thus far, though, point to the Bush Administration preferring a different path. Not only does virtually every expert on the subject agree that there is no viable military solution to their nuclear program, but almost every public utterance of Bush and his team dating back to the 2000 campaign pointed to optimism that regime change in Iran would happen peacefully and naturally.”
Do I recall correctly that Bush said that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons, and that he would use force if necessary? Do I recall correctly that he also said recently that “all options are on the table?” These statements must be in your “the rest of the statements” category. It is not reasonable for the President to threaten force too often or too early in the process of trying all avenues before force remains the only option left. Bush made his point, and then harped on accommodation approaches. He seems to be informing his potential successors about the situation one of them will inherit in 2008. Could that be the expansion of the war to Iran?
Well since nobody is claiming that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is receiving support from Iran, I can only assume you think that the rest of Iraq is our enemy, since everyone there seems willing to fight us.
And I’d add to mannings list the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that would potentially authorize the President to use US forces against Iran without seeking any further approval from Congress.
Oh, and also the fact that he listens to this guy:
Oh, and of course this:
Cheney mulled Israeli strike on Iran: Newsweek
A wave of Anti-Americanism from the 150 or so nations that make up the impoverished third world should not be a deterrent to any necessary actions by the US. World opinion is not relevant, and it is a passing thing, especially when these nations are largely thugocracies mired in corruption.
Similarly, the remainder of the developed nations have lost their moral fiber a long time ago, and want to be left to their own devices and EU-type struggles to achieve socialism. That is, until their Muslim populations move them into Sharia.
We are indeed on our own.
manning, I’m not entirely sure what actions you’re advocating here, but I’m pretty sure I (and a few billion other people) won’t like them.
I think it would be difficult to be any more bed-wettingly fearful of the scary brown muslim hordes as manning seems to be. We should start a collection for a teddy bear or something.
It is a shame that adults ( I believe they are) would bury their heads in the sand and think of Islamofascists as good ole boys. Not Muslims in general, but the 1% to 5 % that exercise their swords every now and again on TV, after they have planted more IEDs to kill Americans. Even 1% is a huge number of potential jihadists.
Apparently, these children have no concept of a real enemy or a real jihad. Woe to them. Perhaps they are Muslims themselves? Or, perhaps they haven’t read one damn thing about Islam, or have never been to the Mid East and experienced the treatment of being kuffaars in an Islamic nation. A real pity! They would benefit by some travel and mind-bending.
I am advocating that we steer our own course regarding the Mid East, and that we simply ignore the mass opinion of inconsequential nations, and the billions of totally ignorant and religiously biased people that inhabit those nations, that Michael speaks of. “World opinion” is not the guide to be used in this clash. It never should be.
I was right, I don’t like them.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Passivists are a real bore. They leave the cancer to grow and metastasize before meekly agreeing to remove it to save a life–too late! When you need a surgeon, you really need him as soon as the growth has been detected. We detected the cancerous growth in Iran a long time ago. The cancer must be excised before its inevitable spread, and without waiting for a trivial excuse to attack for worldwide consumption. Now the passivists are saying: “We can live with Iran having nuclear weapons.”
Disgusting. You will be the death of many people.
I never claimed to be a pacifist, the quote isn’t even mine, and it hardly equates to pacifism.
Funny, it sounds like you’re desires will be the death of many more. At least I would feel bad about it.
A better analogy is that we bombard cancer patients with radiation and chemical toxins only because we haven’t figured out a better way to beat cancer, not because those are the optimal solutions.
Bombard is a good word. Almost as good as excise, but not as certain.
I suggest we do not have any better solutions to Islamofascism either, since the Muslim is wedded to his ideology, and his ideology is wedded to jihad. Reform of Islam is not in the cards, at least not in this eon.
Wow, could you possible have posted anything more blatantly ignorant or objectively wrong? I’m not sure it possible, but people like you keep surprising me with how low the bottom actually is.
After reading and studying the Koran thoroughly, The Haddith, and many of the recently published Fatwas, plus researching the various subjects of Islam on line,especially Jihad, and then having long chats with three Muslims of my acquaintance, plus reading Spencer, Auster, Lewis, Steyn and Blakeley on the subject of the Islamic threat, and having read the many analyzes of the situations in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Palestine, I have come to the only possible conclusion: Islam and Muslims present an existential threat to our way of life, and they must be dealt with–the sooner the better. I seriously doubt that you have gone to the depth that I have in probing Islam and Muslims, or you would not have used the words “ignorant” or “wrong”.
I challenge you to present your evidence that Islam is not a warrior religion, with a tradition of bloody conquest that has persisted to this day. I challenge you to prove that Muslims are not conducting a jihad now against the West, and especially Israel and the US. I challenge you to prove that Muslims are not investing Europe with the idea of turning it into an Islamic continent, and installing Sharia Law throughout. You will lose. I challenge you to prove that Islam is not actively pursuing the installation of a worldwide Caliphate. You cannot.
If you read my posts, you saw where I accused 1% to 5% of Muslims to be fanatics or Islamofascists, which allows the majority to be passive for the moment. (Have you noticed how quiet the Muslims in America are about the GWOT?) However, 1% of 1.2 billion people is 120 million Islamofacists to be dealt with, of which 60 thousand are in the US. (The true number of Muslims in the US is about 6 million–this from the US Census.)
Either you answer my challenges with facts or you prove yourself to be nothing but a windbag. Put up or shut up.
This is quite a far step from your 1-5%. Would you care to clarify? Is it only a small group that pose an “existential threat” (are you sure you fully understand this term) or is it the religion of Islam?
When was the last time a Muslim nation conquered another nation? When was the last time a Christian nation conquered another nation?
I’m not saying that people do not use Islam as justification for horrible acts, but what major religion has not been so used?
Every major world religion has a wealth of passages that can be used to support all manner of atrocities and most have been used for that purpose at some point. Not so very long ago in our own culture the Bible was used to justify wife beating, wife rape, slavery and much more.
Certainly Islam is currently being used to justify atrocities in post colonial Africa, but similar atrocities are being committed in adjacent lands without that justification so maybe there is more to it than religious affiliation.
Islam is also being used as a rallying point for anti-Western movements and as justification for horrific actions in support of those movements. If you look no further than the religious rhetoric that surrounds this movement then you are at least as blind as one who refuses to look at the religious element.
Some are and they pose a threat that must be dealt with, but that threat is far from being existential.
While neither of us can prove intent the actual danger of Europe being transformed into an Islamic continent under Sharia in anything approaching the near term is laughable. Currently France has about 10% Muslim population and the Netherlands has about 5.5% Muslim population. No other Western or Northern European nation has even 4%. The threat of the Muslim population taking over Europe is about as credible as the “Reconquista” claims made by some in the US.
Caliphate is certainly in the lexicon of Sunni terrorists. It is a rallying cry for many of the Sunni terrorists and it may even be a goal (though not a realistic one) of some. The likelyhood of a ME Caliphate is miniscule and anything beyond that is not even worth mentioning. I don’t see any of the entrenched powers in the region willingly giving away their power.
At this point “democratizing” the ME would increase the likelyhood of a ME Caliphate from miniscule to merely very unlikely.
BTW Iran is Shia and Caliphate is a Sunni term. If you are concerned about Iran installing an Islamic world government the appropriate term would be Imamate.
Is this your reasoning for citing Islam as an existential threat? Do you think that Muslims are a short step from rising up with that small minority and attempting to subjugate the rest of the world?
You fail to meet your own criteria. There are two facts in your post (the number of Muslims in the world and the number in the US), beyond that it is all assertion with no factual support given.
Grewgills has already done a pretty good job of tearing your post to shreds, so I’ll just clean up the rest.
As Grewgills has already mentioned, Islam is not the only warrior religion who’s tradition of bloody conquest has persisted to this day, a fact I hardly need to point out to you I’m sure.
Again Grewgills has already pointed out why this is a ridiculous idea, but now I challenge you to tell us who the last Caliphate was who’s authority was recognized by both Sunni and Shia. And after that, maybe you could tell us why a Caliph is more dangerous than a Pope.
Um, not that quiet actually. It’s just that nobody feels the need to mass protests in support of it (how many christians in the US have held mass marches in support of the GWOT?). But lets say that you aren’t factually wrong here, we didn’t hear much protest from Germans against the Nazi party either, but we still didn’t kill them all did we?
Once again, you are both ignorant and wrong, even in this statement.
1. It is a fact that Islam requires that all Muslims support “the little jihad”.
2. It is a fact that Islam is dedicated to eventual domination of the world and the installation of a Caliphate or the term Imamate as you pointed out.
3. It is a fact that Muslims are permitted by Islam to lie, cheat, steal, and kill infidels without penalty.
4. It is a fact that infidels are given the chance to convert to Islam, to receive dhimmitude status, or to be killed.
5. It is a fact that those who renounce Islam are
slated to be killed.
6. It is a fact that Muslims in foreign lands are given permission to adapt their lives to the society they are in, until such time as they are called upon to return to Islamic ways.
7. It is a fact that the Sunni have planned for a “bloodless coup” in Europe that takes a long view.
The percentage of Muslims will grow until by the end of the century it will be a majority in every country. (Muslims in Holland, for instance are at the 40% level now in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, and Eindhoven. The cities are where control lies.)
8. Conversely, the non-Muslim birthrate in Europe is tanking. It is well below replacement level of 2.0. This will significantly hasten the Islamic process of achieving majority status and power.
That the Koran is is literally the word of Muhammad is not questioned, but acted upon by all Muslims, even today. Thus any comparisons with the Bible and its gory parts is false, if only because of the New Testament. Nothing in the Koran has been abrogated since the 7th century. In fact, it has been specifically reinforced by current clerics, including a Fatwa to permit the use of nuclear weapons against the infidel.
I can cite references to these facts, if they are not self-evident to you from your own knowledge.
But, suppose your “mild” opinion is adopted. What will be your reaction to the Iranians gaining nuclear weapons? Acceptance? What if they pass weapons to the terrorist elements? Are you willing to accept the destruction of Israel? Then too, what do you recommend we do when the US Muslim population reaches 40-50% in about 2060 or so? Just let it happen? Their birthrate is between 4.0 and 5.0 now, and rising.
All in good time. Islamists think in very long time periods. They do not want to alarm the US too soon, in my opinion.
There are two main Islamic scenarios here: 1) Wait till the demographics are far more in the favor of Muslims; and 2) Bring down the US economy and faith in its government from within, thus paralyzing us for a long time to come. This must fit into a larger matrix of steps.
With their current 60,000 (at 1%) potential terrorists in the US, and with their ability to force any of the remaining ~6 million Muslims to do their bidding, they have the capability to wreck the US economy, and put us into a chaotic state at any moment. That moment may come when a major Islamic challenge to the Europeans begins, which would seriously inhibit our ability to do much about it.
So scenario (2) could become the most effective way to neutralize the US in global terms, at the sacrifice of some of their current residents here.
This is no problem for them; they have been doing it in Israel for 50 years on a relatively small scale.
Can you imagine what these 60 thousand or more terrorists could do in a short time, if they concentrated their efforts on the economy, and had sufficient explosives? We live in a wide open society where many prime targets are virtually unprotected. Look at our oil refineries, pipelines, power stations, transmission lines, rail transportation, bridges, tunnels, skyscrapers, port facilities, communications facilities, and so on: all soft targets, just as the twin towers were on 9/11. If I recall correctly, for example, there are only seven rail bridges across the Mississippi, and they are vital to the shipment of resources East and West. Losing all seven would be a major disaster.
Simultaneously attacking many of these targets would pose an existential problem for us for years. Not from an attempt to overthrow our government, but from thoroughly devastating our economy. Then too, once we had succeeded in restoring some of our facilities, they go for a second or third round of attacks, keeping us in a state of abject misery and economic collapse. That is an existential threat.
I personally have seen absolutely no evidence that Muslims want to live in peace in the US in the long term. They are, after all, Islamic adherents. I have seen lots of evidence that they are as delusional here as they are in other places. Look at Detroit. Look at the 10 thousand mosques where Imams preach overthrow of the US, which is a recorded fact by the FBI in many cases.
As to power, there would be many opportunities for the various sects and tribes to agree to work together to retain or mightily increase their own power if: 1) together they controlled the ME oil; 2) they neutralize the US; 3) they neutralize the EU; and 4) they never confront the US forces directly.
Call me an Islamophobe if you want. That, of course, solves nothing. I seem to be in good company.
Dude, you’re so far beyond Islamophobe that calling you that would offend rednecks everywhere. Calling you batshit insane just might offend actual batshit. I don’t think there is anyone who is in your “company”, let alone anyone “good”.
So what? Not relevant.
Not relevant in the 21st century. Time alters circumstances and allegiances, especially when the stakes are high enough. The Pope! Oh dear! The comparison doesn’t merit an answer.
I will refrain from saying what I really think of your posts; it is easy to denigrate someone in an ad hominem attack.
In a real sense, I hope your ideas are correct, but I would never, never bet the farm on them! You may be so wrong as to give the nation away, or aid its demise. This makes you a threat to our nation.
Poor Michael, his ignorance is showing and now his usual use of improper language shows his total inability to maintain an even keel.
EOS, I have better things to do.
So not over-reacting to every crazy conspiracy theory by wiping entire regions of the world devoid of life makes me a threat to the nation?
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that 99.99% (+/- 0.1%) of the population of the USA would not endorse killing every Muslim in the world because they are having more children than we are. I guess than makes 99.99% of Americans a threat to our nation. Or, more accurately, it just makes us a threat to the ambitions of your 0.01% who prefer genocide simply because it’s easier.
You seem not to read well, Mister. Point out for me just where I advocated genocide. I will wait here for your answer. You cannot find it! Evidently, this was your conclusion, unsubstantiated by my posts.
This tack of yours seems in itself to be a conspiracy meme. Trying to save yourself from being accused of being soft on Muslims and Islam. Or just being a smear artist, or leftwing moonbat.
I note with glee that you haven’t answered my long post, except with an attack. Very leftwing of you.
That solves the whole matter to my satisfaction.
That is simply what leftwing moonbats do.
In just this thread?
No granted you never used the ‘g’ word, but you were pretty clear none the less.
Its funny how after every time you play the victim of my ‘attacks’, you conclude with an attack of your own. Now calm down, this isn’t another attack on you. I’m just saying, its funny.
For what it’s worth, I’m not denying that Islam is an ideological competitor to western (Christian) culture, or that it is trying to spread across Europe, just that the threat in 2007 is much much less than it was in 717 and 723.
Something to consider when trying to impress others with your knowledge of Islam; dhimmi status is afforded free non-Muslims in lands under Sharia law. If you convert to Islam you are by definition not dhimmi. Failing to understand a point as basic as this leads me to question how much of the study you claim was internalized.
Now in order:
1. No member of Al Qaeda is authorized by Islamic law to call for jihad. Nor is Ahmadinejad. The mullahs could but haven’t and even if they did it would only extend to their followers. No global caliphate, no global command structure.
2. Some Muslims are dedicated to this goal. The vast majority of Muslims are about as dedicated to this goal as Christians are dedicated to all the world being Christian. In other words, not all that dedicated.
3. Not exactly. Muslims are allowed to be dishonest under some circumstances. If it was deemed to be in the interest of Islam, Ahmadinejad would be allowed to lie about Iran’s nuclear ambitions for instance.
4. Addressed above.
5. When living under Sharia law that is true in theory if not always in practice. If we lived according to Biblical law we would stone to death children that talked back.
6. Is largely irrelevant unless you are postulating that the majority of the American and European Muslims are a giant sleeper cell. Are you?
7a. This scenario is once again about as credible as the “Reconquista.” Do you believe in that as well?
7b. I don’t know where you got your population figures for cities in the Netherlands. I could not find a reliable source for a city by city breakdown by religious population. I was able to find some figures on Wikipedia. Rotterdam is universally recognized in the Netherlands as the city with the highest concentration in the country. As of 2006 in had a population of 588,718. Of that people of Turkish decent make up 45,415 and people of Moroccan decent make up 36,831. These make up the bulk of the Muslim population there. Other notable minority populations are Surinamese, Antillean, and South European. All of these areas or less than 20% Muslim. But let’s say that half of their Dutch population is Muslim. This gives us about 21% Muslim. For your arguments sake lets use half again that and say its 31% Muslim. That is almost certainly a large overestimate of the Muslim population in the most highly concentrated area of Muslims in the Netherlands. I don’t know where you got your 40% figure, but I suspect that if we tracked it down the trail would lead to someone’s @ss.
BTW applying the same math to Utrecht gives about 15% (22%), to Eindhoven gives about 9% (14%). I could not find good numbers for A’dam with a quick and lazy search but personal observations would put it in the 10-15% range.
Re: the cities where control lies in the Netherlands
I notice you left out Den Haag, the seat of government. Amsterdam and Rotterdam have considerable influence, rivaling that of Den Haag in some matters. To say that Eindhoven and Utrecht are are where control lies in the Netherlands is to demonstrate an acute lack of knowledge on the subject.
(Sorry for the overlong bit on NL)
8. Reconquista again.
That is one fatwa for, by one of the most conservative Iranian clerics. This is a bit troubling but it won’t cost me much sleep as it is the stand of a relatively small fraction of Iranian clerics. There are a number of fatwas against the use of nuclear weapons, some of these also recently originating from Iran.
I do not like the idea of a nuclear armed Iran and we should make all realistic and reasonable efforts to delay the inevitable for as long as we can.
Wow! What do you suggest we do? Sterilization? Child quotas? Forced deportations?
I guess if Christians could think in such long time periods the US would be in much better shape.
Beyond here you fall into such unsubstantiated conspiracy theorizing that response is pointless.
First of all, you are straining to find something wrong, and you did not succeed. Dhimmitude is as I described it in the Koran so there was no error there. As is the permission to lie, cheat, steal, and kill infidels. Of course Den Haag is the capitol of the Netherlands, I lived there for 10 years. My stats were from Holland, specifically from my daughter who lives there. She is not prone to lying.
She says that many of the Muslims live in enclaves just outside many of the cities, and are not carried on the roles of the cities proper.
The scenarios were not manufactured from whole cloth, they were from military sources, especially the second one, where paralyzing the US would allow Iran to execute aggressions without a response from us. Let me see, oh yes, Muslims are given permission in the Koran to live as Romans do, until the right time. And they are obliged on pain of death to rise up and follow their leaders in jihad says the Koran. Do I need to give you the references? These facts you should know before trying to lecture me.
You need to spend more time in that book, it seems. Or are you simply playing obfuscater?
I am not straining to find fault, it is readily apparent. You are absolutely wrong about dhimmi status. Read from the Koran or from any Muslim scholar and you will find that you are wrong on this point.
The permissions to deceive non-Muslims are far more restrictive than you make them out to be.
If you lived in the Netherlands for so long how is it you thought that Eindhoven and Utrecht were centers of national decision making?
Your daughter is simply wrong about the population figures for Muslims in those cities. Let us look at this logically from another perspective. The four cities you named have a combined total of about 2 million people. 40% of that is 800,000. That is virtually the entire population of Muslims in the Netherlands located exclusively in these four cities. That is not even close to the case.
By all means give the references.
Your paranoia about a mass uprising of Muslims in the US if just that paranoia. As is your alarmist notion that the US will be 40% Muslim in the near future consolidating our subject status in the global caliphate.
Still no answer from you on what you think should be done about the demographic crisis you perceive to be looming. If their birth rate is so alarming to you, what do you think should be done about it? Do you want them sterilized? deported? Should they have to register?
Grew: The only reason I left out Den Haag was that I didn’t remember the numbers. The Randstadt is the hub of economic activity in the Netherlands, which is where the concentration of Muslims lies. Obviously, any Muslim advance into government must include Den Haag, and that has begun with Muslims being elected to office.
The question of what to do I first posed to you, not the other way around. I am waiting for your solution, if any. If you are aware of geometric progressions, why don’t you figure out for yourself how many Muslims will be in the US in 2060-3000, starting from a base today of 6 million and with a replacement rate of 5.0! With that number in your head, then try to answer my question. Waiting….
At a steady population growth rate of 5.0, the Muslim population in the US would top 2 billion by 2097, while the rest of the US would remain relatively constant with a 2.0 growth rate. The crossover point is about 2070 where the Muslim population would equal the US population. One would hope that this growth rate would moderate in the out years
Again, you are straining hard, in addition to implying that my daughter is incorrect, which she isn’t. Where did I say that those cities were the only centers for decision making? They are centers for economics, and not the only ones at that. This was a simple example of Muslim penetration in Holland, and it persists. I can think of only one reason for your trying to play down the Muslim penetration of the West. Oh, make that two reasons.
For Dhimmitude, try Qur’an 9:29, still not abrogated.
You’re still not saying what you suggest we do about this. Should we institute programs to increase the non-muslim birth rate, or programs to decrease the muslim birth rate? Also, what to do about muslim converts, who add to the count regardless of the religion of their parents, how do we control them? I’m sure you have a solution to this, and again I’m equally sure that I won’t like it.
What countries institute the Dhimmi tax today?