Pity Shannon (the author) doesn't understand simple MATH. If the 20 or 30 MILLION Muslims now in Europe (mostly on welfare) are procreating at the rate of 7 bambinos per couple and the Europeans are averaging 1.3 kids per couple it doesn't take very long (ONE generation) before the minority is now the majority.

It shows either the idiocy of most journalists or the inability to grasp obvious truths - in this case simple MATH. Their leftest bleatings always assume their are racist undertones to any article or viewpoint that conflicts with their completely f/uped view of how the world should be.

Kate, somewhat related:

"France to halt games when anthem is booed"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081015123919.5457lveo&show_article=1

The problem is, that when the population of outsiders reaches critical mass, and they become the majority, the issue will become highly charged and racist, on both sides.

We should ship french Quebecers to their Utopia: France.

They are so racist and abnoxious that even the muslims would leave France...Unless real violence were to erupt...Then our french whinners would ask for a free ride back home as they would cowardly surrender like their popon brothers already have even if the French still are a large majority over the number of muslims in their own country.

Sarkozy has it right, Arabic is the language of THEIR future. In my opinion the French elite long ago threw their citizens under the bus for a stake in their big pan-Arab ambitions.

This link on Drudge today is so rich in Gallic behavior when confronted with unpleasant realities:

Any football match in France before which the country's national anthem is booed will now be "immediately stopped", French Sports Minister Roselyne Bachelot said Wednesday after meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy.
The dramatic move followed the booing of "La Marseillaise" during France's 3-1 friendly win over Tunisia at the Stade de France in Paris on Tuesday.

"Any match when our national anthem is whistled will be stopped immediately," Bachelot said after talks with Sarkozy and French Football Federation president Jean-Pierre Escalettes.

"Government members will immediately leave the arena where our national anthem has been whistled."

"When whistling of our antional anthem happens, all friendly games with the country concerned will be suspended for a period yet to be determined by the federation president."

It looks like the French white flag factory recovered from the fire.

I agree with Steyn. Western women should be out there popping out children, not working.

Alternatively, we can expel all the muslims from Europe. That should make a real difference. Then, in a century or so, they can just stroll right in when there aren't enough western people to put up a fight.

Will the ladies on this board kindly stop wasting time here and go and give birth to a soccer team. Please. For the future. Its the only way we can win. After all, Islam is a giant green monolithic blob trying to destroy us.

Alright ladies, time to go to your husbands and get to work. They don't even have to be your husbands. As long as they are white.

Its back to the Dark Ages they go! Arabic the "language of the future, of science and of modernity,". Are you kidding me!

Just look to Sask to see what happens when you combine socialists, a declining generation of younger workers and growth of tax receiving population. The groups and situation were a bit different but the effect is the same.

The outcome was increasing taxes, declining services, decaying infrastructure and rising crime rates. Small business and risk taking was rare and instead the government became the biggest employer and investor. You can see the same thing occuring in places like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver:

socialists+ middle class baby bust+ increasing tax receivers = a downward economic spiral and increasing government control

Europe seems to have a similar political equation. Muslim demographics just accelerates the decay but they did not cause the problem, merely took advantage the opportunities. Muslims will, at least culturally and politically, control Europe because they can deliver voting blocs. Much like to the BQ/ROC political dynamics. A small group can easily control a larger, more powerful population when politicians give these blocs an importance than their actual numbers do not warrant.

It gets worse ... Socialist parties all over Europe (except in Denmark), are aligning themselves with the Muslim vote. This means that Muslims will control politics long before they reach critical mass in demographic terms. So, do the math ... it's not about 50 + 1 of bodies ... it's simply about controlling elections, and Muslims are well on their way already. That'd explain Zarkozy's wimp out ... he's sucking up to get votes ... next thing, his babe/singer/wife will be "covered" ... or on trial for all those nude pics.

"According to Steyn "our" women have put us all in danger from the dreaded infidels by refusing to be baby factories"

Great Jupiter's bollocks! The vindictive reactionary vulgarity still spews from these Fe-marxists with sexual identity issues. Any mention of procreative heterosexual coitus sends them off on foamy mouthed political tirades.

Thank God their indignant politics preclude them from passing their genes into the pool well adjusted normative humans have to use.

Ironically enough, Dim, there is often truth in satire though some may inadvertently skip on by without ever realizing it..

Ironically it is the progressives that will be hit hardest by the demographics. The groups that they seem to dislike the most are having more kids than urban elites. I would think that in the future power will shift to conservatives, religious people and rednecks. Muslims, if they continue to align with progressives, will have to compete with the other ethnic groups and the many special interest groups for primacy among the progressive agenda.

Europe has lost the ability to recover even if they acted now. They are past the point of no return. Even extremists like Le Pen couldn't change their direction even in the unlikely event he won a majority.

Idiots. Just look at the artistic and architectural heritage of western society which can't be moved out when muslims start burning and detonating it (like they did the giant Buddhas, 1000 year old churches in Kosovo, etc.) That doesn't even include all the stuff that nations like France won't move before it's too late (like the National Library and the Louvre.)

History is a long string of loss with the occasional massive destruction (like cultural mass extinction.) We're about to see a loss which makes the library at Alexandria look like a dress rehearsal. Ironic that it was also muslims who burnt that one...

"Guilty of turgid writing"?

Is that a defense or a condemnation? He's so subtle I can't really tell.

"Steyn makes an amusing absurdist argument that Muslims are prodigious procreators and the rate at which "their" women are popping out pups means that soon there will be armies of ululating young men overrunning Western societies."

As usual with leftists, facts never need to be proven wrong when simply adding a description like "absurdist' will suffice.

Arguments are never rebutted with a logical counter argument when ad hominem attacks will do.

Mix liberally with a condescending tone and voila! A completely irrational piece of opinion trash put out by another absurd moron, calling themselves a writer.

Is "Shannon Rupp" a nom de plume for Heather Mallick. Same ad hominem/ no facts style. Assume that everyone agrees with your point and then you don't really have to argue it, you just make "witty" remarks about how the subject of your invective just doesn't get it.

Likewise, is "The Tyee" some sort of west coast version of the Moronto Star? I notice the "venerable" Murray Dobbin among the inmates of the asylum over there.

Daisy,

"As usual with leftists, facts never need to be proven wrong when simply adding a description like "absurdist' will suffice."

Well, to be fair, while the facts say that there are many Muslims in Europe, it is not exactly clear if they all subscribe to a 'Destroy the West' mentality. Some of them quite like the freedoms and liberties of the west. Bernard-Henri Levy has an interesting book coming out. It's gotten a thumbs up from the op-ed folk at the Conservative Washington Times. Read it. Then decide which of the many facts you want to pick and choose.Technically, the west is doomed because there are more non-western people than there are western people. You know - India, China, Africa. Its only a matter of time before the barbarian hordes file in, like they did in Rome. Its the survival of ideas and ideals that matters. Washington's Capitol Hill is consciously modelled on Roman lines, architecturally and otherwise.

"Arguments are never rebutted with a logical counter argument when ad hominem attacks will do."

Yes, its a wonderful argument. But where is the alternative, let alone viable alternative. It's just an alarmist call - typical of Steyn. He is basically arguing that Western/white women need to stay home and breed with more western/white men to save the west. (I highlight skin color because being of any other color makes you suspect even if two generations of your family have been born in the west.)This has pretty much always been the case, but now its becoming a bigger deal because the colored people are more mobile. You have what - 1.5 billion white folk/westerners, to 4.5 billion non-whites? If they are popping out 7 each, white women will have to pop out 21 each. A daunting prospect. The winds of time are against the west. The only hope of saving the west is by westernizing everyone to ensure the survival of ideals. Expelling them won't change a thing.

The author here is chiding Steyn for implying that women are baby-making machines. To defeat the green masses, we must imitate them? Push our women back into the house and tell them to breed? These are the question this 'absurdist moron' is asking. Fair questions, I think. Of course, they don't suit you, but they are valid questions. How about you answer them without your own brand of ad-hominem attacks.

"Mix liberally with a condescending tone and voila! A completely irrational piece of opinion trash put out by another absurd moron, calling themselves a writer."

And your tone here is what - conservative and condescending? Having an opinion that is different from yours is automatically 'trash' from a 'moron'? I thought you were keen on saving the western civilization with its freedoms and liberties, but you seem more intent on making a mockery of it.

Dim: "The only hope of saving the west is by westernizing everyone to ensure the survival of ideals."

I believe this to be a true statement.

The reproductive rates of immigrants would not be an issue if said immigrants were interested in becoming a part of Western society, not just feeding off it.

What frustrates, and galls, and pains me so much is that what is clearly a superior ideology / philosophy / way of life in the West, one which has emerged in the crucible of a millennium of war, social change, scientific advance, and philosophy in Europe and its more successful colonies, is being is being discarded due to the current fashion in moral relativism, and due to the greed of our leaders who see only oil dollars and low wage workers, and assume that somehow it will all work out in the end.

But it won't.

Steyn has not argued against race, but against a culture, an ideology.

I believe that like me, he doesn't care whether you're black, white or purple. He cares about what people believe, what they embrace, what they hold to be essential truths in how their lives are lived.

Muslims who embrace western values including economic and social values such as democracy, are more than welcome. We need immigrants. But not immigrants whose values are antithetical to western civilization.

This woman doesn't refute anything Steyn has to say. It reminds me of one of my wife's favorite recriminations: "it's not what you say, but how you say it."

Simple fact: birth rate of Greece 9.72/1,000. Death rate: 10.15/1000. Their population is rapidly aging and the death rate of Greek born citizens will continue to increase while the birth rate of Greek born citizens will continue to fall.

It has been estimated that by 2050 there will be no 'Greeks' in Greece. Their natural born population will be completely replaced by generations of immigrants, largely from African/Islamic states.

Most of these African Islamists have as their first and most important allegiance their religion, not their adopted country. In fact most 2nd generation Muslims hold their first allegiance to be their religion.

What then will be the fate of the birth place of democracy? Apparently for Shannon Rupp, the question is irrelevant and dare I say it, absurd.

Dim,

"Well, to be fair, while the facts say that there are many Muslims in Europe, it is not exactly clear if they all subscribe to a 'Destroy the West' mentality. Some of them quite like the freedoms and liberties of the west."

The fact is a large percentage of those Muslims want Shariah law as the law of Europe. A large percentage of those Muslims agree with terrorism as a means of defeating the west. All of those Muslims subscribe to the ideology of Islam which divides the world into dar al Islam and dar al Harb. And all Muslims are commanded to emulate Mohammad.

"Yes, its a wonderful argument. But where is the alternative, let alone viable alternative."

A moot point as you've agreed.

"Having an opinion that is different from yours is automatically 'trash' from a 'moron'?"

Clearly you have a comprehension problem. No counter argument, no challenge to the facts that Stein stated. Only invective, ad hominem and attitude.

Congratulations on your moniker, though. Clearly an inspired choice.

No Guff,

While your color-blindedness is admirable, particularly on this board, I need to question a statement you have made.

"He cares about what people believe, what they embrace, what they hold to be essential truths in how their lives are lived."

This is a slippery slope IMHO. Freedom of belief (religious or otherwise) and freedom of opinion form the basis of western civilization. The survival of the west does not depend on the survival of a certain people. The Ancients Greeks have long been replaced but their ideals still survive. The Roman Republic has survived the barbarian hordes. Indeed the descendants of the barbarian hordes now populate the west. Did the Romans think the Barbarians would be emulate the Republic? Probably not.

The problem is the term 'western civilization'. It is broad and undefined. What is "antithetical to western civilization"? Its a wonderful term, but its vague to the point of distraction. You can literally intepret that, as many here have, that anything left of hypernational hard-right is 'anti-thetical to western civilization'. Its a slippery slope here - the aim is to exclude hyperreligious zealots, but does that include the Amish, or Catholics who look up to the Pope, or some of the more exciteable elements in the American evangelistic crowd?

First you have to define western civilization. Western civilization itself is broad. It has given us everything from communism to capitalism and classical liberalism - all ideologies that still resound across the globe. Yet most of us would agree that communism, spawned in a western country by a western mind, is anti-thetical to what we want to see as 'western civilization'. I read this article by Dennis Prager - one of the more nutty rightwingers - on townhall, where he all but propagates a split of America along two lines- "Liberty, Fraternity and Egalitarian" (the French Revolution credo) v/s "Pursuit of Life Liberty and Happiness". Two very western conceptions of western civilization. Which one is right? Which one is antithetical to Western civilization?

At the moment, we are living in a very fragmented western civilization. Both sides would be more than happy to expel the other half (Jesusland v US of Canada) on the basis of their differences being irreconcilable. The scariest part is that the basis of what makes the west great - freedom of thought, opinion etc, is what is being targetted the most. The shining light of the western civilization is, if townhall comments are any indicator, willing to tear itself apart because it can no longer come to terms with the fact that others might have beliefs that differ from their own.

The west will eventually get out-populated by the 'non-west'. The ideas have to survive. Will they survive? I believe they will. But at the same time, the Karl Roves of this world have got to stop polarizing the west against itself for short term political gains. There is a hatred for the 'other' (democrats and republicans) within countries that threatens to undermine the very ideals of western civilization by tearing the countries apart.

"The fact is a large percentage of those Muslims want Shariah law as the law of Europe."

Define a 'large percentage'.

"A large percentage of those Muslims agree with terrorism as a means of defeating the west."

I doubt the veracity of this statement. Somebody has been reading too much frontpagemag. Give numbers. And let us know what you mean by 'large'. Dont make claims you cannot substantiate.

"All of those Muslims subscribe to the ideology of Islam which divides the world into dar al Islam and dar al Harb."

You do pretty much the same thing, dont you? Dividing the world into Islam and non-Islam is your speciality. Immitation, they say, is the highest form of flattery.

"And all Muslims are commanded to emulate Mohammad."

And all Christains are told to emulate Jesus, but I don't see you withholding judgment after sinning. After accusing Islam of dividing the world into Muslim and non-Muslim, you promptly do the same, albeit to vilify them.

"Clearly you have a comprehension problem. No counter argument, no challenge to the facts that Stein stated. Only invective, ad hominem and attitude"

And you have been guilty of making the same mistake with regard to my post. Where are the answers to the questions I asked? You haven't challenged one assertion I have made, trying to pass it off instead by alluding to a tongue in cheek comment I made about it being a wonderful argument. (Wonderful because it will likely make a lot of men very happy if women are willing to breed more often.) Read between the lines.

"Congratulations on your moniker, though. Clearly an inspired choice."

Yes, I believe the appropriate response would be to point out your tendency to provide "Only invective, ad hominem and attitude". ;)

Dim,

Post-modern Western civilization is very clearly defined. It is based on liberal democratic values.

Islam, wherever it enjoys a plurality does not embrace liberal democracy ... not in Turkey, not in Indonesia ... nowhere. Even in Iraq, where democracy may survive, it will not be liberal democracy ... hopefully it'll take on the crude form of military enforced democracy enjoyed by Turkey ... but not what we enjoy.

The problem is Islam as an ideology. Islam is much more than a religion. As Wafa Sultan so perfectly puts it, "moderate" Islam is an invention of the West, to sooth it, to somehow make things fit its PC "liberal" view of humankind. The concept, however, does not exist in the Islamic world.

In the Islamic world, there is only Islam ... it comes first and last ... it injects itself into commerce, religion, education, and even the bedroom ... it is all encompassing. That's why, when critical mass is reached in Europe, the old European institutions will fall like bricks because Islam will demand it. The invisible "moderate" Muslim will be swept up in the crush along with his infidel friends ... because in Islam, there is no room for moderates.

And, just so you don't get me wrong ... the average Muslim man or woman does not hold liberal democratic values ... if they do, they are not real Muslims ... they can't embrace Muhammad adn liberal democracy at the same time ... impossible ... foolish ... and suicide in most Muslim countries. Finally, I make a distinction between fanatics (terrorists) and the average Muslim ... but none of them add one little smidge of value to a liberal democratic state ... not one single crumb. Give them a plurality, and they'll own you and destory you or relegate you to the closet.

"Alternatively, we can expel all the muslims from Europe. That should make a real difference. Then, in a century or so, they can just stroll right in when there aren't enough western people to put up a fight."

Dim
__________________________________________________

They could just stroll right in now if they wanted to. Europe has given up the will to live. It won't fight for its own existence. Many of them are already resigned to muslim rule, but won't do a thing about it. That comes of too many decades of socialist rule. It's suicidal.

"Define a 'large percentage'."

Go look up the percentages you lazy ass. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

"You do pretty much the same thing, dont you? Dividing the world into Islam and non-Islam is your speciality. Immitation, they say, is the highest form of flattery."

Actually, no. I take them at their ideological word. Shouldn't you? Or, don't you believe them?

"And all Christains are told to emulate Jesus"

Yes. Quite a difference between the two characters isn't there?

"After accusing Islam of dividing the world into Muslim and non-Muslim, you promptly do the same, albeit to vilify them."

It's dar al Islam and dar al Harb. And I don't accuse. It's their doctrine. I'm not sure why I'm bothering with you. You obviously require tutoring.

"You haven't challenged one assertion I have made,"

None of your so-called "assertions" have any basis in fact. You yourself know this because you never provided any. Therefore your non-argument is just as much a waste of time as the writer in question.

"Go look up the percentages you lazy ass. I'm not going to do your homework for you."

I did. For the UK, its 18%, 58% of whom believe Shariah has to be modified to apply in the modern world. Is 18% 'large'?

Its a brilliant tactic, I must admit. Make a fallacious claim and then, when asked to back it up, tell the challenger to go look it up himself. Clever, but it assumes that no one will actually bother looking the number up. Too much frontpagemag, old chap. Try a source that actually considers the issues, without picking and choosing.

"And all Christains are told to emulate Jesus"

Definitely, but how many Christians actually go out there and emulate Jesus. Pretty damn few, eh? You're doing a pretty bad job yourself. I doubt Jesus would engage in name-calling.

"Actually, no. I take them at their ideological word. Shouldn't you? Or, don't you believe them?"

I am wary of treating them like one giant monolithic blob. Too much variation within. When you realise that, you will stop being so scared. And you'll probably stop treating frontpagemag as your Bible.

Besides, all exclusivist religions divide the world into believer and non-believer - inclduing Islam's forerunners Judaism and Christianity. Nationalism is also based on exclusivism (American and non-American). What is so contentious about this point?

"It's dar al Islam and dar al Harb. And I don't accuse. It's their doctrine. I'm not sure why I'm bothering with you. You obviously require tutoring."

Is it really that unique. And no, I am afraid I cannot accept your tutoring services. I prefer calm, collected and well-informed to nutty right wing, beat-the-dead-horse types.

"None of your so-called "assertions" have any basis in fact."

The author here is chiding Steyn for implying that women are baby-making machines. To defeat the green masses, we must imitate them? Push our women back into the house and tell them to breed? These are the question this 'absurdist moron' is asking. Fair questions, I think.

Well no one can accuse you of inconsistency. Another tremendous bout of "Only invective, ad hominem and attitude". WWJD?

From the Telegraph:

"Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people."

That's over 700,000 Muslims in Britain who support Shariah. A significant amount by anybody's calculations. Other polls support similar percentages, where ever there are Muslims throughout the west.

You might also check the CBC poll on Muslim attitudes.

Since I'm talking to an obviously uninformed wanker - fixated on frontpage magazine as the sole source on anything Muslim - no tactics are needed.

"Definitely, but how many Christians actually go out there and emulate Jesus. Pretty damn few, eh? You're doing a pretty bad job yourself. I doubt Jesus would engage in name-calling.'

Don't deflect. Muslims are commanded to emulate Mohammad. If they do to perfection, what is the result? Silly me, you wouldn't know, since you have no basic knowledge of Islam, or their prophet's sayings and example.

"I am wary of treating them like one giant monolithic blob. Too much variation within. When you realise that, you will stop being so scared. And you'll probably stop treating frontpagemag as your Bible."

Why do you continue to make so many silly assumptions? I never said any of the above. Do you enjoy lying? Is it a habit?

"Is it really that unique. And no, I am afraid I cannot accept your tutoring services. I prefer calm, collected and well-informed to nutty right wing, beat-the-dead-horse types."

Do you understand the non-nuanced definition of dar al Harb? Do you understand anything? Can you separate the people from the ideology in order to understand and critique?

"Well no one can accuse you of inconsistency. Another tremendous bout of "Only invective, ad hominem and attitude". WWJD?"

Ditto. But then, since your posts are devoid of even a rudimentary knowledge of Islam, not to mention facts - invective, ad hominem and attitude is the entire content of your argument. As with the writer in question. Pathetic.

The picking and choosing never stops, does it. From your own story:

"The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity."

99 per cent. Truth by omission from Irwin Daisy. Again. You also forgot to mention (conveniently, no doubt) that 41% of muslims opposed it. Large percentage wants it. Large percentage doesnt want it. Technically, they are cancelling themselves out. Oh and the same poll noted that only 18% of the 35 + age group support Shariah, with nearly 60% explicitly opposing it. Coveniently ignored. Again.

The poll you are drawing your information is not without controversy.

"But the claims were met with a ferocious response from the National Union of Students. 'This is just another report by a biased, right-wing think-tank whose conclusions are drawn from an extremely limited number of students,' said Wes Streeting, president of the NUS. 'It is a wilful misrepresentation of the views of Muslim students designed to create as sensational a picture as possible. It can serve only to generate a climate of fear on campuses.'"

"Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), said the findings showed that groups such as the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, which claims to represent the 90,000 Muslim students attending Britain's universities, could not claim to represent mainstream opinion.

'It is vital that students and government understand that groups like [the federation] - who represent a highly conservative interpretation of Islam - are not representative of all Muslim students,' Murray said. 'Empowering these groups risks giving an official stamp of approval to extreme forms of Islam.'"

"Why do you continue to make so many silly assumptions?"

Well, I see you picking and choosing, I see you constantly parroting Horowitz and his sidekicks, and I can only assume that somebody who sees the world as Muslim and non-Muslim, has no idea how varied the Muslim world is. And you can hardly blame me. You forgot to mention that as many muslims oppose Shariah as the number than support it. Its significant that 40% are not ambivalent about it - that they actually oppose it.

"a rudimentary knowledge of Islam, not to mention facts - invective, ad hominem and attitude is the entire content of your argument"

Yes well the difference between you and me is that I learnt about Islam before Horowitz and his band of merry revisionists showed up to scare the life out of you. And by the looks of it, they have succeeded. You are very rude, and as the saying goes, 'rudeness is a weak man's imitation of strength'. Keep it civil. And calm down. They aren't winning yet? Most of them don't even know they are fighting.

Oh, and I really like Sufi music.

You obviously didn't notice that I made no comment on Muslim feelings and sympathy for mass-murderers.

Yet, since you bring it up - why would they have feelings and sympathy?

And of course Muslim groups will denounce such a revealing report. As with CAIR, MAS, CIC, etc., it's obviously in their best interest to do so. They're always denouncing anything that reveals Islam, other than the atrocities created by their own. It's the "religion of peace" after all.

99? - 100% of the truth of Islam is contained in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The effects of such an ideology are recorded in history. And the commands are being carried out today. Therefore, it makes no difference how you and (it's becoming clear) your co-religionists would like to spin it.

Islam sees the world as dar al Islam and dar al Harb. If you've got a problem with that, perhaps you'd like to take it up with your fellow travelers.

You like Sufi music? Apostate.

haye, res, food-media, etc., is back.

S5.51 do not take Jews and Christians for friends;
S48.29 be ruthless to the infidels;
S2.191 kill the disbeliever wherever you find them;
S4.101 infidels are your sworn enemies;
S9:5 fight the unbelievers wherever you find them;
S47:4 strike at their necks in battle;

Dividing the world between Muslims and non-Muslims? Obviously 1350 years of Apartheid, no?

"Yet, since you bring it up - why would they have feelings and sympathy?"

For pretty much the same reason that no one can get around to criticizing their own religion/ideology's misdeeds. It's human nature. Its what makes people like Mugabe survive. When was the last time you critiqued your own religion? Or ideology? When was the last time you spoke out against the true evil - the exclusivistic nature of Abrahamic religions that divides the world into believers and non-believers. Ockhams razor, remember?

"it makes no difference how you and (it's becoming clear) your co-religionists would like to spin it."

You really are a riot. Hilarious. Well lets see - I believe exclusivist religions are fundamentally flawed and divisive. What religion would that make me? (Hint: It starts with D, and a number of America's founding fathers practiced it).

"Islam sees the world as dar al Islam and dar al Harb. If you've got a problem with that, perhaps you'd like to take it up with your fellow travelers."

America sees the world as America and not-America. And at least I travel :P.

"You like Sufi music? Apostate."

Hahahaa. You really don't have a clue, do you? That really made me laugh. Must be boring in Daisyland. Let me guess - you have never eaten naan either? If you have, you're an apostate too! But its tasty, eh?

"Dividing the world between Muslims and non-Muslims? Obviously 1350 years of Apartheid, no?"

Ah yes. The Frontpage approach. I don't intend to defend Islam. But this game of playing quotes is old and boring. All I have to do is type Bible and Violence into google, and voila. What then? Should we judge Judaism according to some of the less than flattering stuff in the Old Testament? I think not. You, apparently, disagree.

On a mildly separate note, theres one strange one that I have never seen or paid attention to before.

Luke 19:27 - But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

What in the world is that about?

Unlike the NT and Christ's life example, Islam is foundationally violent as proven by their trilogy, Mohammad's sayings and example, as well as 1350 years of history. The commands to violence against, warfare and subjugation of non-Muslims are for all time, rather than being limited to a time and a place.

Your equivalency argument comparing Islam to other religions is a non-argument used by the weak minded.

Your make-believe assertions such as, "And at least I travel :P" as well as your references to frontpage magazine, etc., etc., equally show your intelligence is in need.

"Hahahaa," What are you 12?

It's a parable. But then, of course, that's lost on you as well.

Stick with your handle, it's the only thing you've written on this thread that's factual and maybe even, inspired.

"Your equivalency argument comparing Islam to other religions is a non-argument used by the weak minded."

Its not an equivalency argument. I have merely pointed out the fundamental flaw in Islam, one which happens to be shared by other religions. If you are going to continously attack Islam for dividing the world into believers and non-believers, then at least be consistent in your application. You know as well as I do that the problem starts there.

You have a trait that is shared by the fringe of both ends of the ideological spectrum. There is some kind of strange insecurity that results in a need to compulsively declare, and justify, your superiority. And heaven knows you can't be superior if there is no inferior. You will always find a scapegoat. Islam is playing into your hands right now. If it didn't exist, it would be something else. West v/s non-West. Protestant v/s Catholic. Englishmen v/s Irishmen. Capitalist v/s communist. There will always be somebody else to hate, to fear, to preach one's superiority to. It's like those far right nuts and far left nuts on Townhall who advocate splitting the counry because they think the other half of the country is inferior and not worth staying with. So self-absorbed that they forget what America and Democracy is all about.

What you have to realise is that between those spectrums - in this case Islam and the rest, the vast majority of folk fall in the center, not at the fringes, and are more concerned with day to day life than dominating the west. I know, I know, accepting that those guys in the center are about the same forces you to acknowledge some level of equality that you don't want to becase then you wouldn't be superior.

Fortunately, most of us spend only 7 years as self-absorbed teenagers.

"Your make-believe assertions such as, "And at least I travel :P" as well as your references to frontpage magazine, etc., etc., equally show your intelligence is in need."

I guess we should end this frontpagemag business once and for all. Do you or do you not reference Frontpagemag authors etc? Don't get me wrong - they are entitled to their opinion, but they're about as objective as Michael Moore.

You continue to talk about Muslims. While I talk about the ideology. I fully realize and appreciate that many Muslims are non-committed, nominal, born into it. Many more either don't know (given that they still recite their texts in classical 7th century Arabic) or ignore the violent commands and teachings in the trilogy.

Yet the violent political ideology remains uncorrected, largely unacknowledged, even defended, and continues to incite atrocities.

Islamic doctrine goes further than simply dividing the world between Muslims and non-Muslims. Once again, it's dar al Islam and dar al Harb, the implications of which are far more dangerous. The objective being political domination through war, violence, terrorism and subjugation. Get it?

So, please, don't attempt to psychoanalyze me. You should put your practice to good use and look at yourself, where real repair needs to be done.

What is your obsessive fixation with frontpage magazine? I reference far more writers and historians than appear there or on any other website. Mostly, I reference Islamic texts and historical events.

This has grown tiresome.