Imperial_Samura
Anticrust Smurf
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Cultural ''invasion'' as you put it, is being done by America not by Islam. Thats the by product of being the most powerful nation in the world.
I have not mentioned cultural invasion, nor did I imply there will be a hordes of Muslims attacking America.
But if you feel better interpreting it like that - go for it.
I didn't think I said anything about the US either... yes, I checked, I didn't mention anything about the US.
And if your think that cultural influence is limited only to the US or can only be done by being powerful then you are sadly mistaken.
I forget that you bleat your little words of political correctness at everyone here, that you never actually read any books related to the topic, or remotely related to the topic of Islam.
So, let me spare you writing a shit long posts about nothing -
Oh well, I am pleased we are all being civil and trying to debate on an intellectual plane. And sorry if my "shit long posts" hurt your eyes or something. But not enough not to do another one now.
And have you been monitoring my reading habits? Or are you just assuming because my view isn't the same as yours logically I can't have read the any books on the subject? Maybe in the course of my studies I just haven't read any that have a view as singular or damning as your own. But then maybe you could accuse my university and its library of being overly politically correct, since that seems to be a good attack in cases such as this.
Third Islamic Invasion of Europe is a book by Prof. Raphael Israeli, which is representative of the fast-changing face of Europe, which the Islamic history professor says is in danger of becoming "Eurabia" within half a century.
Oh my God. Oh my God. How very, very, very funny. And coincidental. And Ironic. The good Professor was recently in Australia, and it just so happens he created a storm of controversy. His presence here was meant to be for a series of lectures, but he used one opportunity to advise Australia and its politicians to consider stopping Muslim immigration before we risk being overrun by Muslims, and how once numbers reach a "critical mass" there is a risk of "violence" and all sorts of other nasty things. I followed his arguments and the numerous peoples counter arguments with great interest. Clearly it is no just Europe in danger of being taken over by Muslims... it is AUSTRALIA TO!!!! And because everybody who disagrees with him is clearly just a politically correct sheep, well, we all deserve to get drowned by Indonesians forcing Islam on us. Or something.
And I notice how you say "in danger of" yet in your earlier post it's "and this time it wont be stopped". Your earlier post makes it sound like a forgone conclusion. Best grow a beard and convert now because the west will burn. Yet this post makes it sound like a theory - just one more theory amongst others.
Anyway this brought to many peoples minds another professor who recently made a case for why western nations taking on large numbers of African refugees was bad because when you get to many black people together you get crime increases. It is notable the Australia Jewish academic community distanced themselves from his remarks. It is notable many other academics came forward to question his theories (as well as Muslim and Christians who wanted to cash in on the ill feeling he created), and drew comparisons to him and other experts who have presented similar, questionable views in the past - be they about Islam or Africans or whoever. But you have a cover all for them, don't you? They are just "bleating their little words of political correctness at everyone" - aren't they? (By the way - have you been using Deano's speech writer? That bleating line is classic Deano. Now you just need to use "open your eyes" and you'll be set.)
Since at this point, we are doing a large pieces on ''State Based Violence'' we had an honour of being informed about an upcoming book its contreversies, and have had a chance to e-mailed prof in regards to information regarding his claims, but most importantly, since we were doing ''State Based violence'' to ask about the state based violence of Israel and Palestine.
Ummm - good for you? And it is good you mention its controversies - because there seem to be plenty. Dare I ask if your response to criticism of this was just to saying something about bleating PC?
And by chance to you email any other people? The Prof. opponents? People with different views? Or did you just take the information regarding his claims at face value?
So, since I tend to forget, that your ''experteese'' of Islam starts and ends at this forum, I should have perhaps seen more clearly that you would not have, unless actively engaged in research on Islam and middle east, any idea in regards to what was implied by Third Islamic Invasion of Europe, and thus you were unable to deliver any argument beyond weak sarcasm.
Sigh. I am very disappointed, you are usually better then that.
But no, my "experteese" (what ever that means) on Islam has nothing to do with this forum. Nor regrettably is it limited only to men like Raphael Israeli who while having some interesting ideas (I remember reading a paper on the US attempts to bring Muslim countries on side following 9/11 very interesting and well written) didn't stop even hard line Australian Jews mused aloud how questionable Israeli can be sometimes (that is about how his view might be colored or how objective it might be.) But then again I don't tend to got bogged down with Hero worship as you seem to be doing. So you have found a historian whose views are in line with your own about how dangerous Islam is? Good for you. I have no problem with Isreali, and think he has some good points, but his work is not gospel.
The point I was taking was more to do with political views on how Islamisation of the west could more take place - a subject I enjoy immensely, and how any "Islamic Invasion" will be more to do with social issues in western nations whereby increasingly disenfranchised people will find comfort, release or justificationwith those sectors of society that advocate change - you know the "I am angry at the world, this religion/political group/ideology tells me to smash it up, and that is good because I want to and feel I am doing the right thing". I am more of the opinion that instead of demonizing the religion they will turn to because it focuses there anger it would make more sense to tackle the social issues that lead to the people turning to begin with. Because, you know, if they have no reason to turn they are somewhat less likely to. But sadly for many that is hard, far easier to roar about the evils of Islam, and how it beguiles people into following it, and how it is useless to look at the reasons why this is so for answers since "they hate us" will do.
And for a person who uses a quote like "Truly, those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it" you yourself seem to be doing exactly that. I can think of a number of cases where a group has been described by others as some massive threat to life and society as we know it. Your little "Third Islamic invasion of Europe has begun..." spiel brought to mind things like the afore mentioned anti-African immigration professor, Senator McCarthy, ancient and Modern Muslims themselves, hell, even some of the early Nazi party rhetoric.
Oh yes, I remember history, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with all the cases of people claiming the world as we know it is on the brink of terrible things - real or metaphorical - at the hands of a religion or politics or ideology or immorality or whatever. Doing so will show it is never as clear cut, black/white as these claims make out, and can be just as revealing about the people making the claims as the people being feared.