Or if it done in the name of Allah. According to you, and and apparently 55% of Arab Respondents in a recent poll.


Are you trying to say I am a Christian or something? You can think that, it's not true, but you can think that.

Which Democratic Muslim nations did "Christians" overthrow? Is that Iraq? It was surely democratic, if I remember correctly, during the last election for Saddam he was elected Unanimously. That seems likely in a Democratic Election.

Proportionally small? I am not talking about the Radical Terrorists, they aren't really the threat. It's the Muslims who move to Europe and then don't adopt European ideals, and in all reality, want to change Europe to fit the needs for their Religion. The real threat to the "West" is the non integrating immigrants, and our own desire for multi-culturalism allowing them to change our way to life. All you have to do is look at the Netherlands to see what I am saying is completely true. In what was once the most liberal nation in the world, Gays are afraid to walk together in public for fear of being assaulted by Muslim Youth.

It will play with anyone who opens their eyes and looks at the situation in many European Nations. Anyone who looks at the statistics or the news. Anyone not so scared of offending people that they look the other way for fear of being called a name.

---
I would imagine you are European, just judging from your need to bash America and strive for appeasement. It's funny about Europeans, they all want to bash America, but without America, they would be speaking German or Russian right now. And without America's help again they will be speaking Arabic by the end of the century.

Additionally, if you want to bash America, could you refer to us as America, instead of vaguely calling us Christian. It's not really applicable to America to call us Christian. In Islam there is a clear connection between the Religion and the Politics. Which is why I can say stuff like Muslim Nations. That doesn't exist in the US.

Well, this debate isn't really about who burns down the most civilian homes in recent years (a contest won a long time ago in Darfur anyway) but the right to _say_ who does so, without punishment.

In that regard the US is the clear moral winner.

And in many ways the freedom of expression is the most important right when we discuss regimes, denying that right is putting a totalitarian barrier in the way of political change and reform.

Can I get an AMEN!!

And we're shocked when Europeans refer to as "stupid Americans".

Christ. Go back to your fanatical right-wing militia group. I'm sure they love this crap.

Of course I don't want your opinion silenced, or some professor's explaining historical facts.

But I do find a difference between you or the professor and some jerk who just enjoy mocking religion because he can.

Meh, If you give me only two options, I'll go with FOS of course.

Doesn't shock me at all when Europeans refer to us as such. At least we will still have a culture of own at the end of the century.

Do you deny that the US involvement in both World War II and the Cold War were a large part of Europe not being conquered?

I will admit that I am a Nationalist. I think the US is the best country in the entire world, and it isn't even close. I know that there are some issues with things the US has done. But in my view, no country has done more for the advancement of democracy and freedom than the US.

This stuff is way off topic. Do any of you who want to complain about Iraq or other US "transgressions", actually have anything to say in regards to the UN resolution?

I will.

Britain and Russia won WWII. The Cold War was a hysterical joke, more or less.

I think we can safely say it would have taken a good deal of years more, though there is little question Germany would have lost in the end - their economy was really in tatters already in 1939. And like the Romans and US have taught the world - long term economy and logistics is what wins war.

And I think Europe in terms of unstability would have been a nightmare, as a lot of the smaller conflicts would have went by unresolved. We would probably have been a modern version of the times around 1900 - a scary scenario.

All this is just 'what if' conjenctures, but fun still. US material and soldiers did probably shorten the war to an extreme degree however.

I give. I may have spoken too strongly in regards to WWII and the Cold War. I do think that the US certainly helped in both cases though.

I do think European notions against America and for "Multi-Culturalism" are ridiculous and will lead to that continents downfall though.

Luckily though, no one will be able to say anything about it while it happens since speech is being restricted against the most likely culprit for the Continent's demise.

With or without the US -- the English, French, Italians, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch, Belgians, Greeks, Swiss, Germans, Scandanavians, et al. will still have their culture at the end of the century. To say they will be overrun by Arabs, Muslims, or whomever is the height of idiocy.

Sure, I'll deny it. Hitler had no chance of conquering all of Europe and Britian, with or without US involvement -- nor did Stalin.

Edit: Well, ok then. I still think you are giving Europeans far too little credit in their ability to protect their core cultures. The French will always be the French -- for better or worse....

We definitely helped.

In terms of lives sacrificed, Russia by a good margin.





Do they teach this on American Schools?

Well, the russians have always been good at valuing the lives of their soldiers pretty ****tily.

That being said the russian side of the War is often a forgotten one. One tends to forget the the '43 to '45 years when examining it - when the russians had both the upper hands in numbers and technology.

Still, we're talking almost a 10:1 ratio on the eastern front or something, looking at their technology one can only assert that their military tactics must at times have been fairly haphazard stuff.

As the famous quote goes 'It takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Red Army.'

I say the culture will be gone because of immigrations by Muslims in addition to their low birth rates.

Most of Europe has Sub Replacement fertility rates in all demographics except Muslims.

(I am going to target France here, but the numbers are similar for other European Nations)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...ance#Fertility

Notice how the immigrants from Muslim nations have high Fertility rates, and the ones from European nations have low ones. It's not idiocy to extrapolate that info to mean that eventually there will be a majority of French citizens that are Muslim. And given the current integration into French Culture of Muslim immigrants, I think it could easily cause the demise of French Culture.

How else is such data to be interpreted?

It should urge us to go stand by the borders and pleading (Muslim) immigrants to come in. Soon there won't be any French culture left AT ALL with the current replacement rates.

I think you should be, yes.

Yeah... I knew you always had it out for me.

I'm curious, Is this legal? I mean if you write of course a real name. If you write a politician name?

LOL

I just don't see how attacking someone for something they say can be defensible. Or rather I do, but I don't think a rational society would want that.