There is much danger in complacency.

Blind hysteria is much more dangerous than a near impossibility.

For my part Dezzy, I have never stated that ALL Muslims are the 'enemy' - only the very real and growing number of EXTREMIST Muslims.

I even SPECIFICALLY included the phrase; "ISLAMIC EXTREMISM' in the OP Title to ensure differentiation between the two.

I don't think a near impossility is very realistic. If enough Muslims come here and populate at their usual rates, given the low birth rate in the indigenous population, simple maths can do the rest.

germany is ruled by a far-left authoritarian government, and I could not believe in what some germans told me about how their country is being treated by merkel and her sidekicks, and I thought this country was bad with the PC gestapo style rule, in germany its worse, parents who refuse to let there child be taught this religion are brought to court and could be jailed or have there child taken away from them by the social services, merkel brought in surveillance laws not to keep an eye on extremist or terrorism, but to keep an eye on germans who dare criticise her policies on the refugees, or islam in germany, and her trying to get turkey into the EU, germans who criticise online about these things will have police burst down there doors and they will be jailed for hate crimes, the sooner we get out of the EU the better.

No hysteria here, also not a believer in fairies.

Couldn't agree more.

My real fear is all the desperate clutching by those who can't let go of it because they think the EU is some sort of Shangri La. With court cases and Scotland rattling her saber it could take decades to shake loose.

It's basically an impossibility for a takeover to occur like that. Like I said either in this topic or the other one. For there to be enough extremists to make a difference through sheer numbers, everyone (including most muslims) aside from those with extreme views would need to not breed for a crap ton of years to balance things out and that's not going to happen.

The fact you think the UK has a low indigenous birth rate soeaks for itself.

Nothing but islamaphobia and hysteria.

turkey is dismantling its secularism and kemalism, and will end up being a mini saudi arabia, making child rape legal, merkel flooding europe with refugees was part of the plan to get turkey into the EU, but it goes far deeper than that, the EU elites and merkel want european countries who have parliaments and senates to abolish the current laws, and have them replaced with Islamic laws, which means for non muslims, your rights and democracy are out of the window, erdogan is turning turkey into a dictating islamic state, where as merkel and the elites are taking the legal route to have there dream of a europe with ottoman style rules and constitution,

The number of Muslims in the uk is 4 in a hundred, give or take.

The number of Muslim children under 5 years is 1 in 10.

That's not Islamaphobia, that's a fact.

The only stats I've been able to find are that 4.5% of the total population are Muslim,, the birthrate is increasing but that's the same across the board which still means that Muslims are not going to 'take over' (ugh).

It doesn't make what I said any less true, everyone BUT extremists would need to stop breeding for a long ass time to give extremists the numbers to make political moves. So that's 95.5% of the population AT LEAST if you count the fact that the majority of that 4.5% of muslims wouldn't support any attempts of extremist political manoeuvres.

Pure hysteria to think that there's a possibility of us becoming an extremist run country.

How long to you is a 'long ass time'. Even if say a couple of hundred years or so, this will no longer be a free democratic country for future relatives of you, me and everyone else - especially women.

Maybe you're not unduly concerned about women or future generations, but many of us are especially those with children.

Unless the locals start having more children again on a large scale it will happen eventually, it's inevitable. Hysteria and crystal balls are not needed for anyone who has at least basic math skills.

All these doomsday predictions never take into account the vast majority of the population who aren't extremists. Do we just disappear into the aether? Population growth will always favour the majority. We aren't just going to stop breeding so the growth of extremists through birth is never going to be an issue and mass conversion to an extreme take on Islam is basically an impossibility.

The act of turning a democratic country with a long history of democracy like ours is basically an impossibility for reasons I've already stated multiple times (yet have been mostly ignored since you don't have a counter argument to it).

Extremism is a relative term to you and I. It is also relative to it's environment. Who is to say in 20-50 years that this definition of extremism won't change? Extremism might become 'progressive' and then progressive might become the new norm. I agree with you that it's often difficult to predict what the social conditions will be in future years. I never thought in a million years Donald Trump would be elected, and yet here we are... anyway, people are naturally fearful of change and resistant to forces they feel will adversely affect their status quo. So it's only natural some will form resistance against this... it's neither a good or bad trait to being human, but a tendency we have developed over the years as a way to survive in ever-changing circumstances...

For me the immigration-resistant arguments often come down to this in it's most logical form... by silencing this innate resistance, we are accepting these cultural changes without question and restriction (resisting our instincts), which further hinders our ability to carefully examine possible qualifiers aka dangers to our villages (society's) current members (such as religious sects aligned with terrorism)... you, myself and most of society doesn't know Muslim religion intimately enough to filter this danger out, much less to examine which ideals promote this extremism (though it seems most suspect the head garments, suppression) thus creates the hysteria when groups of society want to invite these people in unquestioned (not saying this is your stance). Logic and experience has something to do with this, but it's usually baked in with other values such as preserving one's own cultural identity and sticking to what works... because it's something we are familiar with, and it provides us with security in an ever-changing world, it's the course they will most likely opt for.

It doesn't necessarily have to align with the primary motives of bigotry. Ironically enough, people who are anti-Christian, or otherwise have been taught/conditioned to dislike it's most oppressive tenants, tend to look for the sister tenants (similar rules) in Muslim culture and use those as the basis for it's monopoly on extremism... so they use that as a guiding post. Still, some of those tenants are still widely accepted in Christianity today... but because it is already well-integrated with our society, we tend to whitelist (no pun intended :laugh:) it despite this obvious contradiction...

Anyway, we tend to band together in resistance where potential qualifiers for dangers are involved, no matter how ridiculous the arguments... because I think even evolution knows humans are often hysterically bad at examining these threads (:laugh:)... hence why these fears tend to rise more vehemently from the unknown factors than the known... we are pretty good at telling when the Christian church down the street might be out to get us, so our natural resistance stops there... damn Jehova's witnesses and their street polluting fliers.

Familiarity is a source of comfort. But again... extremism is relative... humans are pretty good at coming into **** and ****ing it all up. So who knows who will be running the world. We have only had great record keeping for a relatively short period of time, so it's not like we understand everything about the signs these rhetoric gain traction and we can't see all that happens in the world thanks to media that picks and choose what it reports... as a society anyway. If we did, we would have a cure to stop all fascism, hatred, sexism, etc...


Anyway, I am still scanning the thread...

Great rebuttal post, kirk :clap1:

Ok, I have finished the thread...

I don't mind if we immigrate some to the US as long as there are stringent (and reasonable) checks on who is coming in and out. It should be a process, just like with all other immigrants and it should be across the board the same process... because whose to say they won't hire someone of another nationality (a first world country) to try to get in for more nefarious purposes... stopping all obvious Muslims from entering from obvious regions doesn't really stop the threat. It's just profiling. :shrug:

kirk's argument that I quoted is closer to arguments I've heard in the US.

Most people I have seen with the headdress are a Hijab. Occasionally a Khimar... and maybe 1-2 my entire life, a chador (usually a woman accompanied by her husband and family).

I have no issue with Muslim or Christian dress personally... it's not encroaching my personal rights and compared to the other weird and mundane things we see here, it's not entirely out of place :laugh: There are things in our culture far more detrimental for us than a hijab.

We should de-stigmatize our reaction to this religion... but it's unlikely given the course we have already taken. Our enemies already are fighting inside our borders, so to speak, and all we've been doing is giving them the tools to help us implode. They'll only use further restrictions we place against Muslims as arguments to form a counter-resistance. We shouldn't ignore the threat... but on the other hand, we have to understand how advanced and brazen our enemy is. They will use any restriction we place to their advantage.

In short, turning our own countries inside out won't necessarily stop the threat of extremism... but will create a false sense of security that our enemies will--with time, money, energy and willpower--will find a way to circumvent anyway...

Russia was able to disrupt our elections using leaks (supposedly) and it's our exclusive nature that is making us very easy targets for our enemies. In effect, we have given them their greatest weapon, which is ourselves... so in that respect, the war after all has already begun.

Great? Right, I would like some evidence of women carrying bombs and weapons beneath their clothing for this rebuttal to have any credence whatsoever.

It's been on the news. :shrug:

One that springs to mind is some of the girls kidnapped by Boko haram were drugged and sent off with suicide bombs under their clothes.

This is one but there are others.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...gerian-mother/

..I'm sure that there have been instances of certain clothing being used to 'mask' for sinister and hate filled intensions but it's still not the clothing to be feared..(in my opinion..)...it's those people themselves who do this and they're doing a great job in making the world fearful of things they don't need to be fearful of...isn't that the whole principle of extreme terrorism, to turn us all against each other in intolerance and fear...

You are right in a way but I think any clothing forced on women for the sake of modesty is pretty fearful in itself.

..yeah it's a bit of a tricky one really because to ban is also oppressing in itself, so further oppressing who we feel are oppressed...and is the head of the school in the story also a female..(I need to re-read the story...)...so it's also that continuing of oppression not being the answer if her belief is to do to other females what has been done to females by males...

Well said:cheer2:

Sincere thanks Maru - This is praise indeed coming from you. Thank you.

Everyone wears 'clothes'... it does not specify that they chose her for her choice of attire does it?