Bennett Zimmerman, Roberta Seid and Michael L. Wise have produced a study on Israeli/Arab demographics, summarized in this Jerusalem Post op-ed, "Battle of numbers: What Demographic time bomb?"
Demography is a central issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Conventional wisdom holds that Israel faces a demographic time bomb because the Palestinian Authority's reported 3.8 million population, combined with Israel's 1.3 million Arabs, already almost equals the Jewish population (5.4 million). Some Israeli demographers contend that given high Arab birthrates, Jews will quickly become a minority between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.But this doomsday scenario is wrong.
Remarkably, no one had bothered to verify the Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) numbers until we formed a team of American and Israeli researchers to exhaustively study Palestinian, Israeli and third-party sources. They revealed that the 2004 Arab population in the Territories is closer to 2.4 million than to the PCBS claim of 3.8 million, a 60% overstatement.
This million-and-a-half person gap arose because the PCBS figures are based on predictions, not on actual, real-time measurements. The PCBS also inflated its 1997 census, the base figure for its predictions, and then applied high birth and unrealistically high immigration assumptions to this inflated base, compounding the same errors year after year. Our audit found that the PCBS projections were not met for even one year between 1997 and 2004.
On top of the PCBS error, some Israeli demographers again applied the high growth rates, and continued to build further errors, exponentially, into the future.
Together these groups have built a demographic house of cards.
Until those projecting the future bother to correct the present, their discussions about the future are meaningless...
The Bottom Line: The 2004 population between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is 60% Jewish and 40% Arab, similar to the ratio since 1967. In the West Bank and Israel, the ratio is 2 Jews for every 1 Arab and in pre-'67 Israel and Jerusalem, it is 4 Jews for every 1 Arab...
The current Jewish majority, with its rising birthrate combined with modest aliya and/or returning overseas Israelis, would easily maintain the demographic balance in favor of the Jews. Parity between Jew and Arab might never be reached if Arab migration and fertility trends continue. And in Israel and the West Bank, Jewish dominance is overwhelming, both in absolute numbers and in terms of growth rates.
Given these factors, demographers who predict that Arab dominance is inevitable are indulging in pure and fallacious conjecture.
Muslims overinflating their population numbers
In Palestine
Sounds like the same strategy CAIR uses.
Or maybe they counted the "millions" of "palestinians" living in "diaspora."
The same strategy that CAIR uses? How dare you insult the leaders of the religion of OVER TWO-BILLION* people?
* -- This weeks "total."
One look at the Hassid families would dispel any notions about Arab majorities. In a century, most Jews will be descendants of Hassids (10-13 children per family is not unusual). The Upper West Side of Manhattan is now called Frum Valley. I read that pre-ad 70, 10% of the Roman empire was Jewish. Perhaps in a century or two we'll see numbers like that again (san Roman Empire of course).
Upper West Side is "Frum Valley"???????
How far-fetched! The term just doesn't fit.
There are less Hassidic Jews there now than there were for decades.
The high rent prices has sent many a family's married children to the suburbs, Monsey or New Jersey.
Its fundamental not to underestimate the role of those statistical forgeries: psycological warfare is a key factor in the current war.
In 2025 the pop in millions will be:
Israel 8.3 (2 million are Palestinian)
Jordan 12.1 (60% is Palestinian)
Egypt 95.6
Syria 26.3
Lebanon 4.4
Saudi Arabia 40.0
Here’s the fertility rate among Pals.
4.5 children per woman in Israel
5.5 children per woman on the West Bank
6.6 children per woman in Gaza
In 25 years Israel’s population grows by 2.1 million (Jewish and Arab) while the Arab neighbors swell by 62.2 million. It’s not only Israel that is concerned but also the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
To be clear, the 2000 pop is:
Israel 6.2
Jordan 6.7
Egypt 68.5
Syria 16.4
Lebanon 3.3
Saudi Arabia 21.6
Kj, did you read this yet?
Leaving the Left by Keith Thompson, from the San Francisco Chronicle.
http://www.thompsonatlarge.com/work22.htm
No, Cross. But I've read it now. Nice. Guess I'll run right out and vote for the party of David Duke and Strom Thurmond.
The so-called "former liberal" claims that:
Eight million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs.
…and the Islamic Fundies start to take over. Could it be that we, "the left" understand--like Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald understand--that any pretext of "democracy" in Iraq (or any other Muslim hellhole) is merely a harbinger of Sharia?
No matter how many times the Preznint says "Freedom is on the March!" and "Let's Roll!" the facts on the ground aren't going to change. And the facts are:
ONE: Saddam used an iron fist to keep Islamic fundamentalism from taking over his country.
TWO: Saddam was the only serious threat posed to Saudi Arabia and Iran.
THREE: Saddam was a serious threat neither to America, nor Europe, nor Israel.
FOUR: The majority in Iraq are Shiites who desire to see Iraq (and the rest of the world) made into a Muslim nation where the clerics run everything and Sharia is the law of the land.
....now that "democracy" has come to Iraq, what makes you "think" (assuming that you can) that anything OTHER than Sharia will be the eventual result?
From the article:
I’m leaving the left – more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.
Just like Saint Reagan, Strom, Lott, Miller, and Helms left the Democrats. Good riddance.
Leading voices in America’s “peace” movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World people because it hates George W. Bush more than it loves freedom.
Wow. Not only is he a jenius, he's also a mind reader. No wonder he left us. The people of Iraq aren't "Third World." They've always had plenty of money, thanks to their petroleum reserves.
We hate George W. Bush? Oh, pleeeease forgive me. The cons-reps were ALWAYS so kind and lovable toward Clinton. They confirmed all of his judges, supported him when he sent the military to Bosnia, never questioned his judgment, blamed the Somalia quagmire on his predecessor, and NEVER filibustered ANYTHING. They were perfect. No wonder you're joining them.
Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the left’s mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.
This is perfectly meaningless statement, and here’s the proof: put it in reverse and see that it’s just as “meaningful.”
Like many others who came of age politically in the 1980s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the right’s mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Ted Kennedy, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Hilary Clinton and all the other Usual Suspects the right so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.
when King proclaimed, “I have a dream,” I instinctively cast my lot with those I later found out were liberals (then synonymous with “the left” and “progressive thought”).
And that’s bad because? Would you have rather helped the “Christian” “right” keep “Darkie” in his place, like Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and Jesse Helms?
The people on the other side were dedicated to preserving my hometown’s backward-looking status quo. This was all that my ten-year-old psyche needed to know. The knowledge carried me for a long time. Mythologies are helpful that way.
And who is looking to return to that backward-looking status quo? HalTurner, David Duke, and Fred Phelps, all right-wing republicans.
To my mind, Americans who had joined the resistance to Franco’s fascist dystopia captured the progressive spirit at its finest.
Yes, us liberals should be proud to have stood against the right-wing Generalissimo and his abettors that ran the Church. Have you changed your mind on that matter too?
A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the preeminent source of evil in the modern world. The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan’s use of the word “evil” had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.
Wow. What a bunch of malarkey. “Palpable sense”...? DID you make it to desert? Whew! I certainly hope so! Could you over-dramatize a little more please? LOL.
When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find “evil’” too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.
(Child molestation for sport? You mean like that right-wing, Christian, “pro-family”, republican mayor of Spokane? LOL.)
Perhaps that is because Reagan the walking nap, aside from taking most of his orders from Nancy’s astrologer, was obsessed with all things Communist (except China of course, just like “anti-communists” are today.) So if you fought the Commies, you got Reagan’s support. That’s how “we” came to trade with Iran and Hezbollah, even after they killed 241 US Marines in Beirut. That’s how “we” came to enthusiastically support Afghanistan and Pakistan, even as the Pak. military dictators there were forced to give more and more “concessions” to the Muslim crazies in exchange for “letting us” help them. That’s how “we” became involved with a whole slew of right-wing tyrannies in Central America that eventually killed 40,000 union-organizing peasants. But what the hell. Clinton’s zipper wasn’t involved, and the Supreme Court has made some kind of secret ruling that says a republican can’t commit a crime. So let’s talk about something important, like Martha Stewart and Tommy Chong.
My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like “gulag” to the dinner table.
Maybe it was wrong to blindly equate the Soviets fighting the Jihadis in Afghanistan 1980 to the Soviets killing other soviets half a century ago. But anyway, what do you say NOW? Was Communism the Buchannon-and/or-Noonan scripted “preeminent source of evil in the modern world”, or was there something worse? Do the words “Beirut,” “madrassa”, “Iran”, and “Afghanistan” ring a bell? Probably not. Does the concept of “blowback” mean anything to you? (Think “Noriega, Saddam, Taliban.”)
I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon-like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Where were you, oh noble one, when Clinton was bombing Milosevic into powder? With Tom Delay and Trent Lott chanting “We can support the troops without supporting YOUR president?”
Speaking of “telethon-like,” have you ever watched FOX? Or The 700 Club? Or Robertson’s PTL crap?
Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of September 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.
That’s strange. I don’t remember hearing that, but then again, I’m not perfect like Mr. Perfect, so I can’t read minds like he can.
Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.
I don’t remember hearing that either, but like I said…
Susan Sontag said…. Norman Mailer pronounced … Gore Vidal insinuated… Noam Chomsky insisted ...
Wow. I hope that he didn’t hear what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said. I won’t bother to quote it here, but it was SO BAD and BLAMED AMERICANS for 9-11 so egregiously, that even RUSH LIMBAUGH said they were out of line. But they are right-wingers, so no big whoop. God knows that Gore Vidal has more influence than Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who can barely get a word in edgewise at their own university and on their own television network.
These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes.
I don’t remember Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Hilary saying that, but perceptions ARE much stronger than truths, eh? Must be that mind-reading stuff again.
There’s a word for this: pathetic.
You’re telling me. To see a “former” liberal go for the big right-wing cash grab is like hearing tales of the freed slaves that “lamented the end of slavery” and the “reformed” Jews of the Middle Ages tell how bad the Jews were “and we should know.”
I smile when friends tell me I’ve “moved right.” I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.
And what do you say for the mainstream conservatives? You know, the ones that want to “limit the influence of government,” save tax-payer money, promote the “free market,” and “eschew nation-building”?
In the name of “diversity,” the University of Arizona blah blah blah… The University of Connecticut has blah blah blah….Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that blah blah blah.
How about Bob Jones University outlawing mixed-race dating because it will bring about the dreaded, oft-cited, Eh-Eh-Eh-End Times!?! Or calling the Catholic Church the “Great Whore of Babylon” from Revelations? Or saying that all Catholics (including Mother Theresa and St. Francis, and presumable Jeb Bush, Pat Buchanon, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Antoinine Scalia) go to hell? Along with all the other non-Evangelical Christians? LOL. Did you get any tidbits from Liberty University, Heritage University, Ole Miss, or Pepperdine? Nope, just the lib’rul schools.
(Yes, we’re talking “subconscious harassment” here. We’re watching your thoughts…)
Hot dam! Maybe he doesn’t have the market cornered on mind-reading!
Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like “Why you ain’t” and “Where you is,” Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to “level the playing field.” Why not? Because "drunk people can’t do that … illiterate people can’t do that."
AND Jesse Jackson said, in print, that he agreed with everything Cosby said. But that doesn’t further your agenda, so leave that part out. And speaking of Jesse Jackson, how many American POWs have YOU brought home?
The sad truth is, Cosby could’ve run for President of the NAACP or Congress and wiped his ass with anyone that challenged him. But he has a little problem with women….I’d probably still vote for him, but you wouldn’t. Because he’d run as a democrat or an independent, and if you’re not in Bush’s party, you’re bad. That’s because the GOP is becoming a personality cult. But more on that later.
I’ll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America’s political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today’s best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?
LOL… you mean, since Strom Thurmond retired? LOL… you’ve got to be kidding, right? “Who would have guessed it”? No one. And they’d be right. Unless of course you think that fetuses are “humans” and pregnant women are slaves. But of course, you probably do.
He is also by most measures one of the most conservative senators.
So why SHOULD we be surprised at his sterling “Human Rights” voting record? For the same reason George Bush I promised a “kinder, gentler” nation? For the same reason Bush II coined himself the “compassionate” conservative? Why was the distinction necessary? Was there something wrong with (gasp!) Reagan’s nation? Or Gingrich’s conservativism?
Brownback speaks openly about how his horror at the genocide in the Sudan is shaped by his Christian faith,
Ahhh… in other words, he uses the tragedy of two-million people being killed as a commercial for HIS cult. So when is he going to sponsor a bill that will stop it? And when are all those compassionate defenders of poor, oppressed black Africans—you know, the guys that run the House, Senate, and Whitehouse—going to pass the law and take some action? Or are you afraid that it will get filibustered? Is his inaction shaped by his Christian faith too? Or is that shaped by his political idealogy?
…as Dr. King did when he insisted on justice for “all of God's children.”
So why do conservatives like The Council Of Conservative Citizens say that MLK was a monkey, a commie, a pervert, a rapist, and a plagiarizer? Why did conservatives work to prevent the MLK federal holiday? Why have conservatives in the South made “Jefferson Davis Day” and acceptable “alternative”? (Some of them even celebrate the day as “James Earl Ray” Day.)
Please visit cofcc.org and martinlutherking.org (not what you think) to see what “some” conservatives think of your--and Senator Brownshirt’s--hero.
In the sixties, America correctly focused on bringing down walls that prevented equal access and due process. It was time to walk the Founders’ talk – and we did.
…and while Pat Buchanon, George Wallace, the KKK, and Trent Lott were busting heads at Ole’ Miss and Berkley and DC and Philadelphia, Mississippi; while “religious conservatives” turned their backs on the suffering of their dark-skinned Christian brethren and fought “devil music” instead; WE brought those walls down. Aren’t you glad you’ve left us?
Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality.
Again, you’ve come to the wrong site. Spencer and Fitzgerald both agree that democracy will not work in Iraq. But hey, perceptions are stronger than truth.
Now for that personality cult stuff. Bush isn’t a good conservative, not by a long shot. Good conservatives don’t waste taxpayer money with gay abandon to build other nations. Good conservatives don’t cut funding at home (including shutting down military bases and slashing VA funding) while squandering over 200,000,000,000 of YOUR dollars in Iraq (including—can you believe it?—building military bases.) IT’S NOT EVEN A LOAN!! IT’S A G-DAMN GIVEAWAY!! Good conservatives don’t fight AGAINST US POWs that were tortured in Iraq from suing Iraq. Good conservatives don’t force their narrow ideologies on everyone else by government decree. Good conservatives don’t start wars just to win re-election. And good conservatives don’t insult war heroes, especially to help draftdodging cowards.
Please note that in the above--and all other--references to military expenditure I only include Iraq and not Afghanistan. I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan and the force extinction of the Taliban. Too bad "our" focus was on setting up a premise to invade Iraq instead of really going after Bin Laden, but what Bush says is gospel, so don't ask any questions.
The new mantra is: “Whatever W says is good.” Nevermind if it makes good, conservative sense, or logical sense (or both.) Draftdoging? That’s okay. Divorce? That’s okay. DUI? That’s okay. Nude photos? That’s okay. (Arnold, your next president.) Kissing up to China? That’s okay. Nation building? No problemo. Drug addict past? Old news. Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens? Fine by me. Keeping our borders porous and unmanaged? Who cares. Government telling us what we can watch, what we can do, who we can marry? Great, so long as it’s not Clinton telling us.
Enjoy your foray into the right-wing. You’ll be back when the pendulum swings the other way.
BTW…Lest you doubt the influence of towing the party line versus following good Christian ethics, remember this. Even with (then president) Bush Sr. and every other republican BEGGING Louisiana to vote against David Duke, he still got 43 % of the vote. Maybe next time he’ll get 53%.
A muslim apostate can expect ridicule, persecution and even death for leaving islam. Likewise kj, judging by your retort to Thompson’s courageous and intelligent decision to become an apostate from liberalism, he can expect the same treatment (maybe not the death part, maybe) from liberals.
Why are liberals so outspoken about issues that don’t really effect the security of the country but say nothing when it comes to real important issues like who we let immigrate. Like for example, did you know that in NYC right now there are 7000 new cases of leprosy? That’s right leprosy. In the last 40 years there might have been 20 cases of leprosy. It’s the liberals that are letting diseased immigrants in. TB is way up as well. And you don’t care about illegal immigrants? You want to be in a plane or an elevator etc with someone who has leprosy or TB?
(kj)…and the Islamic Fundies start to take over. Could it be that we, "the left" understand--like Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald understand--that any pretext of "democracy" in Iraq (or any other Muslim hellhole) is merely a harbinger of Sharia?
(me)The left actually wants democracy to fail so that GW doesn’t get any credit. The left are more concerned about getting back into power than seeing success in Iraq. That is sick.
(kj)....now that "democracy" has come to Iraq, what makes you "think" (assuming that you can) that anything OTHER than Sharia will be the eventual result?
(me)Look at the population figures I posted. In a few short years Israel will be crowded on all sided by an ever menacing and poverty stricken majority of arab muslims. If I lived in Israel, my thought would be that democracy better take hold.
(kj)Just like Saint Reagan, Strom, Lott, Miller, and Helms left the Democrats. Good riddance.
(me) And now you are left with Howard Dean, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, congratulations.
(kj)Wow. Not only is he a jenius, he's also a mind reader. No wonder he left us. The people of Iraq aren't "Third World." They've always had plenty of money, thanks to their petroleum reserves.
(me) Not a third world? Yes it is kj, Iraq is a third world country. The people are dirt poor. The only ones who had money was Hussein his relatives and the Baathist’s.
(kj)We hate George W. Bush? Oh, pleeeease forgive me. The cons-reps were ALWAYS so kind and lovable toward Clinton. They confirmed all of his judges, supported him when he sent the military to Bosnia, never questioned his judgment, blamed the Somalia quagmire on his predecessor, and NEVER filibustered ANYTHING. They were perfect. No wonder you're joining them.
(me) Look what the legacy of Clinton policies has done to the country. Look what we are having to deal with now because of it. The liberals have weakened this country so much that even the lowly arabs are in our face screaming that they are going to kill us. But hey, the liberals say no problem, we enjoy exotic culture, come on in bring all your diseases and religious fervor along with you, we’ll just tax the ignorant red state middle class a*holes to pay for all your heath care and other benefits.
(kj) Like many others who came of age politically in the 1980s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the right’s mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Ted Kennedy, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Hilary Clinton and all the other Usual Suspects the right so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.
(me) Ted Kennedy, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Hilary Clinton, kj really, you should be ashamed and embarrassed to have these clowns representing and supporting the democratic party.
(kj) And that’s bad because? Would you have rather helped the “Christian” “right” keep “Darkie” in his place, like Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and Jesse Helms?
(me) Thompson I think meant that he didn’t realize at the time which political party was involved, but you are very wrong to continue to blame Christians for racism, especially since this was about 40 years ago.
(kj) And who is looking to return to that backward-looking status quo? HalTurner, David Duke, and Fred Phelps, all right-wing republicans.
(me) Are you insane? Those people carry no weight with mainstream America, forget about it. That statement about David Duke etc is left wing ala Al Franken talking points to the far left wing nut base. Not even that crazy wacko Howard Dean would say that, well after doing his coke sniffing parady of Limbaugh I wouldn’t put it past him. And to think Dean was for a time the democrat front runner for President. LOL
(kj) Yes, us liberals should be proud to have stood against the right-wing Generalissimo and his abettors that ran the Church. Have you changed your mind on that matter too?
(me) problem is liberals have gone too far, way too far and are trying to take this country over the cliff and the Islamic radicals and their moderate minions are waiting for this to happen. Why didn’t these Islamic freaks try this shi* 30-40 years ago? I’ll tell you why, it’s because America was strong then, not pacified and feminized like it is now. You liberals and you feminists have caused all this turmoil by actually having the country become weak, you let down our guard and look what happened. You continue to go about your PC ways and if it was up to liberals we will lose this country. The enemies of this country are licking their chops and what do liberals do? They continue to concern themselves with issues like homosexual marriage, the ACLU goes around defending everyone who is out to harm this country but won’t lift a finger to help anyone that is for the country. People know, there’s no need to go on about all the foolish ignorant insane activities that liberals are consumed with.
Thompson has rejected liberalism. He no longer supports a failed ideology and there will be others like him that will cause more defections. How much longer will you hold out?
For now…..
Maybe the PA figures forgot to control for the number of young women killed in suicide bombings and in honor killings?
I think that the demographic 'time bomb' will eventually overwhelm Israel from all sides- the rosy forecast here notwithstanding, but that the Israelis have to worry more about Iran and its literal bomb.
In keeping with Zarqawi-ism, it appears that to slaughter Muslims -on the way to killing even more infidels- is a wonderful Koranically-approved strategy for the ultimate jihad.
So, once the West fails to stop Iran from getting is malignant mitts on a about 5 nukes, vaporizing Israel will be a tactical Islamic move, and the Muslims in the Jewish neighborhood will be like Iraqi schoolkids now blown up as "collateral martyrs" for the greater goal of a global gulag for Allah.
kj-
Sadly, we are being betrayed by all political pimps of every stripe, left, right -and the rarer and rarer middle.
There are few office holders who will stand up and defend the borders, control the illegal hiring of illegal immigrants, post enough surveillance on shipping containers at ports, require airlines to scan the luggage, commercial packages and bulk mail that goes in the jet cargo holds, stand up to the Saudi funders of global theocratic terror and their in-county utter contempt for other faiths, oppose the demonization of any political opponents for trivial power-gain reasons, ad nauseam.
We need statesmen (and women) with a profound historical sense, a deep sense of humor about themselves -and about human nature as such- and a vision for the future beyond endless war. (There used to be the idea of a serious Space Program- terraforming Mars, for a start- that was to give us an escape clause for our species' seething energies.)
What it will take to sweep aside the current political dross I fear will make 9/11 look like a skinned knee.
May I be as wrong as a human can be about this.
Egypt with a population of 100 million! And most of Egypt is basically uninhabitable DESERT, except for those nomads. There is no way Egypt can support that many mouths, not to mention how do you provide them any hope in a dysfunctional Islamic society. The mideast is a mess, will always be a mess.
A insightful piece on the history of the propaganda war against israel and how it has borne fruit in Western society by
David Pryce- jones.
Various Arab armed forces these past decades have resorted to military means to eliminate Israel from the world's map. All have failed. More than that, the wars each time strengthened Israel, and the Arabs have thus achieved the very opposite of their ambitions. This opens the way to the alternative approach of psychological warfare, a familiar element in all modern wars. PW, in the shorthand the experts use, mobilizes allies and undermines enemies. What is required is a master idea, and people to propagandize in words clever enough for the general public to accept it as the truth.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/15090
KJ always good to see you post.
So I get that it was in the interests of Saudi Arabia that Iraq was invaded, in order to get rid of Saddam, the secularist strongman.
You know, Saddam DID protect Iraqi christians and even built christian churches, which is unheard of for a Middle East ruler.
It’s the liberals that are letting diseased immigrants in. TB is way up as well. And you don’t care about illegal immigrants? You want to be in a plane or an elevator etc with someone who has leprosy or TB?
So the liberals are to blame for letting the illegals in? The liberals that run the House, the liberals that run the US Senate, or the liberals that run the White House? LOL.
The left actually wants democracy to fail so that GW doesn’t get any credit. The left are more concerned about getting back into power than seeing success in Iraq. That is sick.
If you are so good at reading minds, why don't you just go win the lottery? I DO WANT democracy to fail in Iraq, because the SHIITE MAJORITY in Iraq will turn it into another IRAN. Only THIS Iran will be hundreds of miles closer to Israel and have TRILLIONS of dollars worth of oil. You want it to succeed because GW will get the credit.
You can think whatever you want. But I still say--and you "forgot" to mention this in your "retort"--I agree with Spencer and Fitzgerald when I predict that "democracy" in Iraq is the precursor for Sharia.
Look at the population figures I posted. In a few short years Israel will be crowded on all sided by an ever menacing and poverty stricken majority of arab muslims. If I lived in Israel, my thought would be that democracy better take hold.
That is the "answer" for my question: now that "democracy" has come to Iraq, what makes you "think" (assuming that you can) that anything OTHER than Sharia will be the eventual result?
Of course it's a non-answer. Cross didn't understand my question. Try again.
And now you are left with Howard Dean, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, congratulations.
Oh yeah. I'm so ashamed. I'll keep Jesse Jackson, Hilary Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy. You keep Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Dick Cheney and the mayor of Spokane. I'll keep David Hackworth, and you keep Dan Quayle (R.I.P. Colonel.)
Not a third world? Yes it is kj, Iraq is a third world country. The people are dirt poor. The only ones who had money was Hussein his relatives and the Baathist’s.
No; it's not a Third World country. Some of the people are poor but Saddam squandered billions of dollars. They are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil every day, and "we" taxpayers have handed them two-hundred billion dollars on top of that. The only ones that HAVE money are Ahmed Chalabi and his buddies at Haliburton.
There are also poor people in America, but we are not a Third World country either. Stop splitting hairs.
Look what the legacy of Clinton policies has done to the country.
Yeah, remember all that peace and prosperity? The FOILED terrorist plots? The Dow Jones at 11,500? The biggest argument on Capital Hill was "How should we spend the surplus"... now that's all gone.
Look what we are having to deal with now because of it. The liberals have weakened this country so much that even the lowly arabs are in our face screaming that they are going to kill us.
Yep, there were never any terrorist attacks in the 80's, were there? Nosiree. Beirut never happened. Reagan did not send the Marines to Lebanon, and he didn't ignore the Pentagon when they begged him to let the Marines sleep offshore in ships. He did not pull the troops out and hand a victory to Hezbollah/Iran/Syria. He did not invade the island "nation" of Grenada days later. We did not trade Stinger Missiles Iran/Syria/Hezbollah thereafter to fund an undeclared war in Central America. Just keep repeating that, and it'll come true.
But hey, the liberals say no problem, we enjoy exotic culture, come on in bring all your diseases and religious fervor along with you, we’ll just tax the ignorant red state middle class a*holes to pay for all your heath care and other benefits.
The truth, as usual, is the complete opposite from what you said. They federally tax California and only send back 79 cents for every dollar they take. The rest of the tax money goes to the ignorant backwater Jefferson Davis states like Mississippi and Allah-bama.
So the illegal aliens are coming here and taking our jobs and costing us money? Does Dubya know about this, because I could swear that he was in the news recently calling for "amnesty" for MILLIONS of illegal aliens.
Buddy, the liberals aren't in charge of this country any more. WHY DON'T the conservatives that run the White House, House of Representatives, and the Senate DO SOMETHING about those illegals?
Could it be that the big GOPer contributors from the farms, factories, and meatpacking plants WANT more cheap-ass laborers to come streaming in? You think? Wake up and smell the coffee, kiddo. You're being duped. Stop blaming the liberals. YOU'VE had the House for ten years, the Whitehouse for five, and the Senate for three.
Ted Kennedy, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Hilary Clinton, kj really, you should be ashamed and embarrassed to have these clowns representing and supporting the democratic party.
Recall that I said that in answer to your article citing Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh. Cross, really, you should be ashamed and embarrassed to have these clowns representing and supporting the republican party.
Thompson I think meant that he didn’t realize at the time which political party was involved, but you are very wrong to continue to blame Christians for racism, especially since this was about 40 years ago.
Are you insane? Those people carry no weight with mainstream America, forget about it. That statement about David Duke etc is left wing ala Al Franken talking points to the far left wing nut base.
I'm glad that you think that David Duke, Bob Jones, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson don't carry any weight with mainstream America, but I fear that you are mistaken. Last time I checked, Jesse Jackson and Al Franken didn’t own any networks, diamond mines, or universities.
Not even that crazy wacko Howard Dean would say that, well after doing his coke sniffing parady of Limbaugh I wouldn’t put it past him.
LOL... I didn't hear that. A parody of Rush snorting coke! Hilarious. Cool. I heard that Rush and his good-time buddies at the ACLU lost their appeal to keep his felony doctor-shopping records out of court. Guess he'll be standing trial soon, right after Ken Lay and Noelle Bush. (This being the Party of Law And Order, you know.)
And to think Dean was for a time the democrat front runner for President. LOL
Yes, until the--probably dozens!--of Iowa democrats decided that the war hero John Kerry would run instead.
Yep, David Duke is waaay outside the mainstream of conservative America. That's why he would have won if 4% of Louisianans had switched their votes. This at a time when EVERY GOPer was BEGGING them to vote for the democrat. Okay, he's not mainstream, because he ...um ...can't be.
Why didn’t these Islamic freaks try this shi* 30-40 years ago? I’ll tell you why, it’s because America was strong then, not pacified and feminized like it is now.
So they didn’t come in the 60's when the liberals and the hippies and the democrats were in charge? They waited until the 90's, when the Republicans and conservatives took over the governor ships of over half the states? And the state Houses and Senates? And then they waited until the GOP took the Whitehouse to attack? I think YOU are the one that is crazy. You are basically saying that the liberals let this happen, but when the liberals were in charge, NONE OF THIS WAS HAPPENING. The only “palestinian” terrorist in America in the ‘60s was Sirhan Sirhan; remember, the guy that killed RFK?
What are you, a liberal plant trying to make conservatives look stupid? LOL. You had me fooled for a minute there.
You liberals and you feminists have caused all this turmoil by actually having the country become weak, you let down our guard and look what happened. You continue to go about your PC ways and if it was up to liberals we will lose this country.
I'm not PC. Yes, us liberals want us to lose this country, so we can all go to the hangman for being liberal atheists and secular humanists. Yeah riiiight.
The enemies of this country are licking their chops and what do liberals do? They continue to concern themselves with issues like homosexual marriage,
See if this sounds familiar: The enemies of this country are licking their chops and what do conservatives do? They continue to concern themselves with issues like homosexual marriage and Iraq while ignoring the immigration problems or just blaming everything on the liberals who ARE OUT OF POWER.
...the ACLU goes around defending everyone who is out to harm this country but won’t lift a finger to help anyone that is for the country.
Like Rush Limbaugh? You're knocking the ACLU for defending Rush Limbaugh. Now I KNOW you're a plant. Who is this, Gaiour?
People know, there’s no need to go on about all the foolish ignorant insane activities that liberals are consumed with.
Well there must be some need, because that's all you have in your bag of tricks: blame the liberals, blame the ACLU, blame the homosexuals, blame the feminists, blame the unions, blame the intellectuals.
Dude, YOUR side is in charge now. You've got the media, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, the Whitehouse, the billboard companies, and half the internet. STOP BLAMING THE LIBERALS.
Thompson has rejected liberalism. He no longer supports a failed ideology and there will be others like him that will cause more defections. How much longer will you hold out?
Until the Inquisition starts.
So I get that it was in the interests of Saudi Arabia that Iraq was invaded, in order to get rid of Saddam, the secularist strongman.
Not to mentin Iran. Remember what Saddam did to Iran.
**************************************
Now, if you'll all excuse me, I have to get to work so I can pay taxes. Ken Lay and Paris Hilton need another tax break, the children in Iraq need their madrassas, and Ahmed Chalabi needs another ivory backscratcher.
Cross, this thread is getting long. If you want to respond to me instead of letting everyone here see me give you the redass, I'm am here for you at fanorollins@yahoo.com.
The article says: "Given these factors, demographers who predict that Arab dominance is inevitable are indulging in pure and fallacious conjecture."
This is a classic form of politically correctness, of dhimmitude, like you see with many European apologists as well. They always assert the same things: Muslims do not reproduce as fast as the critics say, and there are much less Muslims than the critics state. Well, it is a fact Muslims get like twice the more children westerners have. If it isn’t in twenty years, Israel will have Muslim majority in thirty years. But that doesn’t change the problem! It only pushes the problem ten years forwards.
And even more such a study can be an apologist tactic to say there are less Muslims; that creates the situation the Jewish people will not be eager to increase the Jewish population of Israel, with the effect it will be to late when they suddenly see a Muslim majority in twenty (or thirty) years. One of the main causes of major problems is because many people are taught there isn’t a problem. Well, that is what Europeans heard ten years ago; and now look at the European/Eurabian 'paradise'.