This is exactly why I suggested on a popular blog that Islam as no place in the West. I was banned and vilified for it. Of course the posters didnt offer another suggestion on how to keep Western culture and allowing Islam to florish in the West.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 26, 2007 10:35 AM

"The outspoken consul general, who is a doctor of divinity and the author of more than 10 books on the subjects of Europe's relationship with faith, terrorism, Islam and minorities, has said that the trend towards a multi-racial and multi-confessional Europe is unstoppable; therefore, Islam must be recognized and regarded as a "domestic" European religion".

In other words, in 30 years Europe will sink to Third World status because as the ummah as it now stands shows there never is progress toward moving into the First World. At best it stands still or goes backwards. How lovely.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 26, 2007 10:50 AM

Democracy is mob rule , that is perfectly Islamic.

That Muslims have no problem with intimidation and violence constitutes a threat .They can throw their weight around pretty effectively when use those tools , some people can be knocked over by a feather

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 26, 2007 10:51 AM

5:37 They will wish to come forth from the Fire, but they will not come forth from it. Theirs will be a lasting doom.

Karlsson is fortunate to live in the presence of residual Viking DNA. That stuff will come in handy before this is over.

Posted by: pez at March 26, 2007 10:56 AM

What rock has Mr. Karlsson been living under for the past 20 years? He issued many disturbing and ignorant statements but I will mention just one. He said that mosques in Europe will become as "natural" a feature as churches in Cairo or Damascus or Mosul. Churches have never been a 'natural' part of the Islamic landscape since Islam became dominant in the Middle East. Church buildings and their members are targets of violence, discrimination and hatred. Muslims, both on an official level and on a one-to-one personal level have keep up the pressure, especially in the past century, to make non-Muslims of various stripes, feel very unnatural and unwelcome unless they join the larger fold of Islam. I would check Mr. Karlsson's bank account. I would not be at all surprised to see big deposits coming from Istanbul and other cities throughout the Middle East...a bought and paid for man.

Posted by: maryrose at March 26, 2007 11:18 AM

From the article;
as churches have always been in İstanbul, Aleppo, Damascus, Mosul or Cairo," Karlsson said.

He forgot the Kingdom of Saud. Lots of churches there.

We are safe in America the YMCA is giving refugees a tour to aquaint them with their new home. (sarc/off)

From the AP http://enews.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20070326/46075350_3421_1334520070326-775592556

Class Teaches Refugees an American Life
City? H-O-U-S-T-O-N. State? T-E-X-A-S.

About 50,000 refugees come to the United States every year, and although all get a brief cultural instruction before arriving, only about 40 percent get training like Mukendi's class at the YMCA.

Even that number may fall because the federal funding has been steadily dropping, YMCA officials said. Over the last six years, money for the program has been cut in half.

Posted by: auntbea at March 26, 2007 11:24 AM

Part of my comment got cut off.

Of course the AP reporter had to include the obligitory white Walmart customer who stared at the headscarves and clutched her purse to her bosom. Can't leave out that Islamophobia!

We are such an intolerant society, that's why OUR tax dollars pay for the four months free ride as well as this class.

Aunt Bea

Posted by: auntbea at March 26, 2007 11:30 AM

Mr. Karllson either doesn't know or doesn't wish to remember Smyrna in 1922, Istanbul in 1955, or that the historic site of the Ecumenical Councils in Itzmir (Ephesus) are being deliberately destroyed by the Islamofascist government of Turkey, and churches and monasteries in Bosnia are being blown up and not allowed to rebuild. At what point does Mr. Karllson take a hard look at the history of places like Greece, Macedonia,Serbia and Bosnia and comprehend that it is only a matter of time before the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Sweden are living the same struggle, the same slavery, the same submission? What a fool!

Posted by: thelittlegreekwoman at March 26, 2007 11:53 AM

Stop it now.

End all Muslim immigration.

Make the countries of Europe as Islam-hostile, that is both to campaigns of Da'wa (which should rightly be seen as threats to national and individiual security), and to the unfettered practice of Islam, as possible. Use legislation to prevent the full text of the Qur'an from being offered -- and call into question -- at every step, the texts, the teachings, the attitudes, the atmospherics of Islam, and of those who not only possess them, but among their Infidel collaborators, crazily defend them or try to explain them away.

Start with that. And also start by considering what went through the heads of the Czechs, of Masaryk and Benes, and what understandings, based on knowledge, led them to pass the Benes Decree of 1946. There is nothing "unthinkable" about it. What is "unthinkable" is the very idea that such a measure, undertaken by those exemplars of high European culture, Masaryk and Benes, in a state famous for being the most advanced and tolerant state in all of Central or Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia (founded by Masaryk's father, also Tomas, in 1919, carved out of part of the man-without-quality ruins of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), should, in order for the inheritors of the legacy of seveal millennia of Western civilization, should, out of their own carelessness, laziness, ignorance, and hedonism, be allowed to simply toss it all away, first by the permitting into their midst millions of people who cannot and will not "integrate" but wish to remove all the "obstacles" to Islam so that the lands of the Infidels become places, as by the declared Will of Allah they must, places where Islam dominates and is not to be dominated" and then, out of Cupidity, and Stupidity, and Timidity, and Rigidity (google "the Esdrujula Explanation") do nothing, or very little to prevent it.

This cannot be.

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2007 12:11 PM

Those who do not understand
Islam are doomed to succumb to it.

Read the Koran, Doc.

It ain't pretty.

(BTW, doc, where are all the Christians who once lived in North Africa -St. Augustine's stomping grounds- and the Middle East, Turkey, etc.? Or the Buddhists of Afghanistan -Bamiyan, anyone-? Or Hindus in Pakistan -formerly greater India? Or the 'pagans' of Malaysia/Indonesia? Or, or, or?)

And what does the doc think about Islam, as such?

None of these supine appeasers ever seem to have any opinion of the dogmas of Mohammadism.

I have to assume it is through sheer, wilfull ignorance, because, if they were at all informed about the Muslim teachings, they would be opposing such an intolerant, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-art, anti-music, anti-intellectual creed from entering their lands.

Unless they were such self-loathing, self-divided, historically-vacuous creatures that they wanted a annihilatory scourging.

And goddamned if they won't get it if idiots like this doc keep Europe, and the West, on this lemming path.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 26, 2007 12:21 PM

What many people don't truly understand is that if Europe becomes Islamic, it will officially be the end of history.

So much grand and proud history will be wiped out, and eventually stricken from books. Generations will grow up knowing nothing about the great achievements of their forefathers, but will only know the slavery caused by their closer relatives that surrendered their culture and history.

Does anyone believe that if Europe becomes Islamic in less than a century, that any European history will be known of 500 years from now?

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this global warming hysteria is so high on the charts, that our leaders want it that way so our surrender will have less blood shed. I know that's out there, but I can't understand how the world has been sold down the river on junk science, and false history of a peaceful Islam.

Posted by: The fanatic at March 26, 2007 1:03 PM

I didn't have the stomach.

Posted by: US_infidel at March 26, 2007 1:13 PM

of course, if Ahmadinejad has his fantasy fulfilled, there will be considerably fewer Muslims left on this planet...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 26, 2007 1:27 PM

He's a Swede, and Swedes haven't fought in a major war for 200 years. They've forgotten how to recognise enemies and have forgotten what a battle for survival entalis. As a result, they're too naive to recognise the enemy in their midst, and political correctness has dulled their senses so much that they can't come to terms that it is because of Islam that their immigrants turn whole suburbs of their cities into lawless places - not even when their resident Muslims openly tell the rest of the population that they're waging urban warfare against the native Swedes. And this fool Karlsson is a typical product of that malaise.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 26, 2007 1:55 PM

Karlsson has no clue. He ought to be put in cryostasis and woken up in the year 2200. The moment he opens his eyes he will probably say "what have we done!"

Indeed, Karlsson's la-la land wishing upon a star attitude will get you killed, literally...

Posted by: Jan Vink at March 26, 2007 2:08 PM

"The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this global warming hysteria is so high on the charts, that our leaders want it that way so our surrender will have less blood shed. I know that's out there, but I can't understand how the world has been sold down the river on junk science, and false history of a peaceful Islam."
-- from a posting above

What you dismiss as "global warming hysteria" and "junk science" is neither. If anything, the problem has been understated. But what "I can't understand" is why anyone who has a sense of the menace of Islam would not welcome, in any case, any mass movement that enrolls tens or hundreds of millions in a campaign to limit the use of fossil fuels, which necessarily means a campaign to diminish the "money weapon" that is, at present, the main instrument of Jihad. Even if I were doubtful -- and I'm not a bit doubtful, but think that it is far worse than is being described in the popular press, where we continue to be told that there is still a "debate" going on (there is no such debate "still going on")-- I would nonetheless gratefully accept it, in order to mobilize large numbers of people who, I know, will necessarily be working against Islam and the forces of Jihad, even if they do not realize it, even if some of them are the kind of people who would naturally be collaborators with, and defenders of, Muslims and of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2007 2:22 PM

Jan Vink says "Karlsson has no clue. He ought to be put in cryostasis and woken up in the year 2200. The moment he opens his eyes he will probably say "what have we done!"

If only it were possible to invent H G Wells' Time Machine and transport Karlsson and his PC kumbaya-singing ilk to the Europe of 2100 let alone 2200, he would surely get the shock of his life at the discovery of what his like have vested on this part of the world. If the dhimmified Western European infidels of say 2100, 2150 etc stumble on a broken time capsule from 2007 and manage to play one of those 100 year old plus DVDs on a rare surviving examople of a computer or DVD player, they would surely be furious about how their great great grandparents of 2007 had let it slip away on the altar of PC multiculturalism by letting Muslims in en masse, and condemned them to be rayahs in their own country.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 26, 2007 2:23 PM

Liberalism truly is a mental disorder- Michael Savage is correct!!!

Posted by: eaglecap at March 26, 2007 2:27 PM

A prime example of pseudo-intellectual perversion of history and reality, suicidal dementia, incorrigible defeatism.

The problem is that these well-spoken ignoramuses, misguided idealists, immature elitist wannabes are not only committing suicide, but dragging with them the entire European populace, part of which is developing a severe case of the Stockholm Syndrome with respect to the paucity (for now) of Muslims who hold their hosts captive and in terror.

The rise of Hitler-like demagogues who will promise the desperate Europeans a Final Solution to the Muslim Problem is only a matter of time.

Posted by: US_infidel at March 26, 2007 2:36 PM

"There is nothing which intrinsically prevents a Muslim from being as good a Swede as a member of the Pentecostal Bretheren or an adherent of the Jewish faith, nor is there anything that prevents mosques from becoming as natural a feature of Swedish cities as churches have always been in İstanbul, Aleppo, Damascus, Mosul or Cairo," Karlsson said.

He would have got the second half of that paragraph right if he'd said "churches used to be", but as for the first half... what a twerp!

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 26, 2007 2:41 PM

well, you can expect an influx of european secularist escaping europe and moving to australia, canada, the us and south america.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at March 26, 2007 2:55 PM

"The outspoken consul general, who is a doctor of divinity"

basically a retard. Thanks for playing.

Posted by: FedUpagain at March 26, 2007 2:59 PM

A story from the NYT yesterday reports that,

Aging Turks in Germany will put increasing pressure on the social systems there since they generally have little savings etc., and despite
having lived in Gremany for "decades" speak "little or no German" and will have to be accomodated by Turkish only nursing homes etc...

Posted by: Madduck at March 26, 2007 3:16 PM

from the article:
"People don't understand that Islam today is a European religion and if you say no to a country for being of this faith, then you are essentially saying to the 20 million Muslims living in Europe, 'Whatever you do here we will consider you to be second class citizens.' That is a very dangerous policy. ."

Yes, second class citizens are a dangerous policy. He has no knowledge that islamic law, the sharia, makes second class citizens of Christians and Jews. Karlsson is an ignorant fool.

Posted by: the poetess at March 26, 2007 3:56 PM

from todays Seattle P.I.

An example of the mounting costs to us in the west of allowing muslims in our midst..the Jewish
community center attacked a while back by
Naveed Haq has finished its security upgrade renovations, spending over a million dollars..
..

Posted by: Madduck at March 26, 2007 4:20 PM

I agree with US_infidel, I didn't have the stomach for more than you already shared with us, but I did get a small laugh out of remembering that line from 'Star Trek - First Contact', when Alfrie Woodard's character says:
"Borg ? Sounds Swedish". I wonder how they say "Resistence is Futile"...?

Posted by: M Al-Content at March 26, 2007 4:34 PM

Is this a problem with Sweden, or only with Sweden's ruling elite in this supposedly egalitarian society? And the same is true in present-day Norway.

But not in present-day Denmark.

Why? What is it that explains the distinctive common sense of most (not all) the people in the Danish elites, and what is that explains the distinctive political idiocy of most (not all) the people in the Norwegian and Swedish elites?

What?

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2007 5:48 PM

Hugh I have no problem with limiting the money that is sent to those who want to kill us, however this global warming thing is a sham, it will cost us trillions if Kyoto is accepted world wide, and those trillions will be money lost that could go to our defense.

There have to be better ways of dealing with this than bankrupting ourselves over something that is as erroneous as global warming. First there was global cooling in the 70's with a new ice age coming, now its the opposite.

I feel there is a greater agenda behind this and it is all about finding new ways to steal from the public. They have come up with a reason that they actually have convinced millions of people to want to part with their money, this is nothing but craziness in itself.

Do we need to stop buying oil from the mid east? Answer is yes! Let's deal with Canada, Russia, South America and non Islamic nations in Africa, but zero to Islamic states, that sounds better than Kyoto.

Posted by: The fanatic at March 26, 2007 5:53 PM

Hugh:
Is this a problem with Sweden, or only with Sweden's ruling elite in this supposedly egalitarian society? And the same is true in present-day Norway.

Most likely Hugh. Mind you Norway is better off as they never signed up for the European project.

But not in present-day Denmark.

Why? What is it that explains the distinctive common sense of most (not all) the people in the Danish elites, and what is that explains the distinctive political idiocy of most (not all) the people in the Norwegian and Swedish elites?

What?

Denmark has a Pakistani community. And they noticed they had large families and also noticed that whenever any of them got married, they brought an immigrant from Pakistan ot be wife/husband. The Danes realised that in 62 straight years they would be a minority in their own country. So they passed some very harsh immigration laws, so tough that ever their own people marrying a foreigner cannot settle easily in Denmark. There is a small community of such married Danes who live on the other side of the Oresund Bridge.

In Europe, other countries need to do what Denmark has done. It will slow Islam down.

And we all need to recover control of our borders, including America. We need kick out illegal immigrants promptly.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 26, 2007 6:10 PM

When Fjordman started to post on his blog about the rapes of Swedish women in Malmo and other places in Sweden, I couldnt understand how it could be that rapes were taking place with such incidence.

The normal instinct of a male is to protect the women, and this is particularly so if the rapists are foreign to the land. The response of Swedish men to this outrage defies the laws of nature. It is almost as if Swedish men have lost their masculinity.

Posted by: DP111 at March 26, 2007 6:38 PM

Hugh F

You write well and you have immense knowledge of history and Islam. I really think it is time you started to write to congressmen and women. None of us can write with as much persuasion as you can.

Posted by: DP111 at March 26, 2007 6:41 PM

Denmark's immigration policy is the model that all Western nations need to adopt in a hurry. Also chuck out all illegal immigrants(90% are probably Muslims anyway).

Then start tightening the screw. Any Muslim who wants sharia, he and his family get sent back to a sharia nation, thus granting him his request. Any quote in a mosque from the violent verses of the koran, close the mosque and deport the imam and his family. Any honour killings - deport the whole famly involved, as they now do in Denmark.

What a sensible country little Denmark is. Not just that, but great cartoonists as well.

Posted by: DP111 at March 26, 2007 6:47 PM

EliasAlucard

If what you say is right, then there is no hope for Sweden, for in the final analysis, when push really comes to shove, a nation and its culture is protected by its men.

Posted by: DP111 at March 26, 2007 7:15 PM

EliasAlucard

This strange behaviour of the Swedish male is so unnatural, it has very few counterparts in nature. A couple I can think of are the giant Panda and the Kiwi bird. Both these species just could not survive under the pressure of evolutionary competetion. When confronted in their habitats by more aggressive fauna they simply stopped breeding, and effectively surrendered to become extinct. Sweden has had no wars for the last 200 years and they have forgotten that nature is red in tooth and claw. Islamic immigration has proved just too much for the Swedes. They have become like the Panda or the Kiwi.

Fortunately for the Panda and the Kiwi, the 20th century did not allow them to become extinct. These two species were declared a protected species, their habitats guarded and a programme of artifical breeding started. So what are we to do for the Swedes?

Posted by: DP111 at March 26, 2007 7:44 PM

A fine example of classical European Dhimitude from Bernard Lewis.

"Here is another more recent example of multiculturalism. On October 8, 2002--I insist on giving the date because you may want to look it up--the then French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, who I am told is a staunch Roman Catholic, was making a speech in the French National Assembly and talking about the situation in Iraq. Speaking of Saddam Hussein, he remarked that one of Saddam Hussein's heroes was his compatriot Saladin, who came from the same Iraqi town of Tikrit. In case the members of the Assembly were not aware of Saladin's identity, M. Raffarin explained to them that it was he who was able "to defeat the Crusaders and liberate Jerusalem." Yes. When a French prime minister describes Saladin's capture of Jerusalem from the largely French Crusaders as an act of liberation, this would seem to indicate a rather extreme case of realignment of loyalties.

I was told this, and I didn't believe it. So I checked it in the parliamentary record. When M. Raffarin used the word "liberate," a member--the name was not given--called out, "Libérer?" He just went straight on. That was the only interruption, and as far as I was aware there was no comment afterwards."

This is the Dhimmi mindset that has become mainstream in Eurabia.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at March 26, 2007 8:00 PM

hmmmmm, this is an interesting connundrum for me. if i promote a UK nationalist party i get accused of being racist and a bigot? yet no one else in the UK apart from "them" has the balls to do anything about this stupid easily solved islamic mess. i'm sure that once once nationalist hard-line party acheives power inthe EU and everyone else sees the great results then all of europe will swing far right/nationalist. oh please dont accuse me of being racist as everyone on here promotes and supports the far-right nationalist serbs. this is europes only survival.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at March 26, 2007 9:09 PM

The outspoken consul general, who is a doctor of divinity and the author of more than 10 books on the subjects of Europe's relationship with faith, terrorism, Islam and minorities, has said that the trend towards a multi-racial and multi-confessional Europe is unstoppable; therefore, Islam must be recognized and regarded as a "domestic" European religion.

I'd like to send this guy a gaggle of domestic alligators from Florida!

Son of a .....!

ONE DAY these dhimmis shall walk the streets with their heads shaved!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 26, 2007 9:36 PM

"it is time you started to write to congressmen and women."
-- from a posting above

I've been writing to women for some time now. As for congresmen, well I suppose it's time to give that a try.

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2007 9:40 PM

I would check Mr. Karlsson's bank account. I would not be at all surprised to see big deposits coming from Istanbul and other cities throughout the Middle East...a bought and paid for man.

Posted by: maryrose

I think you are onto something there. Would be great if someone knew how to "hack" the relating info. Not just this dhimmi but worldwide.

Create a website devoted to who is getting paid how much by whom.

Anonymously of course.

PS. I am not sufficiantly talented in that area.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 26, 2007 9:41 PM

Let's deal with Canada, Russia, South America and non Islamic nations in Africa, but zero to Islamic states, that sounds better than Kyoto. Posted by: The fanatic

I agree with you that Kyoto is destructive (and why are China and India and Brazil exempt?), and that global warming is still unproven - given the cyclical nature of climate and the sun hotspots over the millenia. But I digress...

However, I agree with Hugh in that as long as petroleum - I call it an Islamic fuel since it fuels Islam - remains the primary fuel for transportation, the OIC (almost all of whom are Islamic) will always have a market - China, India, Europe, Africa, et al... regardless of how these countries may view Jihad, they still need oil, and Canada, Russia, Venezuela, et al can't supply even close to the world's petroleum needs. As a result, even if we were to stop buying, that wouldn't dry up the cash flow to the ummah. However, if we converted all our commercial energy to nuclear, and figured out a way at some point to run our cars NASCAR style on solar power, it would dry up the cash flow to the ummah overnight. I therefore support exploration of alternative energy, particularly for transportation, even through I don't endorse the environmental underpinnings of their arguments.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 26, 2007 9:48 PM

For EU membership, religion is not among the criteria, therefore, refusing Turkey's admission on religious grounds would send a dangerous signal, especially after Sept.11, 2001, Karlsson noted, adding that Turkey's rejection by the EU would have a radicalizing effect both in the Muslim world and in Turkey itself.

... especially after Sept.11, 2001 ..

THAT is rich!

So WE are responsible for Sept.11, 2001 now?!

Or is he making a veiled threat? As in "if you think
Sept.11, 2001 was bad you have no idea what they
will do to us if we don't bow to them now?"

Who IS this joker?

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 26, 2007 9:54 PM

The rise of Hitler-like demagogues who will promise the desperate Europeans a Final Solution to the Muslim Problem is only a matter of time.

Posted by: US_infidel

I sincerely hope this time it won't be an Austrian or a German. Maybe a Swiss would work nicely. Just kidding. Lighten UP!

But you are right on that we are desperate for political leadership all over Europe. I am on the various German blogs and from what i can tell they've lost faith in even the traditinally Christian CDU to stem the tide. In fact it was a CDU-run town of Duisburg where they recently allowed the first ever beastly "call-to-prayer".

This has not escaped notice on the blogs. The only rightwing party in Germany is a direct sucessor of the Nazi party and they are still completely anti-semitic and they support the islamic states over Israel.

There isn't a single German party who is supportive of Israel and/or Jews in anything but mealymouthed words.

We are completely disgusted.

There is an Author who publishes books about islam from a Freedom perspective who is also quite Israel-friendly. He is actively starting a new Political Party and he claims there are more than a few M.O.P. ready to join his caucus should the party make it into parliament.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 26, 2007 10:12 PM

I seem to disagree with the majority of people here, yet here goes. I see everthing positive and nothing negative in Turkey joining EU - I believe US Government should assist in that. Otherwise, what would you do with 1.2 billion Muslim?

- You will not kill them all. They would do it if they could. We cannot do it, and remain ourselves.

- You cannot put an Iron Curtain around them, and deport your local Muslim there. They will penetrate, and they will be killing people;

- "Iraq the Model of Arab Democracy" failed;

- Earlier attempt to build a prosperous working society in Palestinian Territories failed as well, mainly because of EU support for Arafat's right to kill Israeli children;

- US failed its "Propaganda war" that was so successful against USSR;

- Russia is clearly on the back foot. Arab oil money are destroying centuries-old Russian model of moderate Islam like plague - nothing will be left in a few years;

- While Turkey managed to establish "on a leash" version of Islam at some stage, she lost the battle.

So it sounds like no exit. What will Turkey joining EU achieve?

- EU will have to develop moderate Islam, or perish. Chances are, application of billions of Euros combined with Turkis expertise will help;

- EU will border Syria - they will become a natural ally to Israel, and thus to US;

- EU will have to fix corrupt Turkish police, unless they want to see Syria loosing 90% of its population in 24 hours. That's alone will be an experience of huge value;

- EU may gain Azerbaijan with its oil (they see themselves as Turkish) - that will create enourmouse pressure on Iran to follow suit. After all, they see themselves "Arian", ie original "Europeans". Remember, a chance of joining EU proved an only weapon against neo-Communists on post-Soviet space.

Posted by: Terry Crane at March 26, 2007 10:19 PM

As Hugh recently mentioned there were 1:3 ethnic Germans to Czechs and the Czechs had no problem throwing the Germans out after the end of World War 2.

There is NO reason that we can't throw out 65 m moslems - ONCE we all AGREE that is what we have to do to save ourselves.

By the way, Germany saw the founding of a council of Ex-moslems recently. And - guess what - their more prominent members are under death threat and police protection already.

Brought to them by the Religion-of-Peace®.

German bloggers find this concil encouraging but they point out that we shouldn't have to wait for disgruntled ex-members of the ROP to bail us out.

But nothing wrong with accepting their help.

Those who are of help and want to share our freedoms and the benefits of our way of life are definitely more than welcome to stay after the uprising.

There will be lots of fighting before it's all said and done!

The camel has more than its nose in our tent.

PS. I am sorry to disagree with Hugh on Global Warming. There are too many plausible arguments as to other more natural causes.

Then there were the doomsayers of the 70s who predicted ICE AGES! And who can remember the Y2K scare? And how many times did they foretell the End of the World whenever a comet came near? And anytime there was a Solar or a lunar eclipse?

Sorry but the "scientific community" has cried wolf a few times to often. And who cares if mostly moslem countries get flooded?

It's all written, remember? It's the will of you-know-who.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 26, 2007 10:24 PM

"who cares if mostly moslem countries get flooded?"
--- from a posting above, in a passing comment about Global Warning

But it wouldn't be just Bangladesh. Much of Florida, and North Carolina (the Outer Banks). And the melting of arctic ice might deflect the Gulf Stream and if that happens, then England, Ireland, and the rest of Northern Europe (the climate of which is water-determined rather than, as with the Northeastern United States, air-determined), could have its mean temperature drop by enough to...

Well, don't buy a flat in London just yet. And if you are European, buy something in the United States as a hedge, but not in Miami.

Meanwhile, for the intelligent discussion of this matter, go to www.realclimate.org.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2007 12:36 AM

Hugh

I respect your essays on Islam and history generally, and they are very informative and educational. Your knowledge even of England's history far far exceeds mine.

Global warming though is quite a different matter. It is far too a complex a matter and is not amenable to scientific analysis at this moment in time, and probabaly never, as there are far too many quite random processes at work, as well as, that it is an open boundary system. As a consequence, a complete analysis to predict specific events in specific areas of the world, is just not possible. Therefore, the basic rule for a subject matter to be credited as "scientific", cannot be applied to climate analysis (Note: I deliberately did not use the term "climate science" or "climatology").

What is obviously clear though is that the Sun is the prime driver of weather as well climate, and that is where we nedd to look first. A combination of Milankovitch cycles, solar activity and solar irradiance, shows that warming periods coincide quite well with the above causes. The measure of time has to be in kiloyears, for climate change to be perceptible. Any smaller discretisation of time leads to merely glitches of long term weather.

Suffice to say that there is nothing we can do about solar irradiance.

Global warming is just something we will have to get used to, and in Europe that wont be much of a burden. Some areas will suffer, but in general, the beneficial aspects of some warming are greater then the unpleasenter aspects. For instance, the planet will be more greener and more productive for plant life. Vast areas of lands now too cold to use (Greenland, northern Russia), will become available for humans to settle.

Posted by: DP111 at March 27, 2007 8:08 AM

Those who are skeptics about global warming may wish to google, for a start, "Hugh Fitzgerald" and "It's Cold Today in Wagga Wagga." If you do, be sure to click on each link, and read each rebuttal to each old chestnut of the contrarians.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2007 1:13 PM

Another article, at the same site -- www.newenglishreview.org -- is "Inhofe's Last Stand." Google that title and "Hugh Fitzgerald."

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2007 1:16 PM

One more post, of a challenge by a supporter (not me, but someone whose posting I found on-line) of AGW to skeptics of AGW (anthropogenic global warming, as opposed to those who recognize the data on global warming, but do not agree that it is due, in part or in great part, to the use of fossil fuels, and some other behaviors, by humans):

"A lot of arguments have been posted in this forum since GGWS was broadcast, on both sides... But very few people, if any, seems to have changed their minds, in either direction.

Supporters of AGW have gone to great efforts to point out flaws in all of the standard skeptical arguments (and some of the more subtle ones, presented by the more knowledgable skeptics here) -- with detailed references to the scientific literature to back up their case... For every argument put forward by skeptics, AGW supporters have come up with an answer. And they have also drawn attention to well-documented evidence of the fuel vested-interests which have consistently backed the skeptical cause; urging this as a good reason for treating their arguments and accusations with a good deal of suspicion.

But as far as I can see, all of this has been to no avail. Skeptics, for the most part, have remained utterly unimpressed... They still perceive contradictions and uncertainties in the conventional scientific account of this topic - while alternative ideas (like the various Solar theories) seem to them far more plausible. For the skeptics, AGW is at best, an unproven and speculative theory -- at worst, a politically motivated, ideological zeitgeist which has, in effect, infiltrated and conquered the scientific Establishment -- for the purpose of imposing harsh, yet unecessary, anti-capitalist restraints on industry, and ordinary peoples lives. For many of the Skeptics, the sinister vested interests and political motives which should most concern us us are those associated with environmentalism.

Both sides, frankly, see the other side as unreasonable, unscientific in their thinking, and ideologically biased. It's hard to see any easy way of breaking this stalemate... But perhaps there's a way to move things in a slighly different direction - and bring it all back to objective scientific questions.

So, here's what I suggest.

I'd like to know what the various Skeptics and AGW believers in this forum think will actually happen, over the next six years... with respect to the all the variables of interest; for examples, measurements of global average temperatures, and so on.

In other words, if your position is true -- and the other side is false -- what would you expect to be observed, over the next six years, which would support or confirm this? On the other hand, what would you expect NOT to see -- which would support the other side?

(incidentally, I chose the period of six years simply because that is the interval between official IPCC reports).

Here are some predictions of my own.

RISING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES -- AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES

Many skeptics accept that the global climate has become significantly warmer over the past three decades or so. Indeed, this was openly acknowledged by Martin Durkin in TGGWS. What they do claim is that rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, due to human emissions, are not responsible; the warming trend can be more plausibly explained by other factors -- variations in solar activity, for instance.

However, skeptics do not predict that these alternative factors will necessarily *continue* to increase. On the contrary, we are told that the current global warming phase is just another natural wobble, like the Mediaeval Warm Period, or the Little Ice Age. It might get warmer -- or it might get cooler... either eventuality is equally likely.

As a supporter of AGW theory, on the other hand, I'm prepared to make some firm predictions.

1. Global average temperatures will continue to rise over the next six years. 2007-2012 will most probably include some record-breaking years, in which global average temperatures exceed all of those of the past (already record-breaking) 10 years. The overall average will be higher than the past six years.

2. A myriad of independent measures of the predicted EFFECTS of a continued warming trend will continue to be observed -- from retreating summer sea-ice in the arctic to summer drought problems in Southern Europe to migration of many species into latitudes in which they've not previously been observed, etc. etc.

3. I'll hazard a guess that the average strength -- but probably not the frequency -- of tropical storms will increase; i.e., there will be more category 3, 4 and 5 hurricanes, and fewer 1s and 2s.

4. The annual death-toll caused by extreme weather conditions and other climatic effects such as extreme heat-waves, drought, desertification, flooding etc. will continue to rise. (Deaths from natural disasters that are unrelated to climate, e.g., tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions etc. are not relevant here).

I AM PREPARED TO SAY THAT IF PREDICTIONS 1 AND 2 PROVE TO BE GENERALLY FALSE, THEN AGW WILL BE THROWN INTO EXTREME DOUBT. IF PREDICTIONS 3 AND 4 ARE FALSE, THEN IT WILL BE EVIDENT THAT SOME OF THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING HAVE BEEN OVERESTIMATED.

But suppose I'm right, on all counts. "So what," Skeptics may say. None of this proves that rising C02 emissions are primarily responsible for all this warming. Fair enough, but the question then becomes -- If not CO2, what ELSE is responsible?

On this question, I have some more predictions...

NO MAJOR CHANGES IN "ALTERNATIVE" FACTORS TO ACCOUNT FOR CONTINUED GLOBAL WARMING

4. Measures of solar activity and/or cosmic ray flux, or any other "alternative" factors (i.e., other than rising greenhouse gas emissions) hitherto claimed to be primarily responsible for global warming, will NOT show any dramatic or unusual anomalies over this period, such as to correspond with and explain to the rising temperatures which I predict.

5. There will be no dramatic drop in any known negative forcing factor (i.e., variables which have a global cooling effect such as aerosol pollution levels), which is sufficient to account for the rise in temperatures which I predict.

6. No hitherto unmodelled forcing factor, negative or positive, will be discovered and shown to be rapidly rising or falling, in such a way as to account for the rise in temperatures which I predict.

I AM PREPARED TO SAY THAT IF ANY ONE OF PREDICTIONS 4-6 TURN OUT TO BE FALSE, THEN CONVENTIONAL AGW THEORY WILL BECOME DOUBTFUL -- AND ALTERNATIVE THEORIES WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Now, it seems to me that skeptics HAVE to say that, in the event that temperatures do rise over the next few years, one or more of my predictions 4-6 will be incorrect. If the skeptics are right, then some independent factor will emerge which clearly accounts for rising temperatures -- even if rising C02 emissions have little or no effect.

SO, HERE'S THE DEAL. As a supporter of AGW theory, I'm prepared to put my beliefs on the line. If the evidence contradicts my expectations, over the next five years, I'll happily concede that I was wrong, and the skeptics have been on the right track, all along.

What I want to know is this: are skeptics prepared to accept these predictions as reasonable criteria for vindicating -- or refuting -- their own views?

Or are there alternative predictions which skeptics prefer, which might serve to settle the matter?"

* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
______________________

A reminder that the posting above, by someone called "The Heretic," is not mine, contains a challenge to skeptics, and for those eternal skeptics (some of whom may be attitudinizing, and reacting not to the convincingness of the science but to the unpleasantness of some among those who, these skeptics may feel, are unduly exploiting the problem for other ends, of the social-and-economic engineering kind. Forget who is for and who against, and look only at the data, as more and more is collected, and at the explanations, sometimes tentative, often no longer so tentative, both to explain the data and to offer a theory that has predictive value.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2007 1:22 PM

Hugh as some above have stated most if not all here are very impressed with your knowledge of Islam, but there are many who disagree with the global warming issue.

I first want to apologize for getting everyone off track a bit here, but this is the last thing I'll say on this subject.

I do believe the earth is warming, I do not believe it is because of human beings. I think we do affect our environment and should be as responsible as possible, but our contribution to this is small.

I recently watched the hot button topic movie the 300 and loved it by the way. I have been to Thermopylae and have many pictures there, has anyone else here been there? The reason I ask, this battle that took place in 480 BC was in a pass that was 50-150 feet wide. Today there is a national highway, a modern statue of King Leonidas across the highway and it's several kilometers to the Aegean Sea. There are old settlements and farm land there today where the Aegean Sea used to be.

The Sea pulled back several kilometers in a relatively short time in history, all in a time when there were zero man made emissions. Personally I see this simple event as much proof that mother earth is alive and does her own thing evolving and changing constantly, and these changes take time but do wild swings, and I believe we are in the middle of one now.

As for finding alternative fuel sources, how can anyone argue against that, just don't panic and bankrupt ourselves over foolish policies in the process.

Posted by: The fanatic at March 27, 2007 1:45 PM

I try to keep posts here on the matter of Islam, except when I have mentioned the way in which the menace of Global Warming can be used to enlist unlikely allies working for the same end --diminishing the use of oil, and therefore the OPEC take, and therefore the power of the "money weapon" that is at present the most effective weapon of Jihad -- but not necessarily prompted by the same reasons. When such remarks are challenged, I occasionally reply, as now, with postings from elsewhere.

Ordinarily, all such stuff, and other things as well, are carefully not put up here in order not to distract, but can be found at www.newenglishreview.org.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2007 1:59 PM

I'd like to know what the various Skeptics and AGW believers in this forum think will actually happen, over the next six years... with respect to the all the variables of interest; for examples, measurements of global average temperatures, and so on..

When we are looking at gobal climate change, it makes sense only look at global temperatures at intervals of atleast 100 years, no less then that.

Global temperatures cannot be measured by thermomemters - for they are local. Only radiometric methids can be used, and even then the measurements are fraught, and have to be performed with great care.

Any attempt to do what is beingt asked for, is not science but guesswork - some will be right and some wrong, but that does not prove anything.

There is hardly any doubt that the earth is warming up as the sun's power as well as the Milankovitch cycles aid each other. A constant climate is absurd. This warming up is to be welcomed, as the benefits of a warmer earth far outweigh the down side. What is to be feared is the coming ice age, that will well and truly devastate the earth,, but this is far in the future.

Posted by: DP111 at March 27, 2007 5:57 PM

"the coming ice age..."

If the polar ice continues to melt, and to push down and away from England and northern Europe the Gulf Stream, not an "ice age" for the world, but a kind of "ice age" for Ireland, England, and northern Europe could well occur, and it could happen not in thousands or hundreds of years, but within a very short time -- within the lifetimes of people alive today.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2007 6:28 PM

"Exactly. And Sweden's problem is that there are no men over here. Well, we do have Dolph Lundgren, but he's an exception."

from a post above.

Yep, but notice that Lundgren usually plays a Russian in most of his movies. A Swedish tough guy just wouldn't be believable by any audience, even in Sweden. It appears the Swedes have lost their Viking heritage while the Russians are getting back in touch with the heritage bequeathed by the Viking founders of Rus.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 27, 2007 9:17 PM

All Muslims must be driven from Europe or Europe will be intellecutally and physically destroyed.

Posted by: Ames Tiedeman at March 28, 2007 6:35 AM

Hugh

An ice age is a certainty, inasmuch as anything is a certainty (it could be postponed or brought forward by an unpredictable event such as a large meteor strike). Ice ages occur with a period of 100Kyears and 40Kyears (In between are mini-ice ages). We are in a period of warming between ice ages. This periodicity is governed by the Milankovitch cycle. The above cycle governs the thermal insolation of the earth.

There are other causes as well, such as the eigenmodes of diffusion and radiation waves of the sun. These play as big a part as the Milankovitch cycle. The trouble we have here is to impose the boundary and initial value conditions in the model we wish to simulate. The effect of solar storms and the associated magnetic effects I have left out as these two are random and occur quite frequently, and as such average out over the time periods we are interested in for clinate change ie time discretisation periods in excess of 1Kyear.

Posted by: DP111 at March 28, 2007 8:07 AM

Ames Tiedeman posted: All Muslims must be driven from Europe or Europe will be intellecutally and physically destroyed.

Muslim populations increase at an exponential rate, and sooner or later they will become a majority. Then we will have no choice but

1. To fight and possibly lose half the country as India, Serbia and others have, with massive loss of life, ethnic cleansing, rape and genocide.

2. Give in and see the extinction of the greatest civilisation in history.

3. There is war and we lose because of divisions within - result same as #2

4. There is a civil war and we win, but after all the horrors of a civil war, Muslims will be driven out. Not deported but forcibly and brutally driven out.

I would not like to see a development as #4, as it will taint our civilisation for centuries. Far better to call for a divorce when two sides are as incompatible as they can be i.e., a free, liberal and tolerant society, and a repressed, regimented, aggressive and totalitarian society such as an Islamic one. This is about as incompatible as two can get, and mutual coexistence under one nation is impossible.

Far better that we agree to separate from Muslims in an amicable manner. Repatriation in a humane manner, with finanacial assistance when necessary, is the best way forward to avoid large scale civil disorder, death and dislocation.

Posted by: DP111 at March 28, 2007 8:14 AM

Hugh

I understandable that you wish to use "Global warming" to enlist allies to diminish our use oil from the ME. Unfortunately the UK/EU is increasing taxes on oil, and this will reduce gas/petrol useage, and thus increase the life of ME oil fields. The money the ME nations get will ofcourse continue to increase due to imposed oil prices.

The trouble I have with your use of global warming is the same I have with many proponents or opponents of GW or AGW. The whole thing has become a political football, with various organisations and groups with their own axe to grind.

Politics in science makes bad science. In this case worse, as climate prediction, 20 to 50 year periods, is not a science by its very nature, and cannot be one, unless a new Newton comes along and invents a proper theory. But that is not going to happen as climate prediction for the accuracy you and others are looking for (periods of 20 to 50 years), is essentially a black art, as there too much chaos and randomness in the problem.

Posted by: DP111 at March 28, 2007 8:28 AM

Hugh

It is understandable that you wish to use "Global warming" to enlist allies to diminish our use oil from the ME. Unfortunately the UK/EU is increasing taxes on oil, and this will reduce gas/petrol useage, and thus increase the life of ME oil fields. The money the ME nations get will ofcourse continue to increase due to imposed oil prices.

The trouble I have with your use of global warming is the same I have with many proponents or opponents of GW or AGW. The whole thing has become a political football, with various organisations and groups with their own axe to grind.

Politics in science makes bad science. In this case worse, as climate prediction, 20 to 50 year periods, is not a science by its very nature, and cannot be one, unless a new Newton comes along and invents a proper theory. But that is not going to happen as climate prediction for the accuracy you and others are looking for (periods of 20 to 50 years), is essentially a black art, as there is too much chaos and randomness in the problem.

Posted by: DP111 at March 28, 2007 8:32 AM

"Unfortunately the UK/EU is increasing taxes on oil, and this will reduce gas/petrol useage, and thus increase the life of ME oil fields. The money the ME nations get will ofcourse continue to increase due to imposed oil prices."
-- from a posting above

I don't understand this. It makes no sense to me. Of course taxes should be increased on oil, and those taxes should not only be permanent, but permanently rising, so that much greater conservation efforts are made, attempts to derive happiness come from less-energy-wasteful activities (think 1940, or 1920, or 1900, and the re-acquiring of certain habits and hobbies) undertaken again, and above all, so that investors in other forms of energy, and energy-saving devices, don't have to worry about the price being jerked around by OPEC, as has happened in the past.

Are you suggesting that taxes on oil and gasoline are a bad idea? Are you saying you don't want the oil-consuming nations to force the price up as high as possible through their own taxes, so as to recapture as much of those oligopolistic rents that OPEC charges (if the "ideal" Saudi price -- the one that maximizes Saudi revenues over time from its oil reserves, given estimated effects on both supply of, and demand for, oil, is Price Y, and the oil-consuming nations place a Tax N, then the price the Saudis will attempt to arrange for OPEC will no longer be Y, but will be Y-N, or somewhere between Y and Y-N, and the difference between that price, and the originally hoped-for Y, is money that is "recaptured" by the oil-consuming nations that would otherwise go to OPEC oil-producers.

I don't understand, at all, your point. You don't want the oil-consuming nations to reduce their use of oil, by all means, including making it more expensive? You want the Saudis to be able to sell every last barrel, and to maximize their revenues over time? I don't.

Ideally, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq, would be left with hundreds of billions of barrels of oil reserves that, because of taxes put on oil (and gasoline) by the rest of the world, in the main no doubt in order to discourage the use of fossil fuels (I'm not so pollyannish as to think that the oil-consuming world would do so mainly to deprive Muslims of their most important, at this point, instrument of Jihad -- money). Yet you imply that this is an outcome that disturbs you. You worry about any "increase" to "the life of ME oilfields." You seem to think that if oil-consumers have to buy every last barrel of Saudi oil, handing over another fifty trillion dollars to do so, and unable to wean ourselves from the tit of fossil fuels, that that makes some kind of either anti-Jihad or environmental sense.

It doesn't.

Posted by: Hugh at March 28, 2007 10:49 AM

Hugh

The price of oil has been going up remorselessly since 1974, and since then, how many alternative energy sources do you see?

In the UK we are paying around $1.80 to the litre, and about 85% of that is in tax. This crippling burden falls on industry and finally on the consumer, leading to less spending power. It is inflationary, and increases the cost of products that make them uncompetetive on the world market. Thus the economy of the UK is hit by an artificially high oil price.

It is understandable that you wish to reduce the vast amounts of money flowing into ME coffers - I wish to see that happen as well. I though, would like to use as much oil as we can at present prices, and thus deplete ME oil asap. Your wish OTH simply extends the ME oilfield's life for whhich we will have to pay at higher then inflation costs. It also delays the day when we get oil mainly from non-Muslim places, as well as seriously looking for alternatives. A serious search for alternatives is not going to happen as long as there is plenty of oil in the ME.

What is not right is using GW or AGW, calling the whole excercise as scientific, and then using it to further a political agenda. Everybody wants to do this, each with their own agenda.

Posted by: DP111 at March 28, 2007 5:55 PM

I would like to add my two cents about global warming. I am a denier as they say. However I do support clean air for the sake of clean air. Also I support regulations for gases such as NOx and SOx(SOx which help cause acid rain). But global warming targets primarily CO2 and I don't believe this will help as I believe the cycle is mostly if not entirely natural.

But the real point I want to make is that the Global warming movement will take money away from our Muslim friends that want to kill us and therefore wrong or right is good. But au contraire my friend it will do exactly the opposite. States such as California are planning on outlawing what they call dirty oil. And guess what who will that hit Canada, and Venezuela and all the other non conventional sources of oil. It will force US consumers to buy more of the clean oil. And where will they find that, you guessed it they will find it in Saudi arabian sweet oil.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at March 30, 2007 12:32 AM

In the early 1970's I lived in France. I remember my father telling me, as a teenager, after watching news reports of yet another Muslim/Arab atrocity against innocents, the following statement:

"Islam is the Naziism of your generation."

Thank GOD that this view, once absolutely heretical among Westerners, is now increasingly being seen as obvious truth.

"Men of the West, Stand and Fight!"

Posted by: ProudWhiteMan at March 31, 2007 4:28 AM