egafd.com

Sam Slater wrote:

> 'Some Muslims', Essex Lad, 'some'.
>
>

But it's the some who have more influence than the majority...

More influential? No. The nutters just shout the loudest and lots within the majority keep quiet because they know when they look at the verses there is quite often justification for violence, oppression and death.

That's why I say I hate the religion. It makes what would be considered immoral, crazy acts a little more complicated when your God or prophet says it's ok.

Yes more influential. Go back to 1920s Germany. The Nazis were small, shouted the loudest and lots within the majority keep quiet ? that had a happy outcome, didn't it?

That's slightly different. The Nazis were a minority within a majority of Germans.

Literalist, radicalized Muslims are a minority within a majority of a minority of Brits.

See the difference?

If only it were that simple... but events have occurred in New York, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, Madrid, London, Peshawar, Nigeria, Paris...

The Nazis were confined to one country.

I don't think you get it.

Being a minority of a majority is different to being the minority of a minority (in the west).

Nazis were mainly white Christian Germans trying to persuade other white Christian Germans they they had their own interests at heart.

This is different for a minority of mainly Asian Muslims trying to persuade a mainly white, post-Christian, mainly secular society than they have their own interests at heart.

They shout loudest within their communities and the media focuses on that. But I wouldn't call it 'influence' comparable to Nazis in Germany. Not at all.

Sam Slater wrote:

> I don't think you get it.
>
> Being a minority of a majority is different to being the
> minority of a minority (in the west).
>
> Nazis were mainly white Christian Germans trying to persuade
> other white Christian Germans they they had their own interests
> at heart.
>
> This is different for a minority of mainly Asian Muslims trying
> to persuade a mainly white, post-Christian, mainly secular
> society than they have their own interests at heart.
>
> They shout loudest within their communities and the media
> focuses on that. But I wouldn't call it 'influence' comparable
> to Nazis in Germany. Not at all.
>
No, I don't think you get it. Compared to how many fundamentalists there are as a proportion of Muslims as a whole, they wield a huge influence.

Indeed, they have made us change our way of life.

By my comparison with the Nazis, I was referring to a very small party that shouted very loudly and got what they wanted by fear and intimidation.

Are we not now living in fear and intimidation?

I agree that fundamentalist Muslims are not trying to persuade white Westerners that they have our best interests at heart.

They could not care less about us or our best interests.

You don't think they have influence beyond their small number? How many Muslim homophobes have been arrested for peddling their nonsense? Ken Livingston even invited one as a guest of honour to London when he was mayor. Several Christians have.

How many London streets have been sealed off so a Presbyterian could preach hatred and bile against Islam?

How many Western newspapers published the cartoons of Mohammed? Contrast with how many Western newspapers published pictures of an actor playing a bisexual, nappy-wearing Jesus in Jerry Springer: The Opera?

How many old ladies have been stopped and searched at airports because the authorities are scared of only stopping young brown men (predominantly the terrorists) for fear of being labelled racist?

It has apparently changed but David Dimbleby read out the BBC guidelines saying that there must be no depiction of Mohammed. Is or was there a similar interdiction on Jesus, Buddha, Guru Nanak or Krishna?

Essex Lad..........radical Muslims are not going to take over the UK like Nazis took power of Germany.

Do we cut them too much slack for fear of being labelled a bit racist? Yes. But your analogy with Nazism is a little far fetched.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Essex Lad..........radical Muslims are not going to take over
> the UK like Nazis took power of Germany.
>
Not in our life times no and perhaps in the UK never.

Unless, to quote the words of Edward VIII, something is done, Europe will be Muslim by 2200... if not sooner.

By 2200 there will be no Europe. A religious nutjob will at some point get hold of a nuclear weapon and use it.

Most governments know they cannot use a nuclear weapon first, for they themselves will be wiped out too. So they've got these weapons they know they'll never really use. Even evil cunts like Putin are, thankfully, pragmatic.

But when it comes to religious nutters, all bets are off. Why would you care that you'd be wiped out too if you think you're going to paradise, or that you're doing God/Allah's work?

As technology advances it will be easier to create a nuclear warhead. If Russia breaks up you'll be able to pick up your own warhead on ebay. Either way, I think it inevitable. You just have to think what the Ottoman Empire or Christian Crusaders would have done with a nuclear weapon had they had the chance. Game over.