I think it's important that we have authoritative demographic statistics about Islamisation, so that they can be quoted to great effect, in any debate about Islamisation. We need them, badly.

A 10% Muslim population, is the point at which the Muslim population becomes almost impossible to reverse, without severe social unrest, because the moment any politician attempts to reverse the population trend, those Muslims will take to the streets and riot.

If a few thousand can cause chaos in a major city, like Paris, then what would happen if 10% of the country's entire Muslim population, decided to take to the streets - It would overwhelm the army and the police force... and that's just 10%!

For countries which have much higher percentages (eg. 40%) of Muslims, a reversal in that population trend, would almost certainly result in civil war and bloodshed on an immense scale.

It should be incumbent on all non-Muslim states, to ensure that they act 'before' Muslims increase to 10% of the population.

But then, it is interesting to see what happens when an anti-Islam politician, threatens to gain political power, in a non-Muslim country - http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2285611.ec...

...encouraging information :)

I expect that most people will be misled by the rhetorical 'tricks', that Robert draws attention to, because it requires a strong/inquiring mind to see through them. It is almost like apologists have their own language, of certain 'code words' that, when carefully inserted, can make even the most egregious evidence/claims, appear preposterous. It is the language of those who disable their opponent, in order to save themselves from ever having to confront their opponent's evidence/claims - As if all you have to do is say "It's controversial, it's scare-mongering, it's far-right, it's a myth, it's divisive, it's solely out of hatred, etc", and then you win the debate, because you've instantly set your opponent on the defensive, and charged them with so many 'crimes', that they'll waste the entire debate, having to refute the accusations, rather than actually debate about the topic.

Why give freedom of religion, to a religion which sanctions and mandates violence against unbelievers?

I would amend the right to freedom of religion, to exclude 'inherently violent religions', such as Islam.

Mordechai Kedar: On the building of Israeli settlements - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHpMhAzj-Tk&fm...

Quote: "Netanyahu's speech was very clear. He rejects the two-state solution."

- By what standard?

If it's the Palestinian standard, then rejection of the two-state solution, is clearly anything which involves the Palestinians giving up the Jihad against Israel.

I think Netanyahu's offer, was a very clever one, because it has shown the Palestinians for the intractable Jihadists that they are.

No matter how intolerant and violent the Muslims are, there is always an avenue of escape - By going to the West. Although, ask yourselves what the world would be like, if there was no longer that option, because the entire world was Islamic.

I think that it's only when you consider this article within this possible context, of there being no avenue of escape, that one can truly appreciate the horror of living under Islamic rule, and why everything should be done to prevent the world from becoming Islamic.

Being 'British', used to mean that you came from and followed the cultures of England, Wales, Scotland or N.Ireland, but in recent times, the title has been used by multiculturalists, to further their agenda to homogenise any and all people/cultures from around the world, into one generic nationality.

I believe Britain is the 'experimental proving grounds', for a global project to homogenise the entire world, as one culture and one nation, with the reasoning being that when all the world is united as one culture and one nation, then there will be no wars, because there will be nobody to fight.

Why do you think they often refer to Britain as a 'melting pot'? The only reason one would ever use such a term, is if one truly didn't care about preserving the discrete nationalities/cultures that one intended to homogenise.

Fortunately, the experiment has been a failure, because multiculturalists didn't realise that discrete nationalities/cultures/religions of people, would congregate into 'ghettos', and that there would be religious 'conflict' between people of different religions.

I call myself English, because I detest the idea of being called British, given the above.

This is why so many indigenous people in Britain, refused to identify themselves as British, and why so many Muslims, who tend to be immigrants or 2nd/3rd generation immigrants, so easily call themselves British.

Has the UK government ever explained what a 'moderate Muslim' is, or do they want us to assume that it's axiomatic, so that they don't have to bother explaining anything?

TRSTHNTR, I knew that already, but I didn't want to get technical about that specific point, because I had a different point to make.