No worries here, like you I do not mind reading, providing I have the time to do so :)

Also forgive me if I dice up your post a bit and don't respond to everything. I either agree, or have no real comment on it.
No real argument from me, Japan attacked as it was provoked into it by the US. The US was trying to starve Japan of industrial resources, particularly oil. This is why I went with the assumption of what if Japan had not attacked, if the US had really stayed neutral.

Ya pretty much my opinion as well. It was a clash of empires which in the end smashed all of them

I am not assuming they would have won, but the odds of them winning went up significantly.

Before we get to operation Barbarossa, there are a couple of things that may have played out differently from the start of the war. For one thing if the US had remained truly neutral and not so heavily supplied Britain, Britain would have had far less war materials available during the battle of Britain. The English barely won the battle of Britain as it was, but with increased material shortages, it could have easily lost. This would have followed with operation Sealion, which would probably have been successful (the UK was in no position at that point in time to fend of an invasion). Now this would have shattered English resistance in Africa and elsewhere, which would have freed up the Africa Korps, Rommel, a large chunk of the Luftwaffle, and other frontline combat units to participate in Barbarossa.

Part of the reason to my understanding why he split his forces was to secure the oil resources to the south, which were very needed at the time. I think though if he had won against England that he would have had the forces available to achieve victory.

No argument

With the UK out of the picture Italy probably could have handled the Balakans on its own.

Don't forget though that the UK and then the US played an important role particularly early on in supplying Russia with war material from 41-42 onwards.

Needless to say I don't quite agree, it depends on circumstance.

That is not exactly true to my knowledge. No the bombing campaigns of the US and UK did not make it possible for the USSR to win, but they made it a heck of a lot easier. Sure Germany tried to decentralize production and move underground as much as they could, but most of their production capacity was above ground and vulnerable. Particularly their sythetic fuel refineries. Towards the mid/end of the war Germany was facing massive fuel shortages, and a lot of this was due to the US bombing the crap out of Germany's oil reserves and oil production facilities from 42 on. This created an unrecoverable spiral as they could not get enough fuel to put enough fighters in the air to stop the bombing, while fighting on 2 fronts at the same time. That plus their war industries being constantly hit limited their ability to produce tanks and arms in sufficent numbers. That and of course all the wasted resources on the V weapons (which also wouldn't have happened if the UK was out of the picture).

It did work though, Germany was a heap of rubble at the end of the war, and a lot of the damage was caused by bombing, including its industries.

For a European country, its production was quite high. Also the bombing did screw up German production. That is evidenced by the various shortages they were constantly facing, particularly ball bearings, and oil (as I mentioned above) which was a direct result of the strategic bombing effort. Lastly if Germany wasnt getting bombed its production would have been far higher than it was, as it would have still had its preexisting factories, and wouldn't had to have wasted so much manpower and resources constructing so many underground production facilities. Also by all accounts I have read, German industry was totally shattered by the end of the war. It took massive amounts of money and effort to rebuild them, along with the obliterated cities and towns.

yep that was certainly another posibility, especialy as D-Day probably would not have happened with out US involvement and production.

Ya he certainly did a lot of purges, and did plenty of horrid things himself.

I think you need to do more reading on the Holocaust. First of all the Jews were the largest number killed by several million, followed by the gypsies and Russian POWs. This was organized slaughter and slave labor, particularly with the Jews and Gypsies. Second, millions of Jews (and other peoples) died in exactly the way you described in the slave labor concentration camps. Only in the handful of dedicated death camps was the expirence somewhat brief (if you forget all that happened to them long before you reached the death camps), and even then not for all as someone had to process all the bodies. Those that could work were not usualy killed off right away, but rather worked mostly to death and then killed off (or just worked to death). Last I would never call Hitler's actions decent in any sense of the word.

The motivations between him and Stalin were different. Stalin was in his (insane) mind getting rid of threats to his power, Hitler was exterminating/enslaving all the peoples he considered inferior. If Hitler had won and taken over the USSR, the resulting death toll would have made the number of people Stalin killed off look like a sunday picnic. He planed to murder off all the jews, gypsies, and other "sub human" races, and enslave and work to death the not quite so sub humans (russia, and the non western european countries).

I would argue that there is a difference, though both men were "evil" in action. Again I suggest you do a lot more reading on the holocaust as I feel your understanding, and knowledge of it is lacking. This is a subject I have read extensively about, from witness reports to archeological examinations of the sites (including one rather gruesome report where an archeological team recently took soil core samples from one of the more notorious death camps). For one thing the Jews in many countries were terrorized and worse for many years long before the final solution started. Then there are the Ghettos the Germans set up and all that happened there. Then there are the slave labor camps such as Dora and Auschwitz (Only Auschwitz-Birkenau was a death camp and even then a large chunk of it was slave labor, It also had a massive slave labor camp in addition) where millions were worked to death in the most abhorrent conditions you can dream of. Then there were the so called medical experiments and other stuff where people were tortured and died in some of the most horrific experiments imaginable. Finally there were the death camps.

The way people died in the death camps was not at all merciful, it was only designed to be efficient and easy for the guards to do. First of all the most common form of death was not poisoning (this comes from Nazi reports btw) from cyanide (zyklon b) or carbon monoxide (the most common method used), but caused by overheating/dehydration, and slow suffocation. That is because they use to pack the people into the 'showers' so tightly together that they could barely breath, and their own body heat, with lack of air would slowly kill them off. Even after the motor was started, or zyklon-b added, it could take over 20 minutes before the noise (screaming) inside the chamber would stop. There was also plenty of evidence when the chambers were opened that death was neither swift, nor painless. Peoples faces were frozen in agony, many had broken limbs, people were trampled and crushed underneath, human excrement, and blood was everywhere. This is the way it was when things were going 'smoothly'. There were many times when things would go 'wrong', such as the engine not starting, or a bad batch of zyklon-b, and death would be even slower and more agonizing still.

Stalin didn't do half of those things, mainly just slave labor and bullets to the back of the head (which is also horrible too). I also only listed a few of the things that happened in the Holocaust, which I only very lightly touched on. There was so very much more that went on.

I don't have a lot to say about this stuff. Sure it would have been really bad, yes the Stalinist regime was horrible, no question. It would however been a lot worse if the US had not been involved, and Germany had lost.

I don't believe the words of a psychopath (or sociopath if you prefer). There is evidence that Hitler had planned for an eventual war with France/UK before he invaded Poland, just as he had always planned to invade Russia. He also invaded plenty of other countries which had nothing to do with the situation and had not intervened. Anyhow rule number one when dealing with psychopaths, don't believe anything they tell you, they are almost always pathological liars.

This is true to some degree, they certainly didn't care about what Germany was doing to a number of it's citizens, Jews or otherwise. I don't think however that France or the UK really wanted a war with Germany, they were still dealing with the costs of WW1, and their populaces did not want another war. But they felt they had to stop German aggression and expansion. They had also made many many concessions to avoid war with Germany.

If I recall both countries had legitimate claims on Danzig, it depends on how far back in history you go. Poland also was well within its rights to deny Germany. France and the UK had decided to take a stand against Germany and hoped that the threat would stop Hitler. It didn't and war ensued.

Like I said I do not believe that, nor do I believe his stated claims in Mein Kampf. The man was with out question a psychopath, as were most of his cabinet. Even if your supposition is correct, Hitler still would have done his best to murder all the Jews and gypsies and other sub humans he could get his hands on, and everything else. War was inevitable with him as far as I am concerned.

Personally given all that happened I think Nazi rule of Europe, the middle east and Russia, would have been much worse. As for taking over the world, no. The axis powers together did plan to take over most of the world (and had partitioned off the globe). If Germany had won the war in Europe, it probably would have eventually reached the Americas. Germany would have definitely had atomic weapons by then, and the US probably not if it had remained isolationist. Start nuking US cities and the US would probably surrender pretty quick. Plus Germany with Russia and the rest of Europe would have been able to easily out produce the US and Canada. It might have left the US and Canada alone, who can say, unless Canada insisted on continuing the war. I don't think the US would stand idly by if Axis forces decided to invade Canada.

Ironically this is the strategy I use when playing Germany in HOI2. I make nice with the US and keep them out of the war, trade with them for lots of oil and resources, take out Poland, take out France (and Netherlands/Belgium), take out the UK, Take over Russia (which is a lot harder as I have to take over most of the USSR, not just Moscow). I then usually take over Italy and the middle east, then invade Canada and Mexico, then squish the US in between. After that I can take over Africa, South America, and Asia at my leisure. With out allying with Italy or Japan.

I don't either, frankly I only see the problem getting worse with time. I am also concerned that it is our grave that is being dug.

That's not entirely correct. First of all Israel existed far longer the the US has, by many hundreds of years (some estimates are around 1000-1500+ years that Israel existed as a people/state). The region was not predominantly Islamic till long after Israel ceased to exist as a nation (it was still predominantly Jewish for several hundred years). Second, just about every country existing today has been built on taking over land from another group, North America in particular. The Jews were also the sovereign people there for a long period of time (over 1000 years). Lastly the people who claim ownership are also invaders themselves, the people now referred to as Palestinians were not native to the region, but came later after the fall of Israel. They also actively tried to drive the Jews out for a very long period of time. Out of the peoples in the territory, they have the oldest and strongest claim to the the place, as the original inhabitants no longer exist, but migrated or merged with the Jewish people. Plus if all else fails, might equals right, right? Otherwise the US (and Canada) should give all the land back to the Native Americans, which it seized by violence.

The process started many centuries before that (since the start of the diaspora Jews have always dreamed of returning to and reforming their homeland). It really got going when Zionist Jews after what happened to them in WW2 decided that they needed a land of their own, so as to protect themselves and makes sure the Holocaust would never ever happen again. They learned that they could never again depend on their adopted country to protect them. They funded and supplied their war to take back (in their view) their homeland, which they succeeded in doing.

To save some time I am just going to reference Wikipedia. The sections I am citing are more or less correct to my knowledge, but as usual are lacking in certain details, and generaly glazing over things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
from "Early Roots" to "Independence and first years"

They didn't have any choice in the matter, the now Israelis utterly refused anything else, and had successfully fought off the surrounding Arab countries. Also at that point Israel was hardly an ally of any of the western powers. Also put bluntly I believe many of these countries were more than happy to unload their Jews onto Israel (the US, UK, France, etc were just as anti-Semitic as Germany or Russia).

Well that's what people and countries do to each other, they try to use and take advantage of each other as much as they can. Israel uses the west for money, weapons, and military backing, the west uses Israel for its own purposes.

Oh sure, Europe has caused plenty of problems down there too, over their own interests in the region.

I really don't think they distinguish between the branches, any more then we do as far as their religious branches. A Christian is still a Christian in their eyes, an unbeliever who must convert or die. Also you forget that Germany and the UK are Protestant, and were imperial powers down there for a long (along with later US meddling). So they have just as much reason to hate Protestants as Catholics, as they do to hate the US as much as Europe.

The Koran and associated writings was still being written during the first Crusade. Initially Islam was an evolving religion and it takes many centuries for the religious writings to take shape after the supposed creator of the religion lived. The same thing happened with Christianity. Also I was referring to the concept of Holy War (not the word itself), which triggered Islams military/religious expansion into North Africa, Spain, and elsewhere.

Unfortunately I cannot think of it, or do not know it

It's not a base to launch invasions from, but rather a secure place from which to project air power (something vitally important to the type of warfare the US currently employs). The advantage with Israel is that its interests are totally different from the Arab countries in the region, and are far closer to that of the US. It is a reliable and trustworthy ally, where as Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are not at all. As for hostile surrounding nations, that isn't a grave concern as Israel's military can (and has repeatedly in the past) deal with them.

They were already polarized imho, they are indoctrinated to be that way. As for intervention, sometimes it is necessary and just to do so. Problem is it is almost never done for that reason. Its done purely for greed and self interest, with a smoke screen of justice, and freedom thrown over top to mask the real reason.

Too bad that peace is not a basic instinct of man, conflict and greed is. Conflict will never go away, and no matter how innocent, or how just your society, it will come get you eventually.

If I had the time to I would be happy to, I didn't get into it as I didn't have the time to get into a long dissertation on the subject. Perhaps I will have some time in the future to do so, but that thought seems unlikely

Ya that is often the way it goes. Of course though the irony is even if we do agree it probably won't change anything. Even if we came up with the perfect solution to whatever.

Hehe well I meant more that your arguments are usually well crafted and you have put thought into them, which is what I respect (basically you don't just drone off party/group lines/rhetoric, and are willing to at least listen to other arguments). We all use a lot of rhetoric here, as it is so much easier and less time consuming then actually backing up arguments with citations. I myself try to only argue from positions which I can back up with solid evidence/data if called on, which is why I often pick out certain parts of a thread and ignore other parts. :DL

Oh if they get majority, or close to it they can. It's one of main ways Islam has been taking over countries in Asia and Africa. In Europe and the Americas they will take over by numbers, by having far more children then Europeans. European and North American birth rates currently are barely at replacement levels, while Muslim families in western countries tend to be well beyond replacement levels.

I honestly don't like being forced into taking such a position, but I see little choice in the matter any more. Its not about phobia, or racism, or whatever. I could care less what religion you follow, or what color you are (I've personally dated women from just about every major 'race' and religion so its obviously not an issue for me), I do care though when you try to subvert my values, rights, and freedoms with your own, or those of others. Unfortunately Islam is one of those religions which generally tries to do just that. I also have issues with certain Christian groups for the exact same reason.

That is true, there are also many of the exact opposite, and everyone else who falls somewhere in between. The problem I have is too many that are in between, are not taking issue or doing anything against the bad ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_coups_of_1987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_coup_of_2000

Yes, there is absolutely now way that immigrants could take their place at the top of the political system. :hmmm:

Oh for god sakes, what the matter with ya?...
Fiji is tiny little island, I am talking about MODERN DAY WESTERN COUNTRIES.. USA, U.K EUROPE etc.... where muslims are still an ethnic minority

The fact still stands. Immigrants can through the course of time take over power from the ethnic "majority" of a country. The fact that you say that such an event is impossible in "modern" countries borders on the absurd. The fact that people are ever more complacent and that our "democracies" are from what they were in the past even increases the odds and the danger of some lunnies taking control. NSDAP was also a minority, remember? The guys who were going to take care of communities and that everyone was complacent with until it was too late? If we lived in a country with a classic public and public sphere are presented by Habermas, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Considering how things are now, with only a small number of people realising the full extent of the influence immigrants have on an already developed society makes matters only worse and I concur with European governments that ensuring that they accept with our values is a must, as long as it doesn't turn into discrimination.

About Islam in general. I admit, I have far too little knowledge to discuss about its influences in Europe and Islamic countries. What I do know and it instils fear deep down my spine is the fact that certain individuals think that it is us, who should accept their point of view, they beliefs, their system of governance just because they say so and consider it superior.

There was a case in France not to long ago on the issue of the burka. The court upheld the French tradition of laïcité and decided that the French system was right not to give her citizenship. What's her response? They allow it in Saudi Arabia. Now this scares me.

Immigrants/colonists must not take over wetsern societies in "open field battles". It is enough to infiltrate public eduaction system, legislation, decision and law-making procedures. It starts with reaching a law that equates criticism of relgion in ngeneral and Islam in special with racism and pout it under penalty. It leads over school needing to grant special status to Muslim students with special rights that are not given to memebers of any other elgious group. It goes on with attempts to break up the separatio0n of poltiics and relgion, making it possible to push islamic policies and making them defended by the laws that protecxt free reglion. It end with Muslim immoigrants in Germany now considering in seriousness the founding of a Muslim nmmigration party. In between you have a Turkish prime ministre who visits Cologne and in shameless arrogance called his people in a huge public rally not to become German and resist any pressure to integrate, and aTrukish state that was able to make stupid German authorities acepting that the Turkish state ministry for religion (yes, they have that, so much for secularism) does sent its own Imams to Germany to head the turkish mosaque-socieites even if not speaking a single word of German, and unmonitored by german authorities. In fact the turkis religion minstry runs a Turkish sub-state inside germany, unopposed and uncontrolled. You finally take into account criminal statistics that offsporings from Muslim immigrantion families are overrepresented in youth crime statistics by several factors, you also consider that a majority of youngster said in a research project that they will the honour killings of female family members who have been raped or brought shame ofver the family in other ways, and that a relatoive majority of around 40% accepted violence to be sued topple Western order and replace it with Sharia law both in Germany, and Britain. You next reflect over the fact that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants most of the times is remarkably quite when being asked to take clear position against extremist ele,ents in their middle, or when being asked to cooperate with the police to identify and catch such extremist elements.The German interior minsitry felt the need to comlain in public about the lacking willingness of muslims to cooperate with German authorities in these regards, and he put it in - for poltiicians's standards - remarkably blunt, open words. It was the same interior minsitre who trie dto show good will when establishing what is called the Isolam conferenc eover here (we do not have a Judaism conference, no christianity conference, Buddhism conference or conferences dealing with Asian or any other but Muslim immigrants, I wonder why the hell Islam is so special that here again it needs and gets special status).

And finally you pay attention to the many legal sentences of the past years that distorted Wetsern standards and laws by referring to the speciality of the Muslim cultural background of the muslim perpetrator when for exmaple beating up his wife. several examples from Germany, France, sweden, America and i think England as well. You also pay attention to the obedience in advance the West pays to Muslim culture when even in theory imagining that eventually, maybe, who knows, Islam may claim to be offended over something again.

You do all that, and then you tell me thatb Islamic colonisation in the West has no drive and no momentum to eventually come to power and take over control. I then remember my psychologic education, grab a diagnostic manual and give you a proper diagnosis for pathologic rejection of reality.

the single Islamic individual can but must not be a problem. Islam itself is the problem. and although it is not nice to say it, but with every single friendly or unfiendly Muslim person in the West, Islam'S power in the West has grown by one head. It is demograophic warfare, not by the individual person, but by the theologicans and powerpoliticians in Muslim countries. And on accasion they even named it by this very erm I just used: they sometimes called and call it DEMOGRAPHICAL WARFARE. If you call me cynical, i wonder what you call them.

Both our secularist constitutions and Western values and humanistic tradition do not offer us any defence or protection against this tactic. As long as we stick to these, we loose. and that is what happenign since the early to mid 60s, after the seocnd Vattican council: we are made to fall back one small step by one small step, and then another small step, and the next one. We are used to it, since we consider compro9mise to be reasonable. One small step back. And another one. Can't hurt to do so, it's just a small step, isn't it, so for the sake of peace and illustrating tolerance: step back another small step. keep smiling, they do, too. Step back another small step. That was easy, wasn'Ät it,. so step back another one. and while we are at it, do it again: step back. And look, they are becomign noisy and threaten to protest and become vioent, so: step back a small step to appease them. And nwo that we are so poerfectly used to it, we step another small step, and another one.

Many small steps make a journey.

I snipped the rest of that paragraph as I've seen it before in your other posts. I'll grant you that the power of the west to secularise its people is not a proven fact, but I hardly think you can dismiss it as an urban myth. I couldn't say what is or isn't going on in Germany, but my experience here in the UK is vastly different from what you claim is going on there, and I'm not going to put the preachings of some guy on the internet above my own experiences.

I'll give you a statistic: 70% of the UK is Christian. You believe that? I know I don't. I've lived here all my life and I can count on one hand the number of Christians that I've met. Of course it all depends on how you define Christian. Most people think there may be a God, and probably remember a few stories from the Bible, but for me those things alone don't make a Christian. More to the point, they certainly don't make a religious zealot. Nevertheless, when asked in the census they will say they're Christian because that's what fits them best.

Statistics based on subjective data should be treated with caution, and not just because the data is subjective. There are motives to consider as well.

If you don't mind I will skip past more of you repeating yourself and get to...

Two quick asides:

First, if this "sick old man" is so weak, why do you spend so much time doing your bit to rally him? If he is so doomed then why not let him die in peace?

Second, a quote: "If you want to know who someone is, don't ask them about themselves. Ask them about the world, then you will learn who they are." Or something like that. I can't remember who said it. I'll come back to this later.

Yup, the Muslim countries in the east are scary. So what?

Again with the statistics. Sorry but they just don't reflect what I've experienced. Maybe things are very different in Germany. Thinking out loud: Germany isn't exactly renowned for being comfortable with itself. Perhaps when given the choice between adapting Germany's troubled mentality, or sticking with the seeming strength of Islam, immigrants there choose the more attractive option?

Very honest, thank you for taking the time. Now allow me to clarify some things.

I have no rosy image of Islam. I do not 'love' Islam (far from it). I've seen no pro-Islamic propaganda, unless you count the vote-grabbing politicians on TV. Is Islam is 'misunderstood' IMO? No idea. From the conversations I've had with Muslims on the subject, it seems that even they can't fully agree on what Islam is (same as every other religion I suppose).

There is no contradiction in my mind in need of resolution, because I am able to separate a religion from those who claim to be a part of it.

Thanks for the insight.

I'm not trying to minimize anything about the "Muslim world" meaning the countries you named, like Turkey and Iran. I have no love of those places, based on what little knowledge I have. But people who come from those places to live here? And their descendants, who grow up here from the first day in their life? Those people I will judge on their own merits and behaviours, as and when I meet them. I find it remarkable that you cannot see any difference between the two groups. The general gist of your argument is this: Islam is an extreme religion, and Muslim people come from places where depictions of western Christians getting slaughtered in a Jihad is the favoured pre-match entertainment at a sporting event, so beware of them and all their descendants! I say that's a flawed perspective which, if it were widely adopted, would not have a desirable outcome. I don't expect to change your mind, but I find it difficult to stomach your endless fear-mongering and feel the need to add some counterweight.

@Haplo
I painted a picture, or tried to. Getting more specific than jeans/t-shirts/English would require that I talk about each individual. Rather than do that I'll simply say that the second generation seemed to me, both culturally and religiously, less foreign than their parents.

I agree. For example, the Palestinians. If the Palestinians weren't so stifled by the irrational tenets of Islam they would have whooped Israel's butt ten times over already.

What religions are Palestinians?
How many groups in the PLO are not religious ?
How many are religious but not islamic?
The tenets of Islam have bugger all to do with their failure, the failure is due to all the groups and all the other nations supposedly backing them following thier own different agendas based on their own national and political interests

Quite a few Islamaphobes here, I'm pretty dissapointed I guess. :down:
Just like Christianity, Islam is divided in to gazillion different sects that all disagree with each others interpretation of the Koran.
Muslims are far from being united as one, just look at what went down in Iraq and Pakistan the last few years.

So as Non-muslims, do we see one group in particular that we dont like because they dont like us (chicken & egg), then then do we go merrily sticking our label of ignorance on to one quarter of mankind?
Well i guess that brings us down to the same level as those who hate US for not being like them.

IMHO being anti islam is no different from being anti Christian, Anti Jew, Anti-caplitaist, etc. No matter how we try to justify it, it still makes us prejudiced, which is not something we should really be proud of (after thousands of years of human evolution.)

I am not relegious whatsoever, as I dont feel the need to apply such principles and values to my life.
But I still I respect those who are, hey if it works for them - then great!

I only object to those who try to enforce there beliefs on to me and others, or those whos abuse their faith to justify criminal acts. (when all the major religeons clearly preech that such crimes are pushishable by eternal suffering)

but I still like to think I am big enough and ugly enough to seperate those narrow-minded inderviduals from the rest of that particular culture.

You cannot intelligently judge 1000 people based on the acts of one person (just because they have a cultural similarity.)
When it come to making those kind of judgments I will more readily believe someone who has studied that culture for years - as a profession, than chow down a bail of hay served by some jackass from CNN, whos primary concern is viewer ratings - Pass the salt please.

Ah well... each to his own and all that.

Christian Palestinians aren't any smarter. Of course being religious makes them dumber, it works with them just as it does with everyone else.

So it isn't because they are muslims its because they are dumb as they are religious.
I suppose the non-religious groups involved must be just dumb because they are palestinians then.
Thats a nice contribution you have made, it makes a pleasant change for your usual racism to be directed at a different group every once in a while Herring.

I'm afraid I'm sharing Skybird's point of view here. When I was in elementary school in the mid 80ies I can't remember to have seen a single girl with a headscarf on the school ground. When I go past my old school now and see the kids going home it seems headscarfs have become a new standard for Muslim girls and most of them also dress in the traditional way with long dresses.
So secularisation of immigrants does only happen to a certain degree (don't get me wrong I also know quiet some Muslim immigrants who have integrated themselves very well but the optical presence of Islam has risen immensely over the last two decades ).
When you read then the news reports about violent crimes then there is a very high chance that the offender is described as someone with "Mediterranean background".
The hate speech of Erdogan here in Germany against integrating into the society was outrageous as well!
It was more or less a direct declaration of war against our way of life. If a German politician had said the same things about Turkey and the Islamic culture he would have been branded as a reincarnation of Hitler.
I don't say that every Muslim here is a problem, but the strength of Islam is definitely growing here and I don't think that will be for the benefit of the non Muslim population.

Nope but there are so few of the non-religious ones in comparison the more or less religious majority that they are unable to sway the overall status quo.