SomaliNet Forums

"If the Jews in Israel are secular & democratic, then why, against all odds and against all reason did they decide to relocate to a barren desert in the Middle East? They could have had a slice of Europe 3 times the size of Israel and it would have been FAR EASIER logistically given most emigrated from Europe."

Are you kidding? The Jews are ALMOST as stupid and pathetic as the Muslims. BUT, they have a stronger secular element that is saving them. Of course, which slice of Europe they could have had I have no idea. Care to elaborate?

"I mean that land is resource-free, hostile, small, and Jews have really had no special history there unless you believe in the "ancient Bible fairy tales" which modern secular democratic countries place little weight on. "

The existence of ancient Israel is historical fact. Don't be a knucklehead.

"If there were no oil in the Middle East, how important do you think that region would be? I mean, what else do they export?"

It wouldn't. What a bummer that the worlds most important energy resource is most abundant in a place where all of the people are flaming assholes.

"So, this region, by secular or by religious standards is essentially vital to any & everyone. Some people call it important for "geopolitics", some for religious reasons. "

The geopoliticians have it right. The religious freaks are just delusional.

"There's the clear economics factor. Whoever really controls oil controls the world economies. "

Control is too strong a word. Whoever controls oil resources is well positioned to make a lot of money.

"Hegemony. Someone has to control the world and lately it's been the West. Islam is clearly a big obstacle to the current world order indirectly dominated by the West."

This is why Islam needs to be put down and kept down. Because Muslims are not raional and they are assholes.

"This manufactured "war on terror" is intended to demonize Islam, so now people feel Islam must fundamentally be eliminated or revised to make it irrelevant as a political/military force. "

The Muslims manufactured it by your own admission in bullet two. You can't argue it is manufactured by the west on the one hand and then claim that Islam is destined to win on the other.

"Plus, since the dawn of time control of the world has been decided by armed conflict. We have the current world order because of the results of the largest armed conflicts (20th century) in the history of the world. "

Not always true. The West dominates first and foremost in thought and technology. The enlightenment and secularism saved the west from the barbarity of religious rule.

"For whatever specific reasons, Christians and Jews and others have allied against Islam. This is essentially what the Prophet (saw) predicted."

For whatever reason? Maybe because you are fighting with everyone around you? You left out the Bhudists and the Hindus, who you are fighting as well. And why are you always fighting them? Because you don't regard them or their ways of life as legitimate. This isn't rocket science.

"The Muslim Ummah will not be destroyed by nukes or controlled completely outsiders. The best outsiders could hope for is marginal control, by proxy.......and that kind of grip is very slippery."

It will be if it focks up. The laws of nature don't cease to apply because of the wishful thinking of the Ummah. Allah will not save you.

Posted: 05 Jul 2006 17:54 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAD MAC,

If Muslims are the only ones that are "wacko", then you need to ask yourself a few questions.

If the Jews in Israel are secular & democratic, then why, against all odds and against all reason did they decide to relocate to a barren desert in the Middle East? They could have had a slice of Europe 3 times the size of Israel and it would have been FAR EASIER logistically given most emigrated from Europe.

I mean that land is resource-free, hostile, small, and Jews have really had no special history there unless you believe in the "ancient Bible fairy tales" which modern secular democratic countries place little weight on.

If there were no oil in the Middle East, how important do you think that region would be? I mean, what else do they export?

Exactly! It would be like a remote corner in Africa.

So, this region, by secular or by religious standards is essentially vital to any & everyone. Some people call it important for "geopolitics", some for religious reasons.

But the fact is that the world's attention and energy (no pun intended) is converging on that region.

Conflict is and will continue to occur in that region for every conceivable region.

1. There's the clear economics factor. Whoever really controls oil controls the world economies.

2. Hegemony. Someone has to control the world and lately it's been the West. Islam is clearly a big obstacle to the current world order indirectly dominated by the West.

3. Religion. This manufactured "war on terror" is intended to demonize Islam, so now people feel Islam must fundamentally be eliminated or revised to make it irrelevant as a political/military force.

Plus, since the dawn of time control of the world has been decided by armed conflict. We have the current world order because of the results of the largest armed conflicts (20th century) in the history of the world.

Right now we have nice suits and shining oak tables with a bunch of flags around them and we think we have real diplomacy and civilization.

I just don't think the true nature of human beings have changed enough so when misunderstandings persist among human beings, war ensues.

For whatever specific reasons, Christians and Jews and others have allied against Islam. This is essentially what the Prophet (saw) predicted.


The Muslim Ummah will not be destroyed by nukes or controlled completely outsiders. The best outsiders could hope for is marginal control, by proxy.......and that kind of grip is very slippery.

"Book 041, Number 6904:

Thauban reported "

Who gives a fock what Thuban reported. Irrelevent to our discussion. The issue, which you refuse to answer, is whether or not Muslims refuse to participate in negotiations because they consider the conflict to be an article of faith. IS IT UN-ISLAMIC FOR THE PALESTINIANS OR ARABS TO NEGOTIATE WITH ISRAEL?

"If you consider Romans to be the Europeans & their derivaties (i.e. Americans, Aussies, etc)"

I don't. The Romans were one group, certainly not even close to the only or largest one. Consider again. You are reaching if you think calling us Romans makes this some sort of great forsight. When asked "You mean Rome?" He should have answer "No, I mean Americans."


All this bullshit you wrote NEVER ADDRESSED THE QEUSTION. THIS IS WHY ISLAM IS FOCKED. IT HAS NO FUTURE. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S SHIT.

MAD MAC,

even Europeans consider the new EU to be the resurrection the past Roman empires.
Even in the times of the Prophet (saw), the Romans were considered the Byzantines and their affiliates (i.e. Armenians, Slavs, Europeans etc) so the Roman Empire has been a constantly evolving entity.


If you wanna talk about the current state of conflict, you have to take a lot of things into consideration like post-colonialism conditions and other modern circumstances.

In fact, the only time in history Jerusalem had an extended multi-ethnic society with a long period of peace was when it was ruled by Muslims.

Islam is not against having peaceful coexistence w/ any non-Muslim. But Israel is essentially a legitimized illegitimate occupation and I don't think they would agree to a 2-state solution splitting all land and natural resources 50/50.

Israel would not negotiate certain terms because there is no pressing need to do so. The Palestinians have nothing and they have no seriously powerful ally in their pocket. You know as well as I do that Israel wouldn't negotiate in good faith an equitable solution. You're asking an illegal occupation to reach an equitable resolution. Any Jew who would be willing to do this would be dead before he thought it through

You know that Palestinians evicted in the 40s,50s,and 60s don't even have the right of return, right?

You might as well blame the rebellious American Indians for not truly wanting peace.

In such an imbalance of power, very SERIOUS concessions have to be made on the more powerful side. That would go against the very rationale of the creation of the state of Israel.

So I believe Israel wouldn't compromise generously when they have the upper hand now, as they must..........and as a belief that Islam is to rule the Holy Land once again, so ask yourself how you honestly think that situation is going to be resolved.

So is Islam the future, or does it have no future?

I guess we'll have to ask the future.

As for Rome and what it means:

the Prophet –may Allah's blessing and peace be on him- informed us: “Persia will need one or two thrusts, and Allah will open it, but Rome has horns. Each time one horn is destroyed another arises.”


So Rome constantly morphs but they are essentially the same people (i.e. the modern West)

call it Caucasian, Normans, Anglo-Saxons, whatever.

"even Europeans consider the new EU to be the resurrection the past Roman empires.
Even in the times of the Prophet (saw), the Romans were considered the Byzantines and their affiliates (i.e. Armenians, Slavs, Europeans etc) so the Roman Empire has been a constantly evolving entity. "

NAME ONE? NAME ONE EUROPEAN WHO SAYS THAT THE EU IS A RESURRECTION IF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. JUST ONE. THIS IS A BULLSHIT ARGUEMENT.

"So Rome constantly morphs but they are essentially the same people (i.e. the modern West)"

NOT EVEN CLOSE. ROME DIED LONG AGO. NO ONE SPEAKS LATIN NOW. ROME HAD SEVERAL RELIGIONS, MOST OF WHICH ARE NO LONGER PRACTICED. AMERICA, WHICH IS EXTREMELY ETHNICALLY MIXED, IS CERTAINLY NOT AN EXTENSION OF ROME. THIS IS IDIOCY.

"You know that Palestinians evicted in the 40s,50s,and 60s don't even have the right of return, right?

You might as well blame the rebellious American Indians for not truly wanting peace. "

We did. That's why we killed them.

"In such an imbalance of power, very SERIOUS concessions have to be made on the more powerful side. That would go against the very rationale of the creation of the state of Israel. "

What is this, inverted logic? The strong side has to make the most concessions? Yeah right. Let me see if I can get you a job as a negotiator somewhere.

"So I believe Israel wouldn't compromise generously when they have the upper hand now, as they must..........and as a belief that Islam is to rule the Holy Land once again, so ask yourself how you honestly think that situation is going to be resolved. "

Define holy land? Everyone thinks they have the right to rule the holy land. Idiots, the lot of them.

Cut some of the Negev to the Palestinians, give them financial compensation, and lets move on. Or not and watch them all die. I don't give a shit. I don't like them anyway.

"Islam is not against having peaceful coexistence w/ any non-Muslim. But Israel is essentially a legitimized illegitimate occupation and I don't think they would agree to a 2-state solution splitting all land and natural resources 50/50."

I am not asking you what you think. I am asking you is it an article of faith that Muslims must fight the state of Israel and reject all negotiations? You won't answer it, because we both know the answer. And this is why Islam and Muslims are doomed.

"Israel would not negotiate certain terms because there is no pressing need to do so. The Palestinians have nothing and they have no seriously powerful ally in their pocket. You know as well as I do that Israel wouldn't negotiate in good faith an equitable solution. You're asking an illegal occupation to reach an equitable resolution. Any Jew who would be willing to do this would be dead before he thought it through"

Nonesense. Israel wants the conflict to end. It's expensive and they are sick and tired of dealing with Palestinian suicide bombers. They will negoatiate. But you and I both know the Palestinians won't.

[quote]I am not asking you what you think. I am asking you is it an article of faith that Muslims must fight the state of Israel and reject all negotiations? You won't answer it, because we both know the answer. And this is why Islam and Muslims are doomed.
[/quote]

All you need to look at is the example of Saladin.
The crusader states where in a similiar situation to Isreal.
After defeating them millitarily in Hattin, Saladin Took the holy city of Jerusalem and then left the other Settelments to thier ow devices.

The only differance today is that the millitary situation is tilted compleltey
Towards Isreal.

IF the Arabs wanted a true fair peace through negotiations , they could have done it during the 70's when thier was some sort of balance of power.

Now all negotiations are farce without forigen power interferance,
becuase does a Lion negotiate with a gazelle?


MAD MAC you know very well that the Isrealis are presenting to the palestinains something completly differant from a soverign state on the west bank and Gaza, and that unfortunatley is the root of the Problem.

MAD MAC,

Maybe you should read as much about Zionism as you do Islam and see what their true objectives are.


This whole peace process is a complete smokescreen. The people who rule are the ones who have done it through military power & conquest. Now, yesterday, 2,000 years ago. Mankind is still the same.


As a student of history, this all I can see.

There are analogies abound about the EU (& even America) being a reincarnation of the Roman Empire. I'm surprised you've never heard of that analogy.

BTW, the Roman Empire was very ethnically diverse.......although the rule was always a certain ethnic group.

All you have to do is Google it.

Is America the New Roman Empire?

By Michael Lind
Whitehead Senior Fellow

The Globalist
June 19, 2002

In recent months, leading analysts in the United States have begun making comparisons between the United States and the Roman empire. On the right, conservatives like Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal editorial page have openly called for "benign" American imperialism.

Pax Americana?

Meanwhile, on the center-left, some "humanitarian hawks" are as eager as many conservatives to use U.S. military force in wars to pre-empt threats and topple hostile regimes.

In the past, parallels between Imperial Rome and Imperial America were primarily drawn by leftists or right-wing isolationists.

They thought that U.S. power politics corrupted the world, the American republic — or both. What is new since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 is the embrace of U.S. imperialism by many mainstream voices as something desirable and defensible.

An American monopoly of force?

In a speech at West Point on June 2, President Bush laid out a vision of a future in which the United States more or less monopolizes global military power — indefinitely. The President declared, "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge — thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless — and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."

Tod Lindberg, a columnist for the conservative Washington Times, elaborates upon this assertion: "What Mr. Bush is saying here is that the United States will never allow a 'peer competitor' (in the international relations lingo) to arise. We will never again be in a position of 'superpower rivalry,' let alone a cog in a multilateral balance of power."

The "Bush Doctrine"?

Lindberg, who approves of Mr. Bush's grandiose vision, acknowledges that it "is sobering if not chilling in its implications." Of course, this is particularly true for all of the other nations of the world, which, it seems, will be knocked down if they rise above the humble station to which Washington's strategists have assigned them.

This "Bush Doctrine" is really the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the former dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. and the brains behind Messrs. Bush and Rumsfeld, was the major influence on defense policy guidelines that the administration of the elder Bush drew up in 1992. But at least a decade ago, the Wolfowitzian grand strategy had the rather innocent name of "reassurance."

Policing the global backyard

Evidentally, by filling all power vacuums everywhere with U.S. military power, the United States would "reassure" potential "peer competitors" (Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India) that they did not need to build up their militaries — or pursue independent foreign policies. Under that same logic, the United States would look after their security interests, in their own regions — presumably so that they could specialize as purely commercial powers.

As President Bush said in his June 2 speech, other leading countries should be "limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace" — while leaving the world policing to the American empire.

As it stands, the Wolfowitzian imperialists — in the name of "reassurance" in 1992 and "empire" in 2002 — want to reduce all of the other major powers in the role to the status of West Germany and Japan during the Cold War. Like Japan and the former West Germany, today's EU, Russia, China and India will be discouraged from arming, or rearming.

Peer competitors

After all, that might make them "peer competitors" of the United States rather than protectorates. To the extent that America's allies are permitted to have armed forces, they should defer to U.S. strategic leadership, as Britain — to a greater extent than other allies — has traditionally done.

If the gap between U.S. power and that of other major countries were as enormous as the gap between the U.S. and its neighbors in North America and the Caribbean, then the Bush Administration's Imperial America strategy might make sense. But the United States lacks the economic, military and — most important — the political power to dominate the world, as an alternative to leading it.

American dream — or American fantasy?

Even at an impressive 20 percent of global GDP, the United States is still far less important today than it was in 1945, when it accounted for half of the industrial production in a war-devastated world.

The EU has a larger, though less dynamic, economy than the United States. And long-term growth in Asia and elsewhere will inevitably diminish America's relative weight in the world economy.

The computer revolution of the late 20th century provided the United States with a temporary lead in technology. But that lead will erode over time, as rising powers master made-in-America technology.

This will happen in just the same way that Germany and the United States — industrializing in the late 19th century — caught up with Britain, the laboratory of the industrial revolution.

Power of the few?

And while the U.S. population will still grow moderately for some time, that growth is chiefly the result of a politically-contested immigration policy. Even with the immigrant influx, the United States will shrink in relative terms from four percent to only two percent or one percent of a world population that may rise to 9 or 10 billion before stabilizing. One percent of humanity might be able to lead the other ninety-nine percent now and then. But it cannot rule them.

The United States may have the world's most powerful military, but U.S. military power should not be exaggerated.

Yes, America spends more on the military than most other great powers combined. But it costs far more for the United States — an island nation — to project power across the oceans and skies than it does for Eurasian countries to transport their own forces within or near their own borders.

Russia, China and India may not be as strong as the United States — but they do not need to be. The United States would have a hard time fighting them on their own soil or in their own regions.

Policy shift

The greatest flaw of the Wolfowitzian imperialists is the way they treat diplomacy as an obstacle to U.S. power — rather than as a critical component. Without allies in Europe, the Middle East, Asia — and elsewhere — who provide bases and overflight rights, the United States would be a regional North American power which at most could bomb hostile countries from the air or sea.

An isolated America would be unable to launch ground invasions or sustained military occupations. Even in derelict regions like Afghanistan, the U.S. military can be used effectively only in joint efforts with America's allies — some of which, like Britain, France and Russia (America's newest ally) are still great powers, although not superpowers, in their own right.

The Bush-Wolfowitz blueprint for an Imperial America, then, is based on two grave fallacies: First, a gross exaggeration of America's actual economic and military power. And second, a dangerous devaluation of diplomacy as an instrument of American statecraft. As Talleyrand said about Napoleon's execution of the Duc D'Enghien : "It is worse than a crime; it is a mistake."
© Copyright: 2002 The Globalist

Gedo
Of course there are ALLUSIONS of America being a new Roman Empire. They are allegorical however. That's where it begins and ends. There was no continuem between Rome and the present. And you know that.

So no, the idiot who is pretending that these rag headed dipshits had some sort of divine insight is making things up like those who read Notradumus. Maybe you believe in him too. I don't know.

As for Zionism, the ZIONISTS do not control Israeli policy right now. Not that I am suggesting the Israelis are white handed here. But no means. Everyone is the Middle East is a shithead. I think you have to be to live there. Maybe it's the heat. I don't know. But the Middle East is a magnet to the dregs of humanity - you won't get no argument from me on that one. Jews, Muslims - focking losers, the lot of them. The world would be a better place if they all just died.

MAD MAC,

There's a Chinese curse that says: "May you live in interesting times..."

I think the next few decades will definitely prove to be.

Already are. But don't expect the Islamic world to suddenly unite and dominate the rest of the world. Ain't gonna happen.

Trust me, there's a lot of money, weapons, & manpower invested to make sure that doesn't happen.

Although I think you misunderstood what is meant by "Islam will prevail".

Islam is not an ethnicity or an exclusive club. Islam is just the way our Creator intended us to live. Islam is not a birthright & nobody is an outsider.

Remember, the Arabian Peninsula displayed the most animosity towards the Prophet (saw) initially.

God will make Islam prevail over all religions, but that doesn't mean Islam is intended to subjugate the world.

As for "dominating the world"..........somebody has always played that role........Islam or otherwise.

Wallahi
All I know is I would NEVER want to live in an Islamic society.

If there's no beer and no Latino clubs, then I have to move on. Those are two of lifes basic necessities.

Islam is not just about restrictions. God can make you dislike those things inside your heart. When that attachment to God grows, you will shun those things yourself.

The early companions did all those things you mentioned, but God made it disliked in their hearts:

And know that, among you there is the Messenger of Allâh (SAW). If he were to obey you (i.e. follow your opinions and desires) in much of the matter, you would surely be in trouble, but Allâh has endeared the Faith to you and has beautified it in your hearts, and has made disbelief, wickedness and disobedience (to Allâh and His Messenger SAW) hateful to you. These! They are the rightly guided ones,

Well when God makes hate those things, then I won't do them anymore. But right now, God makes me like those things.

And there is no way that the "companions" were dancing salsa. It didn't exist then. If it had,maybe the Prophet would have been a salsero.