Islam's Peace Offensive

[Christians4LessGvt]

What is "going to happen"?

well YC you asked for what i think is going to happen
you won't like it, but here it is
imo it is going to lead to world war three
which could "shake out" in a multitude of ways
i believe we are already in the early stages of ww3 via proxy wars
i think what is more likely is iran and syria will be destroyed to some degree in the next 5 years
there is still a chance for syria to escape this fate. it is in their hands.
possibly and hopefully just the iranian mullahs military capability will be destroyed, but more if needed
first the military capabilities of iran (and maybe syria) will be destroyed using a myriad of sophisticated weapons
but virtually no ground troops
if the mullahs react in certain ways (doomsday), their entire countries may have to be destroyed
hopefully not
again, it will be up to them
basically the iranian mullahs will have to surrender their foreign policy goals or be destroyed

you may think this is "crazy talk"
but the leader of iran is already stating israel should be "wiped off the map"
that same leadership is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons
and expanding their influence to encircle israel with proxies like Hezbollah
i think the islamonazis are every bit as determined as hitler was. this is dangerous.
so yes, if they are allowed to reach a point of strength where they feel confident of trying to destroy Israel i think they could try
i think what is crazy is to think they wouldn't try to wipe israel off the map?
like it or not the United States will not allow that to happen

If it is the inevitable, you should have no problem fleshing this out.

problem? with softballs? 

(btw it's not inevitable, but imo it is unfortunately probable)

[Michael Tee]

I see something a little different happening.  The U.S.A. becoming the backwater of the Western world as Europe, China and India all surpass it in economic growth, stability and even military power.  The Europeans reaching more of an accommodation with Islam (a) because of geographical proximity and (b) high percentages of Muslims in the population and (c) less weighted down by the Israeli albatross which the Jewish Lobby has hung around America's neck. 

As the European-born Muslims gradually replace the first-generation immigrants, you will see a process similar to the assimilation of the children of Jewish, Italian and other immigrant groups into the U.S.A. and Canada.  Unburdened by the religious fanaticism, bigotry and racism of the U.S.A., Europe will successfully move forward into the 21st Century, while the U.S.A. becomes increasingly isolated, sinking in its ignorance into a relatively backward, increasingly poor relation of more sophisticated and enlightened EU nations.

If there is a major nuclear war, it will end with the anihilation of the U.S.A. because it will cross over lines in the same way that Hitler crossed lines, to the point where all other civilized nations can see and identify the threat that it poses to all of them, and concerted action will be taken to eliminate the threat once and for all.

[Plane]

I see something a little different happening.  The U.S.A. becoming the backwater of the Western world as Europe, China and India all surpass it in economic growth, stability and even military power.  The Europeans reaching more of an accommodation with Islam (a) because of geographical proximity and (b) high percentages of Muslims in the population and (c) less weighted down by the Israeli albatross which the Jewish Lobby has hung around America's neck. 

As the European-born Muslims gradually replace the first-generation immigrants, you will see a process similar to the assimilation of the children of Jewish, Italian and other immigrant groups into the U.S.A. and Canada.  Unburdened by the religious fanaticism, bigotry and racism of the U.S.A., Europe will successfully move forward into the 21st Century, while the U.S.A. becomes increasingly isolated, sinking in its ignorance into a relatively backward, increasingly poor relation of more sophisticated and enlightened EU nations.

If there is a major nuclear war, it will end with the anihilation of the U.S.A. because it will cross over lines in the same way that Hitler crossed lines, to the point where all other civilized nations can see and identify the threat that it poses to all of them, and concerted action will be taken to eliminate the threat once and for all.

Watch out for that wishfull thinking. You might miss something better than what you wish for.

The US Economy is still the strongest and most other economys are interdependant with it.

A world economy is evolveing perhaps a world wide intermeshed economy that will make war entirely unprofitable for any beligerant.

If We attacked China or if China attacked us it would be an economic catistrophie for us both either way.
This principal is getting around
The worlds most independant country on the other hand, is North Korea .

[Richpo64]

>>When talking about Muslims you are discussing many different ethnicities with many different nationalities living in different geographic areas.<<

I can't produce them at this moment, but I've seen several polls that indicate Muslims don't consider nationality before religion. They're Muslim first, and [insert nationality] second. The Muslim problem is basically in one place, the Middle East. Except for some isolated cells in Western country, a massive reform movement in the Middle East would probably achieve needed reform.

[Henny]

>>When talking about Muslims you are discussing many different ethnicities with many different nationalities living in different geographic areas.<<

I can't produce them at this moment, but I've seen several polls that indicate Muslims don't consider nationality before religion. They're Muslim first, and [insert nationality] second. The Muslim problem is basically in one place, the Middle East. Except for some isolated cells in Western country, a massive reform movement in the Middle East would probably achieve needed reform.

That may be true, Rich. However, it doesn't change the fact that by nature of their differences and distances, it might be hard to plan a mass movement.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Perhaps if Muslim-controlled countries improved their revenue sharing processes, e.g. less oligarchy and more spreading the wealth, then there might not be as many breeding grounds for radicalism.

[Michael Tee]

<<Perhaps if Muslim-controlled countires improved their revenue sharing processes, e.g. lessoligarchy and more spreading the wealth, then there might not be as many breeding grounds for radicalism.>>

They're probably waiting for the U.S.A. to set an example for them.  Less concentration of wealth at the top, more spread around at the bottom.

[Plane]

  Less concentration of wealth at the top, more spread around at the bottom.

No , pick one because you can't have both.

[Mr_Perceptive]

<<Perhaps if Muslim-controlled countires improved their revenue sharing processes, e.g. lessoligarchy and more spreading the wealth, then there might not be as many breeding grounds for radicalism.>>

They're probably waiting for the U.S.A. to set an example for them.  Less concentration of wealth at the top, more spread around at the bottom.

Does this invalidate my position, however? Regardless how others do it or don't, do not you still owe YOUR OWN populace this process?

[Richpo64]

>>Perhaps if Muslim-controlled countries improved their revenue sharing processes, e.g. less oligarchy and more spreading the wealth, then there might not be as many breeding grounds for radicalism.<<

I believe this is the root of the problem. Currupt leaders bleed the people dry and blame their poverty on the great satan.

[Richpo64]

>>That may be true, Rich. However, it doesn't change the fact that by nature of their differences and distances, it might be hard to plan a mass movement.<<

So it's impossible? I don't think so. If one nation, say Jordon, addressed the problem it would be one pebble rolling down hill. A start would be nice.l

[Michael Tee]

<<Does this invalidate my position, however? Regardless how others do it or don't, do not you still owe YOUR OWN populace this process?>>  (Mr. P.)

No, I BELIEVE in the redistribution of the national wealth.  I was merely pointing out the difficulty in execution.  Usually the rich grab hold of the levers of government and operate them with the sole purpose in mind of protecting and multiplying their wealth at the expense of everyone else.  I meant to say that this is as true of the Middle East as it is of the U.S.A.  It even happened in the U.S.S.R., unfortunately, leading to the downfall of everything that Communism had so laboriously and at such great cost and terrible sacrifices built up there.   What you are advocating would take a revolution and then in the course of time, the Revolution itself would come undone through the greed of the inheritors of the original revolutionaries. 

The real question, it seems, is whether the enormous cost in human suffering that a Revolution brings can be justified if the benefits (equality, redistribution of wealth, universal education and medical care, etc.) last only for a generation or maybe one or two generations before it all goes to shit again, as in Russia.  The argument for is that even after the Revolution goes to shit, it has wrought some long-lasting advantages such as universal education and literacy, class consciousness and awareness of the class struggle, which make it difficult for the oppressors to reinsert themselves as in pre-Revolutionary days.

[Richpo64]

>>No, I BELIEVE in the redistribution of the national wealth.<<

Probably becauase you have none.

[_JS]

>>No, I BELIEVE in the redistribution of the national wealth.<<

Probably becauase you have none.

Or perhaps he believes in equality.

Or, the radical concept that God's creation was not meant to be concentrated in the hands of a few. Where did I read that? Oh yes...the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

[Michael Tee]

<<Probably becauase you have none.>>

Probably more than YOU'LL ever have, ass-hole.  But if I didn't have a dime to my name, I'd still be for the redistribution of the national wealth and with every right to do so.  Who better than the poor and the dispossessed have a right to claim on the national wealth?  It was built on their backs, on the backs of slaves, on the backs of low-paid workers, on the backs of the exterminated Indians, on the backs of poor immigrants.  God bless them if they want to re-claim what was stolen from them.

Fits right in with your ass-holism  that (a) money buys anything and everything and (b) only those with money have the right to determine policy.