Rosie O' Donnel

[JMohegan]

Very similar to the rational used in Japan. To reduce the loss of life. There was no doubt on our side that the war against japan was won, but we knew they would never accept it and they would fight to the last person resulting in far more civilian casualties than the bomb caused. Isnt this very similar to the mind set now? And what civilian casualties? there is no army, there are no civilians. The whole reason behind uniforms, so you know who to shoot. Otherwise, you have to shoot them all. This is why we couldnt win in Vietnam and wont win in the middle east. We want to play by the rules when they dont.

Im all ears for a logical alternative.

SirFace, please answer my questions. Where, specifically, are you suggesting that we attack, and how many human beings do you estimate we will kill in following through with your plan?

 

[m wisdom]

Very similar to the rational used in Japan. To reduce the loss of life. There was no doubt on our side that the war against japan was won, but we knew they would never accept it and they would fight to the last person resulting in far more civilian casualties than the bomb caused. Isnt this very similar to the mind set now? And what civilian casualties? there is no army, there are no civilians. The whole reason behind uniforms, so you know who to shoot. Otherwise, you have to shoot them all. This is why we couldnt win in Vietnam and wont win in the middle east. We want to play by the rules when they dont.

Im all ears for a logical alternative.

I'm apologize in advance for how this might come across but are you really that uneducated about the difference between the WW2 Japanese mindset and the current middle east Muslim mindset?
While the Japanese might have fought to the last person the Muslims won't. It's only a small group that really want the extreme Islamic way. If you really want to use violence aim it at the leaders. That will be 100 times more efficient then nuking everything. Nuking will only cause more problems in the long run. Since if you do you really will get every Muslim against you.

Besides, when have the US played by the rules? That is certainly news to me.

 

[SirFace]

I'm apologize in advance for how this might come across but are you really that uneducated about the difference between the WW2 Japanese mindset and the current middle east Muslim mindset?
While the Japanese might have fought to the last person the Muslims won't. It's only a small group that really want the extreme Islamic way. If you really want to use violence aim it at the leaders. That will be 100 times more efficient then nuking everything. Nuking will only cause more problems in the long run. Since if you do you really will get every Muslim against you.

Besides, when have the US played by the rules? That is certainly news to me.

Really? thats what George thought with Sadam. didnt work did it? We can't even prosecute the monster we are so weak. The other nutcases are all empowered now. How willing would the other nutcases be to take us on if we nuked them right from the start? Hey, they all want to go to paradise and have their virgins, lets help them.

I go through these arguments with most of our european distributors. We see things differently. I have had a long day but will add to this later.

 

[SirFace]

Ok, I apologize to everyone. One of the reasons I dont hang on the GB is because of the politics. Im not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine so lets just end this. Its gotten way off topic anyway.

 

[JMohegan]

Ok, I apologize to everyone. One of the reasons I dont hang on the GB is because of the politics. Im not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine so lets just end this. Its gotten way off topic anyway.

Sure, I'll end it.... right after I give my response to the suggestion you made in post 44 on this thread.

There are 78.9 million people in Egypt, including 15.2 million in the metropolitan area of Cairo alone.

There are 68.7 million people in Iran, including 14 million in Tehran.

I asked you twice what portion of these people you are suggesting that we kill, and you failed to respond both times. Instead, you quipped: "Hey, they all want to go to paradise and have their virgins, lets help them."

Do you honestly believe that? All of them? Children, too?

The MEMRI quotes I posted are "scary" (to use your word). Yes, that's true. But by god, so are your remarks on this thread.

Your fear prompted a knee-jerk reaction in which you called for the murder of untold millions. And for what? This would be far worse than futile; it would be counterproductive in the extreme!

Have you thought through what would happen next? Can you tell me how our allies, not to mention our enemies, would react to such a holocaust?

And what would you accomplish with your murder of millions? The eradication of terrorism? Hardly.

The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. There are cells in Hamburg, London, and all over Europe. Would you support the bombing all of those places too?

For god's sake, man. Think about what you suggesting here.

For god's sake. Please consider a more rational and morally sound point of view.

 

[m wisdom]

Really? thats what George thought with Sadam. didnt work did it? We can't even prosecute the monster we are so weak. The other nutcases are all empowered now. How willing would the other nutcases be to take us on if we nuked them right from the start? Hey, they all want to go to paradise and have their virgins, lets help them.

I go through these arguments with most of our european distributors. We see things differently. I have had a long day but will add to this later.

No, it didn't work the way that George thought it would. He thought the people of Iraq would support the US more and build a good new society. While in reality the only thing stopping a full blown civil war is the current US military presence.

And if you nuke them they will only be more willing to attack the US, revenge is a very strong emotion. So if you want to make the world safer for Americans, nuking is the the last thing you want to do.

And yes, we do see things differently.
I'm just very happy most people don't see it your way, or this world would be a really scary place to live.

 

[m wisdom]

Ok, I apologize to everyone. One of the reasons I dont hang on the GB is because of the politics. Im not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine so lets just end this. Its gotten way off topic anyway.

It's the same reason I don't go there
And it's true this discussion isn't going anywhere so no reason to continue

Back to pillaging, plundering and rapine then

 

[SirFace]

but are you really that uneducated about the difference between the WW2 Japanese mindset and the current middle east Muslim mindset?
\.

You have revealed your colors by using the typical liberal response. A personal attack.

 

[WriterDom]

It's getting bad. I had to stop walking around the block at night because I kept tripping over all the heads my Christian neighbors have been chopping off.

 

[m wisdom]

You have revealed your colors by using the typical liberal response. A personal attack.

True, and I do apologize. Sometimes I do get a bit too "worked up" in a discussion. I should have written that in a much better way.

 

[RJMasters]

It's only a small group that really want the extreme Islamic way.

1,902,095,000 islamic muslims year 2000

This was over 6 years ago. It is estimated that 15% - 20% embrace radical islam.

That's 285314250 - 380419000

Now let's compare total active duty american military to that so called small group

The number of active duty men and women in the U.S. armed forces as of Jan. 31, 2003.

1.4 million

Small group MW? Notice how I also didn't use any bias media.

If you really want to use violence aim it at the leaders

Well the trouble with that is MW is that the leaders of the radical elements in islam are the religious clerics. So if you are suggesting that we kill the clerics...that might be taken a bit more personal than say a pope quoting some ancient conversation which condemned islam spreading through the sword.

The only way to even get people to understand what is really going on here is to understand islam. Sure there is a shitload of moderate muslims, but they cannot overcome the radical elements. If they even speak out against it, their whole family is tortured and beheaded in areas where the radical elements are strong. And when anyone does attack the radical elements, the moderates then rally under them because to them its a faith issue. They may not fully support the terrorist activities, but they do nothing to stop them and when others try they then back their own.

Sure they will condemn the acts of terrorists, but let anyone kill those terrorists and they see it as an attack on all islam.

 

[m wisdom]

1,902,095,000 islamic muslims year 2000

This was over 6 years ago. It is estimated that 15% - 20% embrace radical islam.

That's 285314250 - 380419000

Now let's compare total active duty american military to that so called small group

The number of active duty men and women in the U.S. armed forces as of Jan. 31, 2003.

1.4 million

Small group MW? Notice how I also didn't use any bias media.

I did use a bad definition when I said "It's only a small group that really want the extreme Islamic way." What I should have said is "It's only a small group that really want to use violence to create an extreme Islamic way of living." The thread started about the threat of extreme religious groups and I did mean it in that context. (being a violent threat)

The numbers sound right, but if you consider how many of the radical christian Americans that will use violence as their weapon of choice and apply that to the Muslims, you will get a lower number. I don't have any numbers so I will make a wild guess and say you have no more then 250000 people left that you need to worry about. and yes I do consider that to be a small group out off the 2 billion we started with.

Well the trouble with that is MW is that the leaders of the radical elements in islam are the religious clerics. So if you are suggesting that we kill the clerics...that might be taken a bit more personal than say a pope quoting some ancient conversation which condemned islam spreading through the sword.

I haven't suggested that we kill anyone, it was in reply to SirFace's post about dropping a few nukes. If he see violence as the only solution I suggested that he would do better by aiming it where it would do more use then just nuking left and right.
My personal view is that both of those solutions won't work very well, just that one is slightly better then the other.

The only way to even get people to understand what is really going on here is to understand islam. Sure there is a shitload of moderate muslims, but they cannot overcome the radical elements. If they even speak out against it, their whole family is tortured and beheaded in areas where the radical elements are strong. And when anyone does attack the radical elements, the moderates then rally under them because to them its a faith issue. They may not fully support the terrorist activities, but they do nothing to stop them and when others try they then back their own.

Sure they will condemn the acts of terrorists, but let anyone kill those terrorists and they see it as an attack on all islam.

This is very true and I do believe this is the biggest problem. the only way to solve this is to get the moderate Muslims to take over the power. The US made a big miss calculation when they attacked Iraq, they didn't get the support of the moderate Muslims first, they just assumed that they would get it later
Fortunately I believe they have realised this now and isn't going to make the same mistake with Iran.

 

[chris9]

As long as the radical Islamistic movements keep helping their peoples in case of social emergencies, desease, destroyed houses (like it happened after the war in Libanon), and offer schooling for their children there is no way any bombing will stop terrorism.
Just bombing away a government and then saying hey, we give you freedom and democracy won't work. In these countries there is no tradition with these values, different from the European countries after WWII and various dictators, even later than WWII.

And even if there were, it takes a very long time to get rid of the 'education' received when children/teenager. In general people who were taught to think will think better of the stuff they were told in school. I want to give the example of my grandmother. She went to a German elementary school in her very small village from around 1932 to 1940 (not sure if the dates are correct, but it correlates to her age and is approximately accurate). She was taught to read, write and calculate just a bit, to sing, to recite poems. She was never taught to think by herself. She still has lots of prejudices that I believe stem only partly from her living in a rural area, but mainly from growing up with the Nazi teachings.

 

[RJMasters]

At least one member of The Religion of Peace has called for the execution of Pope Benedict.

A notorious Muslim extremist in a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.
Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be 'subject to capital punishment'.
His remarks came during a protest outside Westminster Cathedral on a day that worldwide anger among Muslim hardliners towards Pope Benedict XVI appeared to deepen.

This seems a bit funny except...if you look at France which is now over 20% islamic, you will see that they are most likely to be the first to introduce sharia (Islamic) law. Which does give capital punishment for those that speak out against islam. Pope better stir clear of France eh? Already secret sharia courts are reported in the stronger concentrated islamic communities, crimes against women have risen insanely in the last 5 years. Gangrape has become so common they have a slang word for it called "revolving".

Which reminds me of an interesting event...who remembers France leading the charge at the UN to help bring a cease fire between Hezbella and Israel? Where intial agreements were in the 1000s of sending a peace keeping force, and when it came time to do so...200 hundred showed up....gee I wonder how that happened?

The point is Belgium, Germany, Netherlands all are following in the exact same footsteps as France. They have allowed huge amounts of islamic immagrants into their country over the last 10 years, during which violence against jews have increased(no duh). They have set up legal and political lobbists and are heavily influencing laws to be more favorable towards islam.

They don't need to take over the entire country, they only need to apply influence enough to control it. The rest will take care of itself over time. And where problems arise, they turn a blind eye and pay peace-lip serivce and let jihad do the dirty work.

 

[RJMasters]

I did use a bad definition when I said "It's only a small group that really want the extreme Islamic way." What I should have said is "It's only a small group that really want to use violence to create an extreme Islamic way of living." The thread started about the threat of extreme religious groups and I did mean it in that context. (being a violent threat)

The numbers sound right, but if you consider how many of the radical christian Americans that will use violence as their weapon of choice and apply that to the Muslims, you will get a lower number. I don't have any numbers so I will make a wild guess and say you have no more then 250000 people left that you need to worry about. and yes I do consider that to be a small group out off the 2 billion we started with.



I haven't suggested that we kill anyone, it was in reply to SirFace's post about dropping a few nukes. If he see violence as the only solution I suggested that he would do better by aiming it where it would do more use then just nuking left and right.
My personal view is that both of those solutions won't work very well, just that one is slightly better then the other.



This is very true and I do believe this is the biggest problem. the only way to solve this is to get the moderate Muslims to take over the power. The US made a big miss calculation when they attacked Iraq, they didn't get the support of the moderate Muslims first, they just assumed that they would get it later
Fortunately I believe they have realised this now and isn't going to make the same mistake with Iran.

Nods. Right on many accounts. Although honestly, if Iran becomes a nuclear power then everything changes. Because the guy who spoke at the UN conference here...ya know the leader of Iran himself, he stated clearly that they would use nuclear weapons to take out Israel. Which begs the question, If they hold true to that promise and there is not reason to doubt they will, who will be the next enemy that they will go after....after Israel is gone? The US? Nope, though they would like to, we would still be too far out of their reach for anything substantial, do you think they will become a peace loving people after they destroy Israel? So its a good question? And what power dynamic would that change as far as China? North V. ect...

People don't seem to understand that ...this will change the complete balance of global power. Some are so looking forward to that day. Are you all really ready to handle what is likely to erupt in the next WWIII? All media bias aside...The leader of Iran not more than 6 months ago said in a public speach that he would use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Now he says that his country has every right to have nuclear power for energy only.

Do you believe him? Does anyone believe him? If not...what are any of you prepared to do about it? Anything? Are you going to just let it happen? Will you and the media blame Israel for bombing their nuclear facilitiies? Becuase you know damn well Israel is not going to just sit and do nothing. They will take action to defend itself. Honestly that is my prediction of what is going to happen. No one is going to a damn thing and Israel will attack Iran. The whole world will blame Israel and the US by association as we move to back up Israel. Only I don't think China will sit this one out.

Some might think that is crazy, but honestly, if Iran is not stopped from becomeing a nuclear power, then every single person knows that Israel will attack. What people are not thinking is what comes next after that, and that's because no one wants to think about it, because its pretty fucking scary.

 

[RJMasters]

As long as the radical Islamistic movements keep helping their peoples in case of social emergencies, desease, destroyed houses (like it happened after the war in Libanon), and offer schooling for their children there is no way any bombing will stop terrorism.
Just bombing away a government and then saying hey, we give you freedom and democracy won't work. In these countries there is no tradition with these values, different from the European countries after WWII and various dictators, even later than WWII.

And even if there were, it takes a very long time to get rid of the 'education' received when children/teenager. In general people who were taught to think will think better of the stuff they were told in school. I want to give the example of my grandmother. She went to a German elementary school in her very small village from around 1932 to 1940 (not sure if the dates are correct, but it correlates to her age and is approximately accurate). She was taught to read, write and calculate just a bit, to sing, to recite poems. She was never taught to think by herself. She still has lots of prejudices that I believe stem only partly from her living in a rural area, but mainly from growing up with the Nazi teachings.

Chris,

You are right about re-education, but honestly the education is tied into their religious faith.

You make a good point in that its not enough to bomb someone and then say here's your freedom. But has America done that? How much money are we paying and giving to help Lebenon rebuld? How much money have we given in Iraq as well as blood to help Iraqies have a chance take back their own country and live in freedom?

What are they doing over there? Are they coming together to try to live peacefully with others who have differences?...No they are trying to kill one another in a civil war trying to take over power. They are all islam and yet they cannot even live at peace with themselves. How on earth does anyone expect them to live peacefully with other religions of the world?

Its hard to re-educate people who mothers are teaching their children that to die for their god is consider the greatest honor of all...and when Israel's or US soldiers are dragged and beaten to death they are taught to take care not to slip and hurt themselves in the blood as they pass out candy.

 

[m wisdom]

... Although honestly, if Iran becomes a nuclear power then everything changes...

Yes it does, and not in a good way. What the best way is to handle this I can't say, but doing a preemptive nuclear strike won't help, that will only create more terror groups. The current US plan seams to be to "force" the more moderate Muslims to take over, how that is going to work I have no idea, but then I can't say I have any better idea myself.
Well, we could do the obvious and have Israel move out, that would solve most problems, but not very likely to happen.

 

[RJMasters]

Yes it does, and not in a good way. What the best way is to handle this I can't say, but doing a preemptive nuclear strike won't help, that will only create more terror groups. The current US plan seams to be to "force" the more moderate Muslims to take over, how that is going to work I have no idea, but then I can't say I have any better idea myself.
Well, we could do the obvious and have Israel move out, that would solve most problems, but not very likely to happen.

I am not for a pre-emptive nuclear strike....I much prefer to withdraw and force an embargo, and stop putting money into their pockets.

Of course we would then be accused of making them poor and desperate and somehow it would justify terrorist acts...

LOL I thought the same thing about moving Israel out of there. Heck give em flordia I say. Never happen though...

 

[JMohegan]

Well, we could do the obvious and have Israel move out, that would solve most problems, but not very likely to happen.

The benefit of this idea is not so "obvious" to me. In the first place, it would be acceding to Ahmadinejad's demand, from last December:

"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.

"Germany and Austria can provide the... regime with two or three provinces for this regime to establish itself, and the issue will be resolved."

Source: here.


Population of Israel: 6.4 million

That's quite an ethnic cleansing operation he's proposing, wouldn't you say?

Of course, only 80% of Israeli citizens are Jewish, so that presumably brings the proposed forced population transfer down to 5.1 million human beings.

Leaving aside the ethical issues here (not to mention the fact that Israel - already a nuclear power, btw - would never agree to such a thing), do you really think it's a good idea to cave to the outrageous demands of a bully?

And further, do you honestly think that this would "solve most problems"?

There is still the matter of the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia, and American military bases in the same. The Muslims of the Middle East are hardly a unified group with identical goals. Of course, they do tend to join together when rallying against the Zionist entity. But even without Israel, the region is still a powder keg.

And what about all that oil? This brings us to:

I much prefer to withdraw and force an embargo, and stop putting money into their pockets.

We should be putting all our determination, all our free capital, and all our renowned American ingenuity into development of alternative energy sources.

Of all the failures of this president (and the ones who came before him), our continued dependence on oil is surely at the top of the list.

 

[RJMasters]

Nods to JM


on point with the original post about religious extremists(I know a bit of a long read, but worth it if you really care about this topic)

Iran leader's U.N. finale
reveals apocalyptic view
Ahmadinejad evokes return
of messianic Islamic 'madhi'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 21, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
WASHINGTON – While most of the reporting and analysis of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. focused on what he had to say about the West and specifically the U.S., his chilling closing remarks were lost on most listeners – and apparently all reporters.

The last two paragraphs of his remarks revealed his steadfast and driving conviction, as previously reported in WND ,that a messianic figure, known as the "Mahdi" to Muslims, is poised to reveal himself after an apocalyptic holocaust on Earth that leaves most of the world's population dead.

"I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet," Ahmadinejad said. "Oh, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."

(Story continues below)


With Iran on the verge of producing nuclear weapons and already in possession of sophisticated medium-range missiles, mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah is of particular concern because of Iran's potential for triggering the kind of global conflagration Ahmadinejad envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is on record as stating he believes he is to have a personal role in ushering in the age of the Mahdi. In a Nov. 16, 2005, speech in Tehran, he said he sees his main mission in life as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West.

All Iran is buzzing about the Mahdi, the 12th imam and the role Iran and Ahmadinejad are playing in his anticipated return. There's a new messiah hotline. There are news agencies especially devoted to the latest developments.

"People are anxious to know when and how will he rise; what they must do to receive this worldwide salvation," says Ali Lari, a cleric at the Bright Future Institute in Iran's religious center of Qom. "The timing is not clear, but the conditions are more specific," he adds. "There is a saying: 'When the students are ready, the teacher will come.'"

Ahmadinejad and others in Iran are deadly serious about the imminent return of the 12th imam, who will prompt a global battle between good and evil (with striking parallels to biblical accounts of "Armageddon"). Some interpretations of the events that precede his coming include a war that wipes out most of the world's population.

In Iran, an institute set up in 2004 for the study and dissemination of information about the Mahdi had a staff of 160 and influence in the schools and children's magazines earlier this year. Theologians there say end-times beliefs appeal to one-fifth of the population. And the Jamkaran mosque east of Qom, 60 miles south of Tehran, is where the link between devotees and the Mahdi is closest.

As of last year, Ahmadinejad's cabinet had given $17 million to Jamkaran.

Shiite writings describe events surrounding the return of the Mahdi in apocalyptic terms. In one scenario, the forces of evil would come from Syria and Iraq and clash with forces of good from Iran. The battle would commence at Kufa – the Iraqi town near the holy city of Najaf.

Even more controversial is Ahmadinejad's repeated invocation of Imam Mahdi, known as "the Savior of Times." According to Shiite tradition, Imam Mahdi will appear on Judgment Day to herald a truly just government.

Ahmadinejad made reference to the Mahdi in his first speech to the U.N., too. He called on the "mighty Lord" to hasten the emergence of "the promised one," the one who "will fill this world with justice and peace."

Who stands in the Mahdi's way?

A top priority of Ahmadinejad is "to challenge America, which is trying to impose itself as the final salvation of the human being, and insert its unjust state [in the region]," says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society.

Taraghi says the U.S. is "trying to place itself as the new Mahdi." This may mean no peace with Iran, he adds, "unless America changes its hegemonic ... thinking, doesn't use nuclear weapons, [or] impose its will on other nations."

After Ahmadinejad last spoke to the United Nations, in September 2005, he told Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli in Tehran, in a videotaped discussion, about a strange, paranormal experience he had while speaking.

He recounted how he found himself bathed in light throughout the speech. But this wasn't the light directed at the podium by the U.N. and television cameras. It was, he said, a light from heaven.

According to a transcript of his comments, obtained by WND last year, Ahmadinejad wasn't the only one who noticed the unearthly light. One of his aides brought it to his attention.

The Iranian president recalled being told about it by one of his delegation: "When you began with the words 'in the name of Allah,' I saw a light coming, surrounding you and protecting you to the end."

Ahmadinejad agreed that he sensed the same thing.

"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!"


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

What is interesting is that their prophecy above speaks of a savior that will riegn for a 7 year period after an apocalyptic event. The Christian faith speaks of the antichrist reigning for 7 years. This comes also after an apocalyptic events where many are killed, and then there is a loud cry for peace, which this anitchrist makes a peace deal on behalf of the muslims with Israel for 7 years, but half way through it he breaks his word to Israel and takes over Jeruselem.

If this guy believes he is the one to usher in this muslim savior, then he is fully prepared to take himself and the rest of the world into the apocalypse.

Anyone scared yet?

You should be. The fucking loon is gonna push the button!

 

[Kajira Callista]

Dominants debating politics is kinda hot.
Are ya all smoking cigars and drinking brandy too?

 

[m wisdom]

The benefit of this idea is not so "obvious" to me. In the first place, it would be acceding to Ahmadinejad's demand, from last December:

...

Population of Israel: 6.4 million

That's quite an ethnic cleansing operation he's proposing, wouldn't you say?

Of course, only 80% of Israeli citizens are Jewish, so that presumably brings the proposed forced population transfer down to 5.1 million human beings.

Leaving aside the ethical issues here (not to mention the fact that Israel - already a nuclear power, btw - would never agree to such a thing), do you really think it's a good idea to cave to the outrageous demands of a bully?

So what if he made this demand, it's not like he came up with the idea. Of course he will take credit for it but other people take credit all the time for things they didn't do.
just because one person say something any you do the same thing doesn't mean that you did it because they said so.

Besides I never said anything about forced relocation, if it sounded that way it was not my intent. What I meant was that Israel moved freely, and I know that they aren't going to move out. Doesn't mean it's not a solution, just not a very likely one.

And further, do you honestly think that this would "solve most problems"?

There is still the matter of the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia, and American military bases in the same. The Muslims of the Middle East are hardly a unified group with identical goals. Of course, they do tend to join together when rallying against the Zionist entity. But even without Israel, the region is still a powder keg.

And yes I do believe it would solve most problems, far from all but that is why I said most and not all

And what about all that oil? This brings us to:

We should be putting all our determination, all our free capital, and all our renowned American ingenuity into development of alternative energy sources.

Of all the failures of this president (and the ones who came before him), our continued dependence on oil is surely at the top of the list.

Very true, I agree with you 100%.

 

[m wisdom]

Dominants debating politics is kinda hot.
Are ya all smoking cigars and drinking brandy too?

No cigars for me, but that brandy does sound good

 

[RJMasters]

Dominants debating politics is kinda hot.
Are ya all smoking cigars and drinking brandy too?

Well, here is some goodies for you

The iranian president believes he will be the one to usher in the "muslim savior" by creating the apocalypse. Notice the reference to 7 years?

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.


Christian and I believe Catholic faith sees the "antichrist" as reigning for 7 years after apocalyptic events occur. According to the bible after the apocalyptic events occurs where many die, the antichrist will make a peace deal with Israel for 7 years. Because of all the death and destruction, everyone will want peace and they will accept his offer. However it goes on to say that after 3 1/2 years into his agreement, he will break it and take Jeruselum killing all the jews who do not escape to the mountains.

For those remotely interested here are the passages:
Daniel 11:21 - 12:13
Matthew 24
2 Thessalonians Chapter 2
Revelation 8:6 - 11:19

Breakdown
Rev 8:6 - 9:21 (Reveals the events of the apocalypse as it unfolds It list 7 trumpets and these verses contain the first 6 trumpets).

Rev Chapt 10 sets up Rev Chapter 11. If you compare Daniel chapter 12 with chapter 10 you will see the same setting(Note the location given in both passages).

Chapter 11 is the detailed acount of the 7 year reign that ends with the 7th and final trupet which the christian believers believe to be the coming of the real son of God Jesus Christ.

 

[JMohegan]

Besides I never said anything about forced relocation, if it sounded that way it was not my intent. What I meant was that Israel moved freely, and I know that they aren't going to move out. Doesn't mean it's not a solution, just not a very likely one.

My apologies - I did misunderstand you.

As long as we're fantasizing here, why not suggest that the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza move to Saudi Arabia? Fewer people to move (only about 3.6 million) and a shorter trip.

Very true, I agree with you 100%.

KC, I'm ready for that brandy. No cigars for me, either, though. Thanks.