the captured UK sailors

Post by **Skylace** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:38 pm

vegas wrote:It's not my view it is just facts. Without oil the politicians will not have the desire to send kids as cannon fodder. So these regions will be left to determine their own fate. I don't see what is short sighted in accepting the facts.

I have to agree Vegas. It's the sad fact that it will likely turn out that way. Once the oil is gone many countries won't be at all bothered as to what is going on over there.

IRiSHMaFIA · Post by **IRiSHMaFIA** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:44 pm

Skylace wrote:
vegas wrote:It's not my view it is just facts. Without oil the politicians will not have the desire to send kids as cannon fodder. So these regions will be left to determine their own fate. I don't see what is short sighted in accepting the facts.
I have to agree Vegas. It's the sad fact that it will likely turn out that way. Once the oil is gone many countries won't be at all bothered as to what is going on over there.

Beautifully said Skylace and I believe you're right. I also have to agree with what vegas had to say.

It's sad facts but I really think you hit the nail on the head.

Post by **faceless** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:48 pm

Skylace wrote:
vegas wrote:It's not my view it is just facts. Without oil the politicians will not have the desire to send kids as cannon fodder. So these regions will be left to determine their own fate. I don't see what is short sighted in accepting the facts.
I have to agree Vegas. It's the sad fact that it will likely turn out that way. Once the oil is gone many countries won't be at all bothered as to what is going on over there.

have you any idea how much oil is there? These fuckers will be there for 50 years or more - destroying lives and cultures constantly. I refuse to just see it as unstoppable because I've got greater hope for people.

This is why I don't buy any of the media bullshit that's designed to cause people believe that nothing they do is going to change anything. Of course, the real problem is the selfish bastards in suburbia who really don't give a fuck.

Lostinthestates · Post by **Lostinthestates** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:53 pm

Vegas, I was more referring to you saying who gives a monkeys about the region once the oil runs out (and I agree with you faceless about there being oil for at least another 50 years). After all it was us British who caused the whole mess in the first place by cutting up the Oman empire the way we wanted it to be after WW I. I think we should care about what happens to the people in the region once the oil runs out. As if we don’t it could still mean the end of all of us, especially with the on-going conflict between Israel and the other Arab countries around it. It’s just a question of time until all of those countries will have a full nuclear arsenal.

vegas · Post by **vegas** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:00 pm

Lostinthestates wrote:Vegas, I was more referring to you saying who gives a monkeys about the region once the oil runs out (and I agree with you faceless about there being oil for at least another 50 years). After all it was us British who caused the whole mess in the first place by cutting up the Oman empire the way we wanted it to be after WW I. I think we should care about what happens to the people in the region once the oil runs out. As if we don’t it could still mean the end of all of us, especially with the on-going conflict between Israel and the other Arab countries around it. It’s just a question of time until all of those countries will have a full nuclear arsenal.

Sorry I should have said what goverment will give a monkeys. I personally care what happens to people but when you are dealing with certain people that hate everything that the west stands for then you cannot afford to be weak because they will use it to their advantage.

Post by **faceless** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:10 pm

What certain people do you mean in particular that are a genuine threat to america or britain?

vegas · Post by **vegas** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:18 pm

Here's how the ayatollah himself put it: "...Moslems have no alternative... to an armed holy war against profane governments. ...Holy war means the conquest of all non-Moslem territories. ...It will ...be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other. "The leaders of the USSR and of England and the president of the United States are ...infidels.... ...Every part of the body of a non-Moslem individual is impure

Post by **faceless** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:20 pm

Which ayatollah is this? Khomeini? Your quote is from pre 1990 judging by the use of "USSR". Things change - back at around that time Britain was lead by Thatcher...

Lostinthestates · Post by **Lostinthestates** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:23 pm

vegas wrote:Here's how the ayatollah himself put it: "...Moslems have no alternative... to an armed holy war against profane governments. ...Holy war means the conquest of all non-Moslem territories. ...It will ...be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other. "The leaders of the USSR and of England and the president of the United States are ...infidels.... ...Every part of the body of a non-Moslem individual is impure

Almost sounds like Christianity to me .. I went to church last week and had to listen to our priest tell me how we need to convert Indonesia to bring the return of Christ closer - which will only happen once the whole world has turned Christian. There isn't that much between us and Muslims - we just like to consider them lower due to our high-ground (Western World) we think we have.

IRiSHMaFIA · Post by **IRiSHMaFIA** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:45 pm

Lostinthestates wrote:There isn't that much between us and Muslims - we just like to consider them lower due to our high-ground (Western World) we think we have.

I don't know who you mean when you say 'we' consider them lower due to 'our' high-ground. That certainly doesn't reflect my views and I'm sure not many other Christians either.

Lostinthestates · Post by **Lostinthestates** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:58 pm

IRiSHMaFIA wrote:
Lostinthestates wrote:There isn't that much between us and Muslims - we just like to consider them lower due to our high-ground (Western World) we think we have.
I don't know who you mean when you say 'we' consider them lower due to 'our' high-ground. That certainly doesn't reflect my views and I'm sure not many other Christians either.

Sorry - when I said 'we' I did not mean us as such as I do not agree with this view either. I was more referrring to the governments of the Western World (the US and UK mainly). Again sorry for the phrasing - wasn't very well chosen at all. Hope I did not offend you.

nekokate · Post by **nekokate** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:13 pm

"Moslems"?

Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who is a little unimpressed with people who seem to have such strong opinions about a religion they can't even spell?

::EDIT:: - OK, that might have been a little hasty, wikipedia lists it as an acceptable alternative spelling...

Post by **Skylace** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:16 pm

nekokate wrote:"Moslems"?

Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who is a little unimpressed with people who seem to have such strong opinions about a religion they can't even spell?

That is actually a correct alternative spelling for Muslim.
https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Moslem

EDIT: also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim#Oth ... for_Muslim

Post by **Skylace** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:42 pm

nekokate wrote:"Moslems"?

Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who is a little unimpressed with people who seem to have such strong opinions about a religion they can't even spell?

::EDIT:: - OK, that might have been a little hasty, wikipedia lists it as an acceptable alternative spelling...

And the dictionary as well

Never forget haste, makes waste

IRiSHMaFIA · Post by **IRiSHMaFIA** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:56 pm

nekokate wrote:"Moslems"?

Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who is a little unimpressed with people who seem to have such strong opinions about a religion they can't even spell?

::EDIT:: - OK, that might have been a little hasty, wikipedia lists it as an acceptable alternative spelling...

I don't think that's very fair being honest. You shouldn't slag someone off that way for a spelling error. Their opinion counts as much as anyone elses, and it's not that big a deal.