Islam eventually fails, secularism grows in former "Islamic" nations and neo-Islam begins to spread. Or the Chinese decide they need a bit more land and space for their 1 trillion people and the ME looks like as good a place as any. Bring in the spay.
The Chinese would more likely to attack Russia or Europe. The resources are abundant in these areas. As far as who is winning, that is a question to which an answer may not show up in our lifetime.
name one law, the entire US has been built on immigration. The sheer idea that you think that those people come here with bad intentions is repulsive and disgusting. The fact is they are honest human beings and you think they are taking over our government is the same idea that has been used on the Jewish people, and have I ever showed bad intentions? Have you ever actually even MET a Muslim person face to face in the US that was trying to take over our government? The fact is, is that you dont know what you are talking about, you have never had any sort of experiance with Islamic people in the US and if you actually had an honest conversation with one face to face and without bias there is no way you could say what you are saying in good consciouss.
Sharia courts in England. A Muslim institution which has been installed in England and which can take the place of the nation's own courts.
Well I figure if civilized society manages to last 50-100 years and hopefully reach the singularity then it won't matter if the talking apes regress to religious fundamentalism on that mud ball of a planet.
Russians have 1000s of nukes.... THAT could be a problem. No, the easiest solution to to start two-way visa travel with Kazakhstan and Afghanistan and then breed them under with a few spare hundred million Han.
I've noticed that Muslims from Iran are very very hard working. But, I've also noticed that Muslims from Lebanon are good at figuring out how to "get married in the Mosque so that the government doesn't know and then get welfare payments for the kids while the father pretends not to have a job...." I've hardly ever known a single Chinese or Indian to be on welfare. They'd rather work 80 hours a cleaning public toilets than live on welfare. I'd like to see the demographics on welfare payments and ethnicity percentage THAT would probably answer the question much fairer.
haha... lets shoot for slowing the aging process more than we already can and going for relative healthy immortality first Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's ironic. In an attempt to spread their religion the extremists are BREAKING one of their fundamental laws, do not force convert, let the people choose.
Possibly so. Religious compulsion is endemic in most of the Middle East; not complete, but a constant, slow strangulation.
I'm afraid to say that it is isn't. Death, suppression or conversion are outlined pretty explicitly in the Quran, and in practice. Turkey? Malaysia? Egypt? Lebanon? Iran? Pakistan? SG's point about regions and people rings quite true. North Africa? Pakistan? Syria? The Balkans? Spain? I hope you're not being serious. No, they just stole all their children and converted them into troops to use against other Christians. More of the slow strangulation; the reduction of the Christian remnant to a non-reproductive lot. Precisely so.
What are you talking about? In the conflicts in Lebanon do you see any sign of forcible conversion? The conversions in North Africa, Pakistan and Syria and the Balkans and Spain were hundreds of years ago. The Spanish Christians forcibly converted Muslims. Muslims conquered Spain but do you really know whether they forcibly converted people in Spain? Muslims conquered Pakistan hundreds of years ago but I don't know whether they forcibly converted Pakistanis. Christains sometimes forcibly converted Native Americans more recently. Muslim extremists are not cartoon villains and world history is not a cartoon plot.
Every op-ed writer I've seen who seems to actually know anything about world politics says the same thing. All they want is for us to stop meddling in their countries. In the Middle Ages, the Muslims considered Christians and Jews (fellow Abrahamists) to be "people of the Book," so they did not need to convert them. Only people of non-Abrahamic religions like Africans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are considered "infidels" and must be converted or killed. Christians and Jews were often not treated as equals in Muslim empires, but they were treated as true "second-class citizens" and had rights that were legally enforced. This is much better than the way the Christians in medieval Europe treated the Jews. There was no Pakistan then, it was all India. The Muslims who conquered India were Mughals, the Persian name for the Mongols, one of the most bloodthirsty and ruthless bands of barbarians that ever walked the earth. Since the Hindus of India with their ancient polytheistic religion were not "people of the book," it was a priority to convert them to Islam. That's why the part of India that became Pakistan is Islamic today. The people there were closer to the Mongols' path of terror and had no choice but to convert or die. Further south in India there were so many Hindus that it was not practical for the Mughals to do a complete conversion of the entire country. Especially in Central and South America. There they had civilizations that threatened the Christian Europeans' sense of superiority. North of the Rio Grande the tribes were still living in the Stone Age. Oh I don't know about that. The Underwear Bomber?
If I were a Chinese strategist, I will take the hanging fruits first (easy picking) such as Tibet (done) Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Arunachal, Ladakh, and then move west to Kazakhstan that is rich in oil/gas. I will also start moving to African Continent which is bigger that China, Europe and America combined. That may take 30 to 50 years, but we are patient people. With all the resources there...it is a candy store. May be not...the Chinese will win while the west destroys themselves fighting... Time will tel...but not far off....If BillyT predictions come true, which I support too 100%.
A reasonable strategy. Some work could be done with it though. Why take Africa? Not enough resources. And ask Ancient Rome, Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany, and they will tell you: To much land+not enough soldiers=utter defeat. Granted China has the manpower. But Africa as you said is big(Understatement). Add South Asia and that is alot of land. I meant time will tell as far as the holy war goes. When would the West destroy itself? Other than a possible second Civil War. All we can do is prepare.
Nirakar, let's not be silly. The result of the "old choice" still exists in all those countries and there has been no movement - so far as I am aware - to reject such measures. In other words, in the mind of many conservatives, the tripart choice still stands. Individuals in the nations I named have been under substantial - and sanctioned - pressure to convert - or just to go away, which is a more enlightened but still reprehensible position. Are you under any illusions about the suppression of non-Muslims in Islamic nations? Lebanon is more enlightened than the rest but the pressure is there and I have little doubt it is growing. To the south, Hamas is already busily Islamicizing. Well, when your initial choice is conversion, suppression or death, and your lot is pogrom and oppression, one could say there's a certain amount of pressure to convert, yes. Are you arguing some kind of tit-for-tat acceptibility? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Spain#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_of_Christians#Muslim_persecution_of_Christians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamayouni_Decree Quite so. Muslim extremists are not some well-defined group with secret bases in hollowed-out volcanoes: they are an endemic element, seemingly, of every Islamic society.