Originally Posted by Hyde
You mean a disruption that *isn't* ISIS liquidating their captured oil reserves?
In the petroworld, terrorist attacks on oil are considered the costs of doing business. It's a negligible disruption, comparatively.
Originally Posted by Hyde
The "doming" theory isn't physically feasible, and it was a joke. Containing them must be done through controlling immigration and "aid"/sanctions.
Yeah I know, I just used it as a byword for containment. Containment would fuck up Middle Eastern relations.
Originally Posted by Hyde
We do not rely on the (middle) east for resources as much as you'd think, and blocking immigration is not akin to severe trade restrictions a la Cuba.
Continuing on from my last sentence, how do you think countries that are being blocked will respond? The most common manifestation of power politics is economic sanctions.
US has ramped up domestic production in the past decade, which is great, but OPEC still has considerable influence on every energy market.
Originally Posted by Ele
In the petroworld, terrorist attacks on oil are considered the costs of doing business. It's a negligible disruption, comparatively.
Yeah I know, I just used it as a byword for containment. Containment would fuck up Middle Eastern relations.
Continuing on from my last sentence, how do you think countries that are being blocked will respond? The most common manifestation of power politics is economic sanctions.
US has ramped up domestic production in the past decade, which is great, but OPEC still has considerable influence on every energy market.
Who would economic sanctions hurt more? Them or the rest of the world? The only reason Iran was able to survive sanctions in the 70s is because the leaders were okay with sacrificing their people's quality of life.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Hyde
Who would economic sanctions hurt more? Them or the rest of the world? The only reason Iran was able to survive sanctions in the 70s is because the leaders were okay with sacrificing their people's quality of life.
I don't think it's any different now. We screwed the Iranians around so much in the past 50 years and it's wasn't until recently that we've only started to make baby steps towards creating good relations with them. But if you did such a thing as to not allow any Iranians into our countries, I'm pretty sure they'd say 'hell naw' and they'd go and do their own thing.
You've also got to realise that there's simply less respect for life in the Middle East. It's a hard fucking place to live. It creates hard people, and hard people are more hardcore. There's been so many atrocities in the region in the past 100 years that it just makes you sit back and go "Wow, these people are constantly doing things that we just can't".
Originally Posted by Ele
You've also got to realise that there's simply less respect for life in the Middle East. It's a hard fucking place to live. It creates hard people, and hard people are more hardcore. There's been so many atrocities in the region in the past 100 years that it just makes you sit back and go "Wow, these people are constantly doing things that we just can't".
I agree. The religion of Islam itself is basically a rough guideline to living in the desert. So, that comes back to my initial point of why let these people into a society that they are not fit to be in? Let time take its course. You cannot introduce people of little culture to a society like France and expect it to go well. As far as I'm concerned, forced multiculturalism is a terrible thing. Many countries in the world have closed borders with other countries and have not hurt relations with them. Many countries also have extremely strict rules about how you go about joining their society. France/the UK/US are extremely liberal as far as that goes, and that must change.
Re: the whole guidelines to living in the desert thing
The Hijab's primary role is to hide the wearer's gender so the enemy cannot properly scout your forces. Obviously it's outdated in this time and age, but followers of Islam still follow it. As xlr8 said, they are laws for people from a different time. Lots of chunks of Islam are outdated.
Last edited by Hyde; Jan 10, 2015 at 06:15 PM.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Hyde
Re: the whole guidelines to living in the desert thing
The Hijab's primary role is to hide the wearer's gender so the enemy cannot properly scout your forces. Obviously it's outdated in this time and age, but followers of Islam still follow it. As xlr8 said, they are laws for people from a different time. Lots of chunks of Islam are outdated.
"That's the best joke I've heard all week"
The primary role of the Hijab is modesty and humility. Even Mary mother of Jesus wore a Hijab, is she trying to hide from the enermy or something? Please tell me which troll site are you getting these informaion from?
Also, since this is a new thread, I shall go ahead and quote what I said to Hyde through PM.
Originally Posted by xlr84life
I don't want to spam the thread with off topic material, so here:
The muslims could've easily killed every single one of them, cause if I'm not mistakened the Muslims had a number of 10,000. If Islam was about violence, that's what would've happened, but no, even though the muslims were coming back to the city that kicked them out. Again, they could've easily slaughtered them all. But, that was not the intention at all, the muslims were commanded not to harm anyone, even trees and property, unless a combatant triggers an attack, only that combatant can be killed, which is defensive, as I quoted from the verses. Majority of the Makkans accepted Islam because of the mercy they showed, and how peaceful they dealt with it.
They were a handful of people who had no knowledge of what was going on(they weren't involved in persecuting the muslims in the past), and they asked, "what about us?"
The muslims were commanded to take them a safe place and no harm be on them.
The rest of the Makkan non-muslims were allowed to plan what they wanted to do for 4 months, in that 4 months, no harm be on them, unless they attack first.
If the 4 months have passed, and they have not left,
Then permission was given to kill them. 4 months is plenty of time to decide. However, most of them accepted Islam anyways because of the mercy.
The instruction of "kill them" is only for this particular event, the "attack if attacked" part is the general method of muslims.
I know a lot of this because as a Muslim I have studied this story and many other stories countless times in my life. However I'm not a scholar.
If you have anything to point I'd be happy to try my best to address them.
@proton
Thank you for your understanding.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Precisely. They have just as hard of a time comprehending our way of life as we do them. For them, treating women and children as objects comes normally, though for us it's some abhorrent sin. We as a people have latched onto the false notion that everyone is equal. The Middle East as a whole recognizes that it's ridiculous to even consider that, but their way of going about showing it is a bit messy.
Islam does treat men, women and children equally(if you want to debate about this feel free to PM me because it's not for this topic), however yes, there some stupid ones out there who don't. And this is a big problem.
Last edited by xlr84life; Jan 10, 2015 at 06:40 PM.
Parkour like you've never seen before:
http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423045
http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423045
