I don't think they will. They are too busy fighting each other.

Which country is the biggest threat to Oz? http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172167697

Who wrote it?

Yes - the muslims are and will try to take over the world. Almost every war zone in the world involves muslims. At the moment they are constrained only by the limited weaponary. They have conventional arms and car bombs.
They are likely to win when they obtain nuclear weapons. There is no united world effort to prevent them obtaining nuclear weapons so they will no doubt succeed. The invasion of Iraq was made for this reason but it does not have the support it needs. Iran (non-secular) is enriching uranium and will eventually have nuclear weapons but efforts at preventing this get thwarted. The Muslim political leaders are also religious leaders - it is their duty to make the world 100% Muslim. Pakistan has nuclear weapons but it is secular - the religious leaders don't have control.
So a muslim led non-secular regime or organised terrorist organisation really will at some time get nuclear weapons. They are unlikely to negotiate because they think they have nothing to lose - Allah will see them right. Delivery of nuclear bombs will be no problem - kamikazi flights with the martyrs getting 72 virgins.
The only chance is to stop them getting the weapons. There is little chance of that without widespread support.

I agree with sense.
And auzgurl, racism does not cover subjects of religion.
And you still havent answered my question. what is your definition of racism.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2007 at 5:11pm:


yeah i know, but if u look at it, there are more muslims in South-East Asia (esp. in Indonesia & Malaysia) than there are in the Middle East.

weird.

Is it just me or is there a strong correlation between Islam and hot weather? No wonder they are exporting so much oil.....

Countries like indonesia were under colonial rule. in their case, the dutch.
Thats why they never invaded before.
And, fundimentalist islam has only reared its ugly head in the past 25 years. it has existed as a threat to us for the past 10. and it and will grow.
Ive never said we'd be invaded soon, but more like from 20 to 50 years away.
How old is everyone here? im 24, so i have a better chance of seeing this happen more than some of you, that is assuming you are in your late 30's 40's or 50's even.
My main concern is for the children, grandchildren and decendants down the line.
What we do or do not do now will affect them later.

Gavin - you are just too easy to take on. I said "almost every war zone". Your pathetic exceptions demonstrate the truth of this. The Tamil Muslims are fighting for control of the Tamils and all Tamils are fighting Buddhists. The Muslim sector of the Tamils look to be winning. ETA, IRA and drug wars are exactly the fringes that I was allowing for by saying "almost" - these are hardly war zones in the sense of the many, too many to list, wars being fought in the name of Islam - eg Sudan, Eritrea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, Chechnya, Kosovo  etc etc.
You look to be upset that Australia got involved in East Timor - should of just let the Muslims do their worst I suppose.
The official religion of Iran is Islam. The government is duty bound to enforce it. I call that non-secular. The Iranian leader recently said:
"Islam must prepare to rule the world, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of theological students in Iran's holy city of Qom, according to a report.
We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice," Ahmadinejad said Jan. 5."
So the Leader of Iran wants Islam to rule the world and he is seeking nuclear weapons. And you are not concerned at all.
Auzgirl - why are you suggesting that anti-Islamism is racist? What has it to do with racism? It is justifiable religious intolerance. Call it what it is. I admit to being intolerant of a religion which does not allow me and my family to live.
Anyway Gavin you haven't addressed any of the main points. I assume therefore that you believe the Muslims love us and will let us live our lives without interference. You probably want Iran to have a bomb so that they can nuke Israel. The Iranian president has made it clear that he believes there was no holocaust and that Israel needs to be exterminated. Who will be next?
It is exactly because of apologists like Gavin, Mozzaok etc that Islam will win.

sense, here is that link i posted in the other thread about the Tamil Tigers:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9242/

i suggest u read it since u obviously didn't read it last time. the link explains the motivation of the Tamil Tigers, being that they are a secular movement, rather than a religious one. if u did some research about the Tamil Tigers you would realise that.

and about ETA, IRA, drug trade in South America you mentioned "these are hardly war zones", again i hope ur joking, are you? since if ur not, then i suggest u do some research about them, esp. the drug trade in South America, where the police & drug traders are more heavily armed that most of the world's armies. here is a couple of links to help get u started, i hope u read them:
http://www.fcda.org/southamerica.htm
http://mediafilter.org/shadow/S42/S42dea.html

And when u mentioned that "muslim leaders are also political leaders", but that isn't true for muslim-populated countries in the Middle East & South East Asia, except for Iran. I'm guessing u realised this since u only mentioned Iran to justify ur point.   

And i didn't say muslims love us, but what i am saying is that they aren't as big a threat as what people are making them out to be, e.g. with the Iranian president ranting about Islam ruling the rest of the world, does he have the support of other Islamic nations? No, mainly because Iran is the only Shi-te Muslim country out there and is therefore isolated. Also, all Sunni Muslim populated countries are led by non-religious Saddam-like dictators (as i mentioned before), so it's unlikely any religious war would come from those countries. 

And on the topic of nuclear weapons, they are an evil weapon that should off not been created at all. i mean what kind of a sicko creates a bomb capable of destroying an entire city, and also uses them to bomb two Japanese cities (which i might add where non-military targets).

but then again, nuclear weapons are an advancement of military technology and like previous military technologies (e.g. tanks, planes, guns, etc) a country should be able to develop them if it means keeping up-to-date and being able to effectively fight wars. that's any countries right, to have an effective military force, and that is regardless of ethnic or religious backgrounds. i really don't get why the countries that have nuclear weapons are so eager to stop other countries developing them, i'm guessing since they can effectively crush these other countries in a war if those countries didn't have nuclear weapons.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 9:31am:


That's all the more reason other countries would want to have nuclear weapons as well. who knows, u might find a nutcase in a powerful position in the US, UK or Russian governments (for example) who may be eager to use the nuclear weapons they have.

They would think twice before starting a nuclear war, since they would realise if they use their nuclear weapons then the other country they bombed would want to use their own nuclear weapons as well.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 9:49am:


Yeah, i get that, but that doesn't mean that the so-called unstable government doesn't have a right to develop the nuclear weapons in order to ensure their army is operating effectively.

Nuclear weapons shouldn't have been developed in the first place.

[quote author=sense(Guest) link=1172539429/15#22 date=1172621010]Tamil Muslin issue here:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2070817.stm

Its clear - you hate the US and love Muslims. So, the US is "sick" for creating nuclear weapons. Of course the Germans and Japanese would never attempt such a dirty trick.[/quote]


u obviously missed this part of the article, when it says "Tamil Muslims from the northern province were forcibly evicted by Tamil Tigers". As i mentioned before, the Tamil Tigers are a secular movement, and they are the main force fighting the Sri Lankan government for an independent Tamil state in the north of Sri Lanka.

Again, i didn't say i love muslims, i just don't think they are a threat. and yes, the US was sick for developing & using nuclear weapons, don't u realise that over 100,000 innocent civilans died in Hiroshima? Or do u not care since Japense blood is cheap? Even if the Germans or Japanese were evil and did dirty tricks that still doesn't justify killing their civilians.
 

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 10:13am:


i didn't say possessing nuclear weapons is a fundamental human right.

what i did say was that any country, regardless of ethnic or religious background, has a right to maintain an effective military and this can only be achieved by keeping up-to-date with latest military technologies (including nuclear weapons).

nuclear weapons shouldn't have been developed to begin with, but they have, we can't change the past. and the solution isn't for nuclear nations to disarm, since even if they did the science around nuclear weapons would still exist and nuclear weapons can still be re-made.

and u mentioned the right of other world citizens not to live in fear, yes i agree that is a right, but there is nothing we can do about it now since nuclear weapons are hear to stay. and nations that aren't allies of nuclear nations will be living in fear anyway since they could be bombed.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 10:33am:


Not really, the world would be a safer place if nuclear weapons didn't exist at all. but that's not going to happen.

To limit nuclear weapons to a few countries it means that those nations can do what ever they want (i.e. they are above the law) and they won't be challenged since they have the nukes. Anyone that does challenge them will have their cities and civilians destroyed, literally.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 10:48am:


that only works if the nuclear nations (i.e. US, Russia, China, France, etc) all disagree on a course of actions regarding a smaller country, for example Russia & China oppose any military action in Iran, whereas the US feel military action is necessary. so in this case, Russia & China keep the US in check. 

however, what if they all agree? what then? say for example all nuclear nations agree on the need to invade Iran. what's to stop any of them from using nuclear weapons? and please don't say the UN, since they have absolutely no power whatsoever.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 11:08am:


If Iran had nuclear weapons, it probably wouldn't stop the nuclear nations from invading it, but it would make them think twice before they decide to launch a nuclear weapon.

Chances are, they would be reluctant to use them knowing that Iran would probably return the favour.

Gavin - have a little honesty. Admit that you actually want Iran to have nuclear weapons and to use them to exterminate Israel without fear of attack from the US/Russia or anyone.
Anyway, your responses have proved my original point. Muslims will succeed in taking over the world because there are people like you who will not support efforts to stop them.

Quote:


Like i mentioned before any country, regardless of ethnic or religious background, has a right to maintain an effective military and that can only be achieved by keeping up-to-date with the latest military technologies (including nuclear weapons).

i would stop muslims when they become a threat. but at the moment they aren't a threat, i would begin to worry when they restore the Islamic state that stretched from Spain to India about 800 or so years ago. currently, their too divided and dysfunctional to be called a threat.

sense, why don't u join? rather than always posting as a guest.

It is  a directive of the koran to "make islam the dominany religion over all religions."

"moderates" are insignificant. They do nothing. "extremists" push any belief or movement.
Is means nothing that "only a few" are extremists.  The moderates won't stop them.
The extremists are following the koran correctly.
Hilali , iraq are perfect examples.

Extremists harm any religion. It is the moderates who actually spread it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 14^th, 2007 at 10:33am:


just like all extremists, they spread violence.

look at the extremist hindus in india that target christian missionaries.

look at the extremist christians in the US that bomb abortion clinics and gay nightclubs.

all extremists are bad.

obviously ur christian, so of course ur going to say that the christian terrorists were not properly following christian teachings. but i'm pretty sure if i went to an extremist christian, they would say they have the correct interpretation and that ur interpretation is wrong. and i pretty sure if i asked a muslim about muslim terrorists, they would probably reply "they were following our teachings properly".

and it doesn't matter if extremist clashes are isolated, the point is violent extremists exist in all faiths.

You're right guest, I'm a christian.
I also pretty much agree with everything else you say too.

There are many many quotes in the koran extolling them toward martyrdom.
Is also what hilali supported.

I can't really think of any in the bible that suport that sort of action. We also don't murder those that want to stop being christians, or give death threats to those that mock us.

My point is, koran promotes violent extremism, as did mohammds action.
The Bible does not, as did Jesus actions show.

Take care

the church decided it was better to love everyone as was originally intended than to pusish those who do wrong. Its not the church's place to punish, they got lost along the way there.

an abortionist who is a murderer is better loved than murdered, it is only through love that we will ever change anyone.

Quote:


My dear Auzgurl. Moslems will take over this country in their own way like Jews rule North America.

Namerica is the Promised Land of Jews.
Australia is the Promised Land of Moslems.
...just so Christians can get their Holy Land and Holy City back.