I was just thinking (now be careful about responding to that statement--I am still a Moderator!) about the protests sweeping through so many countries. Is this an unprecedented situation, or is just an escalation of a normal situation that has gotten the media attention. The big ones are the Muslim countries, but there seems to be a few problems in Africa as well.

As many of these countries face internal problems, do the western countries face less of a threat from terrorism in the short term? Long term?

What are the underlying factors causing the problems? It certainly more than politics.

Just interested in your thoughts.

As many of these countries face internal problems, do the western countries face less of a threat from terrorism in the short term? Long term?

It could just be jumbling up the players. Some threats might no longer be threats and some allies might no longer be allies. Overall probably a good thing.

From the opening post...

"What are the underlying factors causing the problems? It certainly more than politics."

I think you will find the Islamic religion will eventually turn out to be the benefactor from the problems in the Middle East.

Middle of the road monarchies and moderate governments will fall and more Islamic republics will rise in their absence.

What many choose not to remember is...the real goal of Islam is world domination and Islamic radicals are pledged to attain that goal at any expense.

Certainly not unprecedented. In our lifetimes we saw the same thing as Warsaw Pact nations and the USSR fell one by one. Some countries evolved into more enlightened democracies. Some picked up old hatreds that had been held in abeyance for a number of decades. I imagine the same type of thing will occur in the Arab/N. African states. It's an exciting, if uncertain and volatile time, but when was it ever not?

From the opening post...

"What are the underlying factors causing the problems? It certainly more than politics."

I think you will find the Islamic religion will eventually turn out to be the benefactor from the problems in the Middle East.

Middle of the road monarchies and moderate governments will fall and more Islamic republics will rise in their absence.

What many choose not to remember is...the real goal of Islam is world domination and Islamic radicals are pledged to attain that goal at any expense.

"Benefactor from"? I suggest a benefactor is one who gives, not recieves. Did you mean beneficiary? They are practically opposites.

"The real goal of Islam is world domination"? I suggest you are completely wrong. Where in the Q'uran does it say that Muslims must dominate the world?

Even your statement about Islamic radicals is wrong when we consider what "world domination" means.

As one who has often tried to correct me in my spelling, I find your word usage very disappointing.

As one who tries to appear to know so much about Islam, I find your xenophobic sensationalism disturbing.

And so the discussion turns into a flamefest after just 5 posts!

I don't want to get in the middle of an argument, but I believe the Quoran talks about getting rid of infidels and allows for a suspension of some of the rules for those defending the faith. Not exactly the same as world domination, but eliminating the competition will ultimately have the same result, I would think.

It's not really what the Quoran says or doesn't say, but how people interpret it and what they believe it means.

I think we have a number of threads discussing religion and the current situation in the Islamic countries seems to be political/social rather than religious.

Have to agree with Scott, it appears most are politically/social in origin. With the number of religious fanatics out there and the past records of some of them, if religion was the basis, the protests would probably be a bloodbath.

I do wonder about what/who would/could set protests in motion in so many countries at the same time.As mentioned, it is a interesting time. It would be a change if some moderate, honest, peace committed individuals were found to head the various countries where the protests are taking place. Guess the same could be hoped for the majority of the other countries of the world.

What are the underlying factors causing the problems? It certainly more than politics.

the main reason in these countries is that 5% of the population own 95% and 95% of the population own 5%.

but I believe the Quoran talks about getting rid of infidels and allows for a suspension of some of the rules for those defending the faith

politically and according to the mainstream media correct but actually a wrong belief Scott!

What are the underlying factors causing the problems? It certainly more than politics.

the main reason in these countries is that 5% of the population own 95% and 95% of the population own 5%.

Is redistribution the solution? Has it ever worked?

I won't argue the Quoran with you Naam, because I have never read it, but I did live for 3 years in Iraq with only a local Iraqi staff--so my remarks are based on the sorts of stuff they told me. I also dealt with Iranian opposition groups that were located across the border in Iraq. Their interpretation of what they could do in the name of Allah was even more severe.

The current situation though is social/political it seems. The 95% of resources controlled by 5% of the population sounds like a good formula for problems. Isn't that roughly the breakdown of wealth in Thailand?

And so the discussion turns into a flamefest after just 5 posts!

Not to worry, Koheesti.

I haven't responded to any of his posts in a couple of months. Not really worth the effort.

From the opening post...

"What are the underlying factors causing the problems? It certainly more than politics."

I think you will find the Islamic religion will eventually turn out to be the benefactor from the problems in the Middle East.

Middle of the road monarchies and moderate governments will fall and more Islamic republics will rise in their absence.

What many choose not to remember is...the real goal of Islam is world domination and Islamic radicals are pledged to attain that goal at any expense.

"Benefactor from"? I suggest a benefactor is one who gives, not recieves. Did you mean beneficiary? They are practically opposites.

"The real goal of Islam is world domination"? I suggest you are completely wrong. Where in the Q'uran does it say that Muslims must dominate the world?

Even your statement about Islamic radicals is wrong when we consider what "world domination" means.

As one who has often tried to correct me in my spelling, I find your word usage very disappointing.

As one who tries to appear to know so much about Islam, I find your xenophobic sensationalism disturbing.

Always subject to interpretation of course, but I do believe that the Q'uran states something to the effect that the religions of the world that are not "the one true religion" should be conquered. Make of that what you will. Rational people might suggest that was an awfully long time ago and different conditions existed. Irrational people (of all religions) take their religious texts a bit too literally IMO.

Anyhow, I hope what might be an excellent thread doesn't get derailed by religion, which could be its own separate thread.

Maybe if the west had spent the past fifty years encouraging countries in the Middle East and North Africa to move to a form of democracy that suited each country rather than supporting thugs like Mubarak and Pahlavi in order to maintain 'stability' then the instability that we see now wouldn't be happening. The uprising in Tunisia and Egypt have been about unemployment and poor prospects. People there are getting pissed off with being treated like cattle. They want the same rights as we have in the west. Unfortunately our support of their leaders has denied them those rights. It's notable that in the present troubles there's been no burning of the US flag presumably because the US hasn't overtly interfered. That's a good policy for the US (and the west in general) to follow. Keep out of other people's business.

it's all screwed up. but nothing that a couple of nulear bombs wouldn't cure.

The discussion is NOT about the Q'uoran. Off-topic comments removed. A lot of them. There are threads specifically about the Q'uoran.

The discussion is NOT about the Q'uoran. Off-topic comments removed. A lot of them. There are threads specifically about the Q'uoran.

But......you left some in & You are the one who introduced the question of it into the thread? Didn't you?

I don't want to get in the middle of an argument, but I believe the Quoran talks about getting rid of infidels and allows for a suspension of some of the rules for those defending the faith. Not exactly the same as world domination, but eliminating the competition will ultimately have the same result, I would think.

I won't argue the Quoran with you Naam, because I have never read it, but I did live for 3 years in Iraq with only a local Iraqi staff--so my remarks are based on the sorts of stuff they told me. I also dealt with Iranian opposition groups that were located across the border in Iraq. Their interpretation of what they could do in the name of Allah was even more severe.

The current situation though is social/political it seems. The 95% of resources controlled by 5% of the population sounds like a good formula for problems. Isn't that roughly the breakdown of wealth in Thailand?

don't forget you were dealing with people Scott, most probably the Iraqis (definitely the Iranians) were Shias. but you mentioned the Qr'an

quote: "I believe the Quoran talks about getting rid of infidels..."

and i referred to the Qr'an in my answer. what i forgot is to mention that each and everything has to be interpreted in context.

as far as Thailand is concerned... even though i have visited Thailand numerous times and live here full time since six years i don't have enough information to make valid comments. perhaps i would have gained more indepth knowledge if i had a thai wife and thai in-laws during these 31 years i am married. but that is not the case.

I recall that early on in the Tunisia uprising, there was some mention of food shortages. The news then moved on to the riots and away from any causes. In Egypt, there was talk about high unemployment and rising prices. I am not sure what common threads are running through these situations or how far it will spread.

In Thailand I know that the control of wealth is 90ish% controlled by 10ish% of the population--at least a few short years ago.

Unfortunately, my information came mostly from television and frankly, the journalists were busy telling us how they were under attack and information was largely absent.

Following is what the Grand Ayatollah of Iran believes. Of course he also blames the US.

______________________________________________________

He reiterated that the Arab revolts were "Islamic" and must be consolidated.

"The enemies try to say that the popular movements in Egypt, Tunisia and other nations are un-Islamic, but certainly these popular movements are Islamic and must be consolidated," he said.

Khamenei also urged that "the conspiracy of enemies to create differences between Sunnis and Shiites" be confronted.

On February 4, in his Friday prayer sermon, Khamenei called for an Islamic regime to be installed in Egypt, a week before that country's strongman Hosni Mubarak was ousted.

http://www.thenewage.co.za/10953-1020-53-US_must_be_removed_from_Islamic_world_Khamenei

"Benefactor from"? I suggest a benefactor is one who gives, not recieves. Did you mean beneficiary? They are practically opposites.

Rather than 'the benefactor' just insert 'benefit' or, as you suggested, 'the beneficiary.

We all knew what he meant.

"Anyhow, I hope what might be an excellent thread doesn't get derailed by religion, which could be its own separate thread."

Fully agree.

This is from the thread on Palm oil, but sort of fits here:

"Souring prices of basic food ingredients like cooking oil, sugar, flour, etc. are the trigger for what's happening in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco and at least 20 more countries to follow. Plain greed and shortsightedness are the reasons that even in Thailand, with the best conditions to produce food, we can expect huge trouble over food prices!"

"Benefactor from"? I suggest a benefactor is one who gives, not recieves. Did you mean beneficiary? They are practically opposites.

Rather than 'the benefactor' just insert 'benefit' or, as you suggested, 'the beneficiary.

We all knew what he meant.

Thanks, Mr. Bear.

I realized about an hour after making the post that I had used the wrong word. By then it was too late to edit so I promptly forgot it.

"Benefactor from"? I suggest a benefactor is one who gives, not recieves. Did you mean beneficiary? They are practically opposites.

Rather than 'the benefactor' just insert 'benefit' or, as you suggested, 'the beneficiary.

We all knew what he meant.

Thanks, Mr. Bear.

I realized about an hour after making the post that I had used the wrong word. By then it was too late to edit so I promptly forgot it.

"Benefactor from"? I suggest a benefactor is one who gives, not recieves. Did you mean beneficiary? They are practically opposites.

Rather than 'the benefactor' just insert 'benefit' or, as you suggested, 'the beneficiary.

We all knew what he meant.

Perhaps, but our chucky has seemed very fond of his role as spelling and vocabulary constable, and although I ignore most of his mistakes, it would do him good to be on the receiving end now and then.....just to remind him that everyone makes mistakes (although not as quite so glaring as that one ).

What are the underlying factors causing the problems? It certainly more than politics.

the main reason in these countries is that 5% of the population own 95% and 95% of the population own 5%.

And when everything has settled down there will still be 5% of the population owning 95% of the wealth - just a different 5%

What are the underlying factors causing the problems? It certainly more than politics.

the main reason in these countries is that 5% of the population own 95% and 95% of the population own 5%.

And when everything has settled down there will still be 5% of the population owning 95% of the wealth - just a different 5%

yep.

There's a great risk of that, but there is no natural law that says it will happen.