PDA

View Full Version : The failed Muslim states to come



ShimonG
12-15-2008, 04:12 PM
The failed Muslim states to come
By Spengler
Dec 16, 2008


.........Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad controls Iran through a kleptocracy of Central African proportions, dissipating the country's oil windfall into payoffs to an "entire class of hangers-on of the Islamic revolution", as I wrote in June (see Worst of times for Iran, Asia Times Online, June 24, 2008), when oil still sold at US$135 a barrel. What will Ahmadinejad do now that the oil price has collapsed? According to my Iranian sources, the answer is: Exactly the same thing, but without the money. [1]

The point of the joke is that Iran's regime cannot reduce subsidies or raise taxes without losing control of the constituencies that brought it to power. They are the peasants and the urban poor who barely afford shelter and food as matters stand. Despite the oil-price collapse, the government has not reduced energy subsidies that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts at more than a fifth of gross domestic product (GDP). A proposed value-added tax was withdrawn last October after strikes in the bazaars, starting in Isfahan and other provincial towns and spreading to the capital Tehran. Iran is eating through its $60 billion of foreign exchange reserves, unable to adjust to a collapse of its only significant revenue source.

Iran must break down, I argued last June, or break out, through a military adventure. The sand is slipping out of the hour glass, and the regime must decide what to do within a few months. If it does nothing, the default position, as it were, is Pakistan.

Iran's Ahmadinejad rules through massive subsidies. Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari does the same thing, but without the money. Pakistan ran out of foreign exchange reserves in November and obtained emergency financing from the IMF. Its current account deficit was running at an alarming 14% of GDP, or about $20 billion a year, a small sum, but an important one for a country two-thirds of whose 175 million people subsist on less than $2 a day.

Pakistan received just $7.6 billion from the IMF, covering a third of its current account deficit, which means that imports must be reduced drastically (although lower oil prices may help a bit). Inflation is running at 25% a year.

Pakistan has one of the world's youngest populations and an enormous capital requirement. Young people borrow from old people, and countries with young populations should import capital from countries with aging populations. That is out of the question, for the world markets have turned Pakistan into a pariah. The cost of credit protection on Pakistani sovereign debt is now more than 3,000 points (or 30%) above the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), reflecting a complete shutout from capital markets.

...........most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, where investors pay 1,000 basis points (10 percentage points) above LIBOR for five-year credit protection.

Pakistan was at least able to raise a modicum of official support. What will Iran do if its reserves run out? The same thing as Pakistan, but without the money, for Iran is a geopolitical pariah without access to official aid.

The Muslim risk premium has become so pervasive that investors are looking cross-eyed at Saudi Arabia. The cost of credit protection on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has jumped since August, and now is considerably higher than Israel's.

.......Israel credit protection trades at 185 basis points above LIBOR, about the same as Italy, while Saudi Arabia is at 236 basis points. Considering the kingdom's resources, that must be interpreted as a political risk premium.

Turkey has been able to keep afloat through the crisis, but barely so. The Turkish currency has fallen by a third, its stock market has fallen by nearly 80% in dollar terms, and the central bank must keep interest rates at a punishing 20% to prevent money from fleeing the country. Turkey has a real economy with a few first-rate manufacturing companies, unlike Iran and Pakistan, so the comparison is not quite fair. Nonetheless, Turkey relied heavily on short-term interbank borrowings to finance its balance of trade deficit, and the crisis has pulled the carpet out from under its economy. In August, before the crisis erupted in force, Turkey had 10% unemployment. It will get much worse.

A final note: several readers have asked me to comment on the terror attack on Mumbai in November. I will do so with great caution, given the absence of accurate information. I have good reason to believe that the Indian authorities lied about the attack. India claimed that 10 shooters were involved, because nine were killed and one captured. The actual number is closer to 30, I am reliably informed, not counting support personnel in Mumbai who arranged safe houses with extra ammunition and explosives months in advance of the attack. It was not a suicide attack at all, but a new kind of urban terror assault, in which the participants had a reasonable expectation of survival, and the majority did in fact survive. That is an important wrinkle, for a better class of combatant can be recruited for missions in which survival is at least possible.

No analyst I know has answered with confidence the question, cui bono? To whose benefit was the attack? It has been suggested that al-Qaeda diverted a Pakistani military intelligence team from Kashmir to Mumbai, in a demonstration of power against India. But there may be another dimension. The Mumbai attack has been a test of a different kind of warfare, the kind that emanates from failed states: the tactics of the Somali pirates applied to random destruction of civilian lives.

The lights are going out across the Middle East; states are failing, and it is not in the power of the West to make them whole again. All the strategic calculations that busied policy analysts and diplomats are changing, and the West has a very short time to learn the rules of a new and terrible game.



(ShimonG: Note the following: The inflatable rafts could have carried much more than ten people. Also, if there were more attackers, then these have vanished. THE ONLY PLACE THEY COULD HAVE VANISHED IS AMID THE LOCAL ISLAM POPULATION. THE CURRENT CONGRESS REGIME IN INDIA IS A SHAMELESS PANDERER TO ISLAMIC CAUSES. THEY KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE A HUGE BACKLASH AND LOSS OF ISLAMIC VOTES, IF THE GOI WERE TO MAKE THE NEWS PUBLIC THAT MORE OF THESE TERRORISTS ARE AT LARGE, HIDING AMONG INDIAN MOSLEMS.)

Steven
12-15-2008, 05:01 PM
India is an example for the rest of the world not to follow.

ShimonG
12-15-2008, 06:19 PM
India is an example for the rest of the world not to follow.

True. But lets not judge the victims too harshly. Gandi and his cabal had every chance to boot every single moslem out india. Lest the taqqiya go nuts, remember that paki nation was founded as an islamic republic for un-partitioned moslems of india. Then why the heck did not all of them go to pak-stan? Pakisatan promply went on a genocidal rampage, for which ample evidence/support can be found in islamic religious texts and in the acts of its one prophet, to wipe out all hindus/sikhs/buddhists from pakisatan. Banglidesh (sp?) is doing the same, and its hindu/buddhist population there is now half what it was in the 1940's. Only in india has the moslem popn surged from 8 to now 15%. These are now like a freakin stone around india's neck. secularism is great and all that, but not at the cost of survival. And that is what every indian is learning with every new islam terror attacks against the hindus of india.

The pols are among the most corrupt on the planet and would sell the mothers to stay in power. the islamic vote that tends to vote en masse is crucial to congress staying in power as well as the continued fractured nature of the hindu vote, especially the liberal hindu who still idiotically believes that an accomodation can be reached with islams hordes in india.

andak01
12-16-2008, 03:37 AM
Boot them out, as in ethnically cleanse??? Kill them if they don't leave? 147 million people? You have the timerity to call me a liar and you advocate the ethnic cleansing of India while pretending to be the voice of respectability? This is pitiful. What a lousy hypocrite. How many Jews you claim were forced out of the entire middle east? And you want to do over a hundred times worse to the Muslims? That's who you are, and you claim (which is a lie) that I advocate the slitting of a couple of throats. How many throats are involved when force moving 147 million people???

Show me where I ever faulted someone for not ethnically cleansing 147 million people.

Mediocrates
12-16-2008, 05:35 AM
India and Pakistan DID attempt to separate from one another ethnically. That's why India, Pakistan and Bangladesh exist. Of course it also resulted in the deaths of 10 million people. Learning not to exterminate one another is usually the better option.

andak01
12-16-2008, 05:39 AM
India and Pakistan DID attempt to separate from one another ethnically. That's why India, Pakistan and Bangladesh exist. Of course it also resulted in the deaths of 10 million people. Learning not to exterminate one another is usually the better option.

One of the saddest mistakes in history. Diversity is the only way to achieve progress in the world. No society can become great without it.

Steven
12-16-2008, 07:09 AM
Diversity is the only way to achieve progress in the world. No society can become great without it.



When diversity includes Muslims, it only hurts society. Europe is proof of that.

ShimonG
12-16-2008, 05:23 PM
India and Pakistan DID attempt to separate from one another ethnically. That's why India, Pakistan and Bangladesh exist. Of course it also resulted in the deaths of 10 million people. Learning not to exterminate one another is usually the better option.


Oh really. Then please explain how porkistan, which had about 8-10% hindus and buddhists (some cities like Lahore were almost 50% hindus/sikhs), HAVE VIRTUALLY NO HINDUS AND BUDDHISTS TODAY. THEIR COMBINED POPULATION IS LESS THAN 0.1%. IN BANGADESH, THE % OF HINDUS/SIKHS ETC HAS GONE DOWN FROM 8-10% TO ABOUT 4% TODAY.

IN INDIA, THE MOSLEMS HAVE EXPLODED FROM ABOUT 8% TO 15%, WITH MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL BANGLADESHIS AND PAKIS IN INDIA.

So, let me get this straight. according to you, islam has the right to wipe out its non-islamic minorities, while non-islamic majorities CANNOT return the favor. That would be intolerant.

Is there no depth to which your dhimmitude will sink? As a jew, i expected more sense.

PS. Do we hear any condemnation of islamic states for wiping out their non-islamic minorities?? And pray tell, why cant the victims STRIKE BACK IN EQUAL MEASURE??

andak01
12-17-2008, 02:24 AM
When diversity includes Muslims, it only hurts society. Europe is proof of that.

Is that why Europeans adopted a number system that was brought from India by the Arabs?

andak01
12-17-2008, 02:26 AM
So, let me get this straight. according to you, islam has the right to wipe out its non-islamic minorities, while non-islamic majorities CANNOT return the favor. That would be intolerant.

I must have missed that one. Did Mediocrates actually say that? Or are you being hysterical again?

Steven
12-17-2008, 03:24 AM
Is that why Europeans adopted a number system that was brought from India by the Arabs?

The past does not change all the problems that Muslims are causing now, does it? More and more Europeans are speaking out against Muslim immigration.

andak01
12-17-2008, 03:33 AM
The past does not change all the problems that Muslims are causing now, does it? More and more Europeans are speaking out against Muslim immigration.

The past is an undeniable truth that things can be better. If you say things are getting worse then they were better in the past. Something has changed and if we identify the changes honestly, there are constructive things to do about it.

Steven
12-17-2008, 03:34 AM
The past is an undeniable truth that things can be better. If you say things are getting worse then they were better in the past. Something has changed and if we identify the changes honestly, there are constructive things to do about it.

Wrong, in the past there were no nukes. Let the Muslims keep the hate in Islamic countries.

There were plenty of bad time in Europe with Islam in the past also, so don't even begin to imply what is happening today is a new event.

So when will you do something constructive and start some protests in front of the Saudi Embassy?

andak01
12-18-2008, 03:19 AM
Wrong, in the past there were no nukes. Let the Muslims keep the hate in Islamic countries.

Who invented nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims? By what ratio?
Who owns more nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims?
Who used more nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims?
Who seeks new ways to use nukes in conventional warfare? Muslims or non-Muslims?
Who killed more civilians by using nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims? How many civilians was that?

Toadstool46
12-18-2008, 04:57 AM
Who has the compassion, integrity, morallity, logic, understanding of possible destrution, empathy, maturity, responsiblity, obedience to the human race, diplomacy, level of civilized behaviour to have control of operational nuclear arms???? Not the radical Islamic people of Iran or anyone dealing with them.

They are like 6 year olds with a stick of dynamite.

Madeline
12-18-2008, 05:25 AM
Boot them out, as in ethnically cleanse??? Kill them if they don't leave? 147 million people? You have the timerity to call me a liar and you advocate the ethnic cleansing of India while pretending to be the voice of respectability? This is pitiful. What a lousy hypocrite. How many Jews you claim were forced out of the entire middle east? And you want to do over a hundred times worse to the Muslims? That's who you are, and you claim (which is a lie) that I advocate the slitting of a couple of throats. How many throats are involved when force moving 147 million people???

Show me where I ever faulted someone for not ethnically cleansing 147 million people.
Where do you get kill from booting out? You call others liars? Shame on you. Isn't it your religious Ideology that calls for the killing of Infidels in the name of Allah?

"One of the saddest mistakes in history. Diversity is the only way to achieve progress in the world. No society can become great without it."

Diluting a Nation with those who do not belong, who do not want to assimilate will bring "greatness"? Please elaborate


"Who invented nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims? By what ratio?
Who owns more nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims?
Who used more nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims?
Who seeks new ways to use nukes in conventional warfare? Muslims or non-Muslims?
Who killed more civilians by using nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims? How many civilians was that?"
Wow, what a profound statement. Are you sure you want to go there? Muslims, living in the stone age for the most part have thus far relied on non-Muslims to invent, progress, make advances. Now that these inventions are there for them to use at their leisure, and radical mad men seeks to use them post haste, you want to make comparisons as to who will take full advantage of them? Mad men from the ME will certainly be best in charge of a few of these evil WMD's. How much are you willing to bet on your assumption that Muslims will not "seek new ways to use nukes in conventional warfare"?

I assume that you mean well. But your misplaced loyalty gives me pause indeed.

Mil
12-18-2008, 07:39 AM
Posted by Andak01:

Who invented nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims? By what ratio?

Boar split the atom, Einstein described theory of relativity, Oppenheimer lead the project... you know... the joos and by a large ratio.

Who owns more nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims?

Non Muslims. But then again it's a matter of reference.... In France there are 5 million Muslims, in Russia over 30 million, in Britain a few million, in US about 10 million
- thus you can say enough Muslims own nukes. Even Israel has over 1.5 million Muslims.

Who used more nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims?

Muslim states didn't have nukes back in 1945. See above.

Who seeks new ways to use nukes in conventional warfare? Muslims or non-Muslims?

Whoever owns nukes seeks new ways to use nukes in conventional warfare. Pakistan and India are no exception. They would be stupid not to.

Who killed more civilians by using nukes? Muslims or non-Muslims?

Like it was said - Muslims states did not have nukes back in 1945. My Grand-daddy liberated Yugoslavia back in 1944-1945.... he told me
what Muslim Bosnian did to Serbs and Jews. He did not see such a blood bath anywhere else.... Sudan, Partition of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh
took millions of lives.... Armenian genocide.... Algerian civil War... War in Yemen (Egypt first to use conventional gases since WWI)... Iran/Iraq war.

How many civilians was that?

A lot less then during the rape of Nanjing.


The problem here is not nukes but that nukes is a tremendous responsibility - not only military but mainly political. Why does Iran need nukes and invest into a nuke program when they have SO many other things they can invest their money into and when there are absolutely no country that is threatening it?

andak01
12-18-2008, 08:51 AM
Where do you get kill from booting out? You call others liars? Shame on you. Isn't it your religious Ideology that calls for the killing of Infidels in the name of Allah?


Not unless said infidel is headed to kill me, no it isn't.


"One of the saddest mistakes in history. Diversity is the only way to achieve progress in the world. No society can become great without it."

Diluting a Nation with those who do not belong, who do not want to assimilate will bring "greatness"? Please elaborate


We diluted this country with Amish and Mormons and Orthodox Jews, etc. It is rich and great precisely because it's a melting pot and every generation of Americans there are naysayers who claim that the newest group is going to be the end.



Wow, what a profound statement. Are you sure you want to go there? Muslims, living in the stone age for the most part have thus far relied on non-Muslims to invent, progress, make advances.


Are you sure you want to go there? That your claim to progress involves developing and using the cheapest possible way of killing the most people in the most horrible way possible?



Now that these inventions are there for them to use at their leisure, and radical mad men seeks to use them post haste, you want to make comparisons as to who will take full advantage of them? Mad men from the ME will certainly be best in charge of a few of these evil WMD's. How much are you willing to bet on your assumption that Muslims will not "seek new ways to use nukes in conventional warfare"?


The evil WMDs like the ones that we own? The evil WMDs that we daily threaten them with? The evil WMDs that we've made clear are the difference between being invaded and not? How long do you think it would have taken us to invade Pakistan if they didn't have WMDs?


I assume that you mean well. But your misplaced loyalty gives me pause indeed.

It's not that I'm loyal at all (to Arab causes), but faulty comparisons that go unchallenged make me cringe. My ancestors wiped out so many Indian tribes that we don't even today know the names of all of them. Now I'm being told that Muhammad (SAW) was the most violent man who ever lived and every Muslim is guided by nothing but violence. Muhammad (SAW) wasn't the most violent man even in his generation or in his part of the world.

Steven
12-18-2008, 09:44 AM
Not unless said infidel is headed to kill me, no it isn't.


Wrong as usual. You were already exposed when verse 5 32 was posted. So when do you get of the forum and go tell the Middle East that they got it all wrong? Ayatollah Khomeini

Khomeini accordingly delivered notorious rebuke to the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
I doubt very much that you the American convert knows more about Islam than him. Please spare us the well he is a Shitte, because your Sunni brothers spew even more hatred towards non-Muslims.


We diluted this country with Amish and Mormons and Orthodox Jews, etc. It is rich and great precisely because it's a melting pot and every generation of Americans there are naysayers who claim that the newest group is going to be the end.

No other group is looking to impose a set a barbaric laws on the world. Those other groups and not looking to nuke America. Your all is equal con is not the reality.

Are you sure you want to go there? That your claim to progress involves developing and using the cheapest possible way of killing the most people in the most horrible way possible?

Yes lets go there, as a whole the Islamic world is a joke and a failure.

The evil WMDs like the ones that we own? The evil WMDs that we daily threaten them with? The evil WMDs that we've made clear are the difference between being invaded and not? How long do you think it would have taken us to invade Pakistan if they didn't have WMDs?

We need to build more of them and hopefully China will get fed up and go in and take out the trash in Pakistan

It's not that I'm loyal at all (to Arab causes), but faulty comparisons that go unchallenged make me cringe. My ancestors wiped out so many Indian tribes that we don't even today know the names of all of them. Now I'm being told that Muhammad (SAW) was the most violent man who ever lived and every Muslim is guided by nothing but violence. Muhammad (SAW) wasn't the most violent man even in his generation or in his part of the world.

No one here said that all Muslims are violent, so stop making things up. But that is all you can do. Muslims of today are still following Mohammad example. But you spend your entire life here doing nothing about it. Here is a clue, people are concerned with today.

andak01
12-18-2008, 10:12 AM
You're gonna use Khomeini quotes to lecture to a Sunni moderate??? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Mil
12-18-2008, 10:21 AM
Posted by Andak01:

It's not that I'm loyal at all (to Arab causes), but faulty comparisons that go unchallenged make me cringe.

We already heard your particular thoughts on this before.

My ancestors wiped out so many Indian tribes that we don't even today know the names of all of them.

:) And how many tribes did the Arabs wipe out?

Now I'm being told that Muhammad (SAW) was the most violent man who ever lived and every Muslim is guided by nothing but violence. Muhammad (SAW) wasn't the most violent man even in his generation or in his part of the world.

Islam was spread by the sword - that's a know fact. Lots of conquest and murder was done in the name of Islam. With your moral values you should have become an atheist - I am not sure why you chose Islam. though atheists also killed quite a few people.... may be you should have taken Judaism since we are the most innocent of all of you people.

Mil
12-18-2008, 10:23 AM
You're gonna use Khomeini quotes to lecture to a Sunni moderate???

You consider yourself a Sunni moderate.... right? So what's up with all that Shia stuff? My local Pakistani acquaintance once told me that all troubles in the world come from the crazy Shia dogs.

Steven
12-18-2008, 10:38 AM
You're gonna use Khomeini quotes to lecture to a Sunni moderate??? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

You fell right into it.:rofl:

The hate preaching Saudis are Sunnis.

Of course you ingored the rest. Keep trying as more of the board exposes you everyday.

ShimonG
12-18-2008, 12:49 PM
Islamic taqqiya has one purpose. To delay or stop the reaction of the victims of islam's terror until a point where islam can wipe out the kaffir. nowhere is this more clear than in this thread.

islam wiped out hindus in pakisatan. islam is in the process of wiping out hindus in bdesh. To restrain a proportionate hindu response, islam taqqiya is working overtime to spread its venomous lies.

First deny that it happened. Then accuse the victim of wanting to commit genocide.

Then if pressed with proof claim that the kaffirs voluntarily left for "economic" reasons.

Then claim victimhood. Claim that King David did the same. Repeat ad nauseam.

We have seen this time and again, and in this venomous task, islam taqqiya is ably supported by some of our own dhimmified liberals. Idiots who keep believing in a moderate islam. moderate islam is as much a reality as moderate nazi, moderate taliban or moderate commie.

:vomit: