General discussion

Locked

Is Islam imploding just as the USSR did?

By jardinier ·
I lifted this link from the "Holocaust Denial" thread.

Irshad Manji:The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change (Random House) or her website http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

We know that there is a general move back to fundamentalism in parts of the Muslim world, paralled by a strong move back to fundamentalism in parts of the Christian world -- especially the USA.

An excerpt from a review in canada.com says the author is "striving to explore a culture and civilization whose inward collapse has given rise to a militant creed at war with the modern world."

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/nationalpost-05-10-20.html

So, is it possible that Islam will self-destruct before it does major damage to the rest of the world?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

79 total posts (Page 3 of 8)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Like I said. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to The report

I don't doubt it one bit.

Collapse -

I posted it for me, not for you

by neilb@uk In reply to Like I said. . . . .
Collapse -

The UInited States Space Program

by maxwell edison In reply to Over a barrel?

.
We humans are curious creatures, always poking our noses into corners of our world and places where we've never been. What's on the other side of that ocean, people were asking a mere six hundred years ago?

We occupy such a small area of the universe; it's human nature to wonder what's beyond; and it's human curiosity and a desire to learn and grow that compels us to go forth and find out. It's pretty much the way it's always been, and probably the way it will always be.

Christopher Columbus (or whomever) discovered America (or whatever) in (or before) 1492. It would be a couple of hundred more years before it became more common to travel across that ocean. And although the vessels of 1492 were "scrapped and pretty useless" by the 17th century, it doesn't mean they didn't serve their vital purpose.

If 1492 might be compared to 1969, then today, 2006, could be compared to 1529. So you'll have to fast-forward 163 more years to see the real impact those Apollo missions might have had. If nothing else, they were the start, just like the Ni?a, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. (Did you know, by the way, that many business plans in Japan are forward looking 300 or more years?)

Moreover, lets consider the items and technology the space program has created and/or made possible for non-space uses.

The microwave oven.
Cell phones.
Satellite television.
Weather monitoring and predicting.
Medical Technology.
Fire resistant garb for fire fighters.
Cordless tools.
Graphite shaft golf clubs. (Had to throw that one in.)
And Howard Stern still has a job!

I could go on and on without even thinking too hard about it. With research, however, the list could grow into the hundreds -- or thousands.

And for Pete's sake, Neil. How would we ever had discovered that hole in the ozone layer, and confirmed global warming without the space program? Geesh, get a grip, man. The space program will save us from the global warming catastrophe! (By the way, who in the **** is Pete?)

Collapse -

As I stated, I'm a space techno-junkie

by neilb@uk In reply to The UInited States Space ...

Had we had scientists driving the push into space rather that the arbitrary whims of a politician out to put one over on the Russians, we would have had all of your list and considerably more besides. And it would have paid for itself.

I'm now going to go into lecture mode - because I want to and because I can.

The correct way to reach the Moon is from a permanent platform in high earth orbit. First build your space station - and put it higher than it is now. You do have to develop reusable spacecraft to do it properly - Scramjets are good but their development in the 1960's - they were the next logical step after the Bell X-1 - was very limited as they would have taken too long to develop following Kennedy's deadline. Now we are revisiting the scramjet. It would have been self-financing as a scramjet would be inherently safe and we could used scramjet-driven vehicles to remove dangerously radioactive materials from decommissioned reactors and shoot them, say, into the Sun. How much would that be worth?

Then you can build your satellites in orbit and you just have to push them up to a geostationary orbit (devised, by the way, by a British author, Arthur C. Clarke) with very little energy expenditure. If you need to fix them, get them back and fix them and put them back. We would also have completely new technologies - microgee fabrication, vacuum fabrication - where we can make things, chips, etc, that we just can't make on Earth.

All of this would be a thirty year old technology by now.

What did we do? We built a rocket on a bigger rocket on the biggest rocket imaginable. It's HUGE - as is its price. We sent it up from the Earth - the biggest rocket has to lift the capsule, the smaller rocket and the smallest rocket out of the Earth's gravity well - how stupid is that? So we drop the biggest rocket about ten miles up, throw away the next one at about fifty miles and the last one halfway to the Moon. We land, throw away the lander, take off and start back to Earth and throw away the very last rocket. We finally splash down in a baked bean can.

And it costs $135 billion in 2005 Dollars!

I could go on and on because I have thought about it.

Collapse -

I love your ideas

by maxwell edison In reply to As I stated, I'm a space ...

And I, too, have espoused sending spent nuclear waste on a one-way trip to the sun. But without the right kind of vehicle -- 100 percent reliable -- getting the stuff off the ground might prove too risky.

(Do you think Julian might wonder what this has to do with Islam imploding?)

Collapse -

Julian, we're sorry for the thread hijack

by neilb@uk In reply to I love your ideas
Collapse -

Thread hijack

by jardinier In reply to I love your ideas

My pleasure. I start a thread to incite discussion. Please feel free to discuss the tooth fairy if you feel so inclined.

Thanks Neil for the thoughtful compensation.

Collapse -

Is Democracy in the UK imploding

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Is Islam imploding just a ...

The BNP are amassing a sizable number of votes in the elections, even though they deny the holocaust occurred(100,000 people can't be wrong ?).

Will a further shift of votes in the UK election put these right wing neo-fascist nutballs in power and cause democracy to fail ?

A minute but vocal and active minority all of a sudden destroy the belief system of 100s of millions of people, I don't think so.

Collapse -

But it has happened before

by Montgomery Gator In reply to Is Democracy in the UK im ...

I don't think the UK is in near the danger that post WWI Germany was, but a few nutters known as the National Socialists were able grow in number to gain power and put Adolf Hitler in charge there in the 1930s.

Are these BNP "nutballs" similar to the German National Socialists in idealogy?

In the 1600s, the Parliamentary forces were radicalized by Oliver Cromwell and he was able to take over England after Roundheads defeated the Royalists. I don't think the Parliamentarians originally had the dictatorship under Cromwell in mind when they chopped off the head of Charles I.

Collapse -

Closer than you might think

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to But it has happened befor ...

BNP (aka fascist gits) are getting stronger in poorer communities, particularly ones where there's a large asian presence. Basically the BNP catch the ignorant and tell them they are right to hate non-whites because they are stealing their jobs and getting a better deal out of welfare. There's a good bit of anti-immigration in main stream policies even in the main political parties and that sort of thing plays right into their hands. To be quite honest it's only our first past the post electoral system that's keeping them out. A proportional representation system would put some of these gits in power, because it's fairer.

Think you might have misunderstood Oliver a bit, he was a git, but he was a more acceptable git than King Charles who was an inbred nutball.
He was voted Protector, by his supporters as much because he won as because, the only alternative was to continue fighting.
As you'll know from your own history civil wars aren't things you want to go past their sell by date.
Now when there were attempts to pass the power onto his son, that was a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Sort of what have you done for me lately. Instead we got Charles II, with a massively circumscribed authority, and democracy was enacted by a bunch of rich bugger's who didn't like being told what to do by some twit who's dad was in charge once.

Back to Community Forum
79 total posts (Page 3 of 8)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums