Failed Islamic States of Tomorrow

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Great read from “Spengler”, especially on the youth bulge in Pakistan - the already failed state:

[quote]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.

…

Pakistan is about to become a failed state, and Iran and Turkey will be close behind. As I commented to Chan Akya’s report of December 2 on this site (see The hottest place in the world), Pakistan’s military-age population is far greater than those of other Muslim military powers in the region.

With about 20 million men of military age, Pakistan today has as much manpower as Turkey and Iran combined, and by 2035 it will have half again as many.

…

Half the country is illiterate and three-quarters of it subsists on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank. That is to say that Pakistan’s young men are more abundant as well as cheaper than in any other country in the region. Very poor and ignorant young men, especially if their only education has been in Salafi madrassas, are very easy to enlist in military adventures.

The West at present is unable to cope with a failed state like Somalia, with less than a tenth as many military age men as Pakistan, but which nonetheless constitutes a threat to world shipping and a likely source of funding for terrorism.

How can the West cope with the humiliation of Pakistan’s pro-American president and the inability of its duly-constituted government to suppress Islamist elements in its army and intelligence services?

For the moment, Washington will do its best to prop up its creature, Zardari, but to no avail. The alternatives will require the West to add several zeros to whatever the prevailing ceiling might be for acceptable collateral damage.

[/quote]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JL16Ak02.html

2

It’s a shame that the US and Islamic countries form a bloc in voting against even any discussion at the international level of birth control or population management. It’s doubly dangerous because as this reminds us the population of unemployed young men is and will rise in many impoverished countries far faster than jobs can be created, guaranteeing that the population grows yet poorer in spite of continued development.

In some places birth rates will decline as the prospect of development comes into reach. This has already happened in many places. For a variety of reasons though this probably isn’t feasible until the very long term in some other places though.

3

[quote]etaco wrote:
It’s a shame that the US and Islamic countries form a bloc in voting against even any discussion at the international level of birth control or population management. It’s doubly dangerous because as this reminds us the population of unemployed young men is and will rise in many impoverished countries far faster than jobs can be created, guaranteeing that the population grows yet poorer in spite of continued development.
[/quote]

What are you? Some kind of godless commie?

4

[quote]etaco wrote:
It’s a shame that the US and Islamic countries form a bloc in voting against even any discussion at the international level of birth control or population management. It’s doubly dangerous because as this reminds us the population of unemployed young men is and will rise in many impoverished countries far faster than jobs can be created, guaranteeing that the population grows yet poorer in spite of continued development.
[/quote]

What are you? Some kind of godless commie?

5

In addition, the global collapse in oil prices will have a very negative effect in these regions. Not wanting capitalism, because of religious beliefs, the rulers showered the oil largesse on semi-literate populations, in a bid to keep them contented. That largesse is now gone for the foreseeable future.

Look for outright collapse in Venezuela as well as revolutions in many ME states. Unable to accept free markets and the rule of objective law, the future looks dim for those people.

6

[quote]etaco wrote:
It’s a shame that the US and Islamic countries form a bloc in voting against even any discussion at the international level of birth control or population management. It’s doubly dangerous because as this reminds us the population of unemployed young men is and will rise in many impoverished countries far faster than jobs can be created, guaranteeing that the population grows yet poorer in spite of continued development.

In some places birth rates will decline as the prospect of development comes into reach. This has already happened in many places. For a variety of reasons though this probably isn’t feasible until the very long term in some other places though.[/quote]

Birthrates are down all around the world. The reason the world population has grown so much is because people stopped dropping like flies.

The Pakistani tribemen follow the adage, “Sons bring honor, daughters bring only shame.” They try to have a lot of sons so that they can fight other tribes or the kuffar. It isn’t the fact that they can’t afford condoms - it’s that they want things that way.

7

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The Pakistani tribemen follow the adage, “Sons bring honor, daughters bring only shame.” They try to have a lot of sons so that they can fight other tribes or the kuffar. It isn’t the fact that they can’t afford condoms - it’s that they want things that way. [/quote]

What do they do with the daughters?

8

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The Pakistani tribemen follow the adage, “Sons bring honor, daughters bring only shame.” They try to have a lot of sons so that they can fight other tribes or the kuffar. It isn’t the fact that they can’t afford condoms - it’s that they want things that way.

What do they do with the daughters?[/quote]

They bury them alive !!

Don’t you have email in Canada?

9

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The Pakistani tribemen follow the adage, “Sons bring honor, daughters bring only shame.” They try to have a lot of sons so that they can fight other tribes or the kuffar. It isn’t the fact that they can’t afford condoms - it’s that they want things that way.

What do they do with the daughters?[/quote]

They marry them off to their uncles.

10

Islam’s Holy Book has a chapter named An-nissaa (women), where one can read:

“Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, daughters, sisters; father’s sisters, mother’s sisters; brother’s daughters, sister’s daughters; foster-mothers (who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives’ mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone, no prohibition if ye have not gone in; (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” – Quran 4:23

It’s really hard for a Muslim to argue against the prohibition of marrying a nephew or niece. But don’t let verses get in your way. You see, Muslims are in cahoots with Quran publishers, ISPs, the media, your politicians, bankers and everything else. It’s true. I read it in the Protocols of the Elders of Arafat.

11

That article is very optimistic if they are making predictions about Pakistan in 2035. There could be a devastating nuclear exchange with India long before then.

12

[quote]lixy wrote:
Islam’s Holy Book has a chapter named An-nissaa (women), where one can read:

“Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, daughters, sisters; father’s sisters, mother’s sisters; brother’s daughters, sister’s daughters; foster-mothers (who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives’ mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone, no prohibition if ye have not gone in; (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” – Quran 4:23

It’s really hard for a Muslim to argue against the prohibition of marrying a nephew or niece. But don’t let verses get in your way. You see, Muslims are in cahoots with Quran publishers, ISPs, the media, your politicians, bankers and everything else. It’s true. I read it in the Protocols of the Elders of Arafat.[/quote]

So you do know some of the Qur’an. You’re just willing to play “bamboozle the kuffar” when it comes to the sword verses.

Point taken though, lixy. It’s really first cousin endogamy that perpetuates Islamic tribalism, so really the daughters will probably end up with their cousins. Genetically, it’s not as bad as it’s made out to be, though it does lower IQ slightly. The Arabs and Pashtuns can scarcely afford to lose those IQ points, however.

13

Well, Pahk-e-stahn’s situation won’t make Obama’s war any easier. Yeah, I know, it’s Pat Buchanan. Hey, sometimes he writes articles I like. Like this one.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/obamas_war1/

“But why does it take a dozen years to get an Afghan army up to where it can defend the people and regime against a Taliban return? Why do our Afghans seem less disposed to fight and die for democracy than the Taliban are to fight and die for theocracy? Does their God, Allah, command a deeper love and loyalty than our god, democracy?”

14

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, Pahk-e-stahn’s situation won’t make Obama’s war any easier. Yeah, I know, it’s Pat Buchanan. Hey, sometimes he writes articles I like. Like this one.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/obamas_war1/

[/quote]

He does have a point. Unless we’re willing to ethnically cleanse the Pashtuns, there will never be a democracy in Afghanistan. It hasn’t been a place of enlightenment since pre-Islamic days.

The best thing to do is to sweep the Taliban out of the area they’re in and leave. Repeat as necessary.

15

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, Pahk-e-stahn’s situation won’t make Obama’s war any easier. Yeah, I know, it’s Pat Buchanan. Hey, sometimes he writes articles I like. Like this one.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/obamas_war1/[/quote]

Obama’s war? That’s an expression I haven’t heard before.

It’s quite obvious. Your efforts in Afghanistan were doomed the minutes your government decided to attack Iraq. And no, you cannot install a pro-Western democracy in there. It’s bloody common sense! Any democratically elected regime there will be anti-American.

About Pakistan, the place has people that make Saudi Wahabis look like choir boys. No argument there. And it is producing more terrorists than even the Occupied Territories. But what are you going to do about it? They got nukes and they were part of the US-led coalition during the Gulf War. As etaco points out, it’s one of the world’s most populous countries (about 70% of what you got there in the US for a tiny fraction of the area, and a tinier fraction of resources).

At this point, it should be about learning from your mistakes and using your brains rather than your feelings.

16

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, Pahk-e-stahn’s situation won’t make Obama’s war any easier. Yeah, I know, it’s Pat Buchanan. Hey, sometimes he writes articles I like. Like this one.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/obamas_war1/

Obama’s war? That’s an expression I haven’t heard before.

It’s quite obvious. Your efforts in Afghanistan were doomed the minutes your government decided to attack Iraq. And no, you cannot install a pro-Western democracy in there. It’s bloody common sense! Any democratically elected regime there will be anti-American.

About Pakistan, the place has people that make Saudi Wahabis look like choir boys. No argument there. And it is producing more terrorists than even the Occupied Territories. But what are you going to do about it? They got nukes and they were part of the US-led coalition during the Gulf War. As etaco points out, it’s one of the world’s most populous countries (about 70% of what you got there in the US for a tiny fraction of the area, and a tinier fraction of resources).

At this point, it should be about learning from your mistakes and using your brains rather than your feelings.[/quote]

Don’t worry, lixy. The Muslims of Pakistan and Arabia will soon poke the kuffar enough that he will respond. Since we’re the ones with all the brainpower on our sides, perhaps places like Pakistan will go from “most populous” to “least populous” in a relatively short period of time. No doubt you’ll use some nuke on Israel or India or the United States, which will cause us to respond in kind.

I’ve noticed that the mujahideen are also active in western (newly ascendent) China. I’m not the brightest man, but it seems to me that it’s unwise for you all to be aggravating the ChiComs as well as the Americans, Indians, Europeans, etc. Political correctness hasn’t had an opportunity to work its way into the psyches of the Chinese political class, if you know what I mean.

Perhaps, instead of constantly raging about what you perceive everyone else is doing to the poor Muslims, you Muslims could introspect and start making something of the wreck that is your civilization. Perhaps not though, right?

17

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, Pahk-e-stahn’s situation won’t make Obama’s war any easier. Yeah, I know, it’s Pat Buchanan. Hey, sometimes he writes articles I like. Like this one.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/obamas_war1/

Obama’s war? That’s an expression I haven’t heard before.

It’s quite obvious. Your efforts in Afghanistan were doomed the minutes your government decided to attack Iraq. And no, you cannot install a pro-Western democracy in there. It’s bloody common sense! Any democratically elected regime there will be anti-American.

About Pakistan, the place has people that make Saudi Wahabis look like choir boys. No argument there. And it is producing more terrorists than even the Occupied Territories. But what are you going to do about it?

They got nukes and they were part of the US-led coalition during the Gulf War. As etaco points out, it’s one of the world’s most populous countries (about 70% of what you got there in the US for a tiny fraction of the area, and a tinier fraction of resources).

At this point, it should be about learning from your mistakes and using your brains rather than your feelings.[/quote]

I agree…use our brains in dealing with madmen hell bent on dying for Allah. But, just exactly how do we go about that, oh wise one? How does one stop a huge malevolent group of people bent on killing you from doing that?

Surely you’re not suggesting we bomb the living shit out of them until they get the message to leave us alone?

18

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Surely you’re not suggesting we bomb the living shit out of them until they get the message to leave us alone?[/quote]

Wouldn’t doing that all make them martyrs for Allah and guarantee them all those 72 virgins?

19

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, Pahk-e-stahn’s situation won’t make Obama’s war any easier. Yeah, I know, it’s Pat Buchanan. Hey, sometimes he writes articles I like. Like this one.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/obamas_war1/

Obama’s war? That’s an expression I haven’t heard before.

It’s quite obvious. Your efforts in Afghanistan were doomed the minutes your government decided to attack Iraq. And no, you cannot install a pro-Western democracy in there. It’s bloody common sense! Any democratically elected regime there will be anti-American.

About Pakistan, the place has people that make Saudi Wahabis look like choir boys. No argument there. And it is producing more terrorists than even the Occupied Territories. But what are you going to do about it?

They got nukes and they were part of the US-led coalition during the Gulf War. As etaco points out, it’s one of the world’s most populous countries (about 70% of what you got there in the US for a tiny fraction of the area, and a tinier fraction of resources).

At this point, it should be about learning from your mistakes and using your brains rather than your feelings.

I agree…use our brains in dealing with madmen hell bent on dying for Allah. But, just exactly how do we go about that, oh wise one? How does one stop a huge malevolent group of people bent on killing you from doing that?

Surely you’re not suggesting we bomb the living shit out of them until they get the message to leave us alone?
[/quote]

The problem that people in the West are having a hard time getting their heads around is what we are going to have to do. The level of fanaticism that we are up against is not something that is going to be solved with a good talking to. The only thing we can do with the fanatics is kill them.

There are over a billion Muslims, if only one percent of them are hardcore fanatics that is ten million that we are going to have to kill. If the number of fanatics is ten percent, then we are going to have to kill over a hundred million people.

Right now we are not killing them fast enough. We are going to have to kill on a massive scale to get this solved, but a lot of people are in denial and refuse to accept that.

20

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Surely you’re not suggesting we bomb the living shit out of them until they get the message to leave us alone?

Wouldn’t doing that all make them martyrs for Allah and guarantee them all those 72 virgins?

[/quote]

sounds like a win-win situation.