Phillip Tang wrote, "Blame the Sunni/Shia conflict on the British and Americans, unbelievable."

So, which parts of the evidence I have presented do you dispute?

Phillip Tang continued, "The Sunni/Shia conflict is centuries old and is not found in many islamic countries."

Did you mean 'is' or 'is not'?

Conflicts may or may not have existed prior to the meddling of colonial powers in the region.

Nevertheless, it has been a strategy of colonial powers going back for centuries to inflame conflicts amongst those over which they rule.

The British notoriously did this on the Indian subcontinent which led to the ethnic cleansing and bloody partition of 1947. They did so in Palestine, Kenya, Ireland and, of course in Iraq by staging terrorist attacks so that they appeared to have been caused by local sectarians.

On a related matter, if you visit
http://911blogger.com/node/19199 you can read "Norwegian Daily: Terrorists Working for Western Countries" a translation of http://aftenbladet.no/krigenmotterror/951035/-Terrorister_jobber_for_vestlige_land.html in a Norwegian Daily newspaper.

---

Phillip Tang wrote, "speaking about over population, the Muslims are breeding faster than the guinea pigs."

So, why pick on the Muslims? Isn't it true that many other people around the world are also "breeding faster than the guinea pigs" - Indians, Africans, Phillipinos, Latin Americans, etc?

Although it may be true that the Chinese are no longer "breeding faster than the guinea pigs", perhaps, as they have reached 1.4 billion in the People's Republic of China alone, it could be fairly argued that Muslims and others are only trying to catch up?

So what do you think should be done about it?

Are you saying that you support the "War on Terror" as one means to reduce the population of Muslims?

Do you think President W's cutback of family planning aid to the Third world helped matters?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

As I made clear above I believe that tribes in the west have every democratic right to stop themselves from being demographically overwhelmed by foreign tribes including Islamic tribes.

I think we should also do what we can to encourage them to limit their own populations in their own countries ASAP both for their own sake and for ours.

However, singling out one group as inherently incapable of stabilising its own population is hardly likely to help matters.

---

Glad to see that there is agreement between us in one regard, mil-observer, however, I consider your faith in the capacity of human intelligence to overcome the problems posed by the huge and growing population to be dangerous.

---

Mil-observer wrote "Countries like India and Indonesia are progressing well almost independently in (the provision clean drinking water)."

So what reason do you have to believe that Indian agriculture can soon end its unsustainable dependence upon finite aquifers beneath the Deccan?

Yes, there's much agreement daggett: I find refreshing your strategic perspective on hard facts around political and military realities. That is crucial to understand the nasty imperialist beast continuing to threaten and oppress the vast global majority of which we two dissident observers obviously form a tiny part.

I urge you to be careful identifying the "muslim tribes" you describe vaguely as some threat. Actual threats from that corner have deep ties to the same aggressors who manipulated Iraq with such cynical cruelty.

On prospects for Indian agricultural developments: I've read some detailed, relatively recent reports about Indian nuclear technology programs. I must hunt the sources down again, because it's not my professional or study background, but I recall the following categories of optimism there:

1) Indian advances in application of safer and much more efficient reactor technology using Thorium, of which India (and even more so Australia) has an abundant supply;

2) Fruitful cooperation with Russian counterparts in planning for an expanded nuclear program, and;

3) Consideration of very stable, latest-generation South African pebble-bed reactor technology.

Obviously such prospects offer enormous realization of potential to a population for so long unstable from poverty, debt and other frustrated ambition. As clear from western and Japanese precedents, prosperity is the great population stabilizer: established urbanization, life expectancy, and enhanced education and work prospects for women, in particular, all reduce people's natural urges to play a "reproductive lottery" of sorts, or try overcoming their wretched condition by a game of percentages via increased offspring.

Another less obvious benefit from such advances is the prospect of desalinated and purified river water incorporated into irrigation networks, relieving subterranean aquifers.

There's nothing dangerous in my optimism. The only dangers come from imperialist sponsorship of such blatant proxy terror as the Mumbai raid, various destabilization ops in Pakistan, and old empah's gaping Kashmir wound. These aspects of global manipulation and extortion are well known among most of the subcontinent's leaders - and so many of their constituents too.

But the feudal, eugenicist scum can be beaten - they have been beaten before, and will be again.

<<"The Sunni/Shia conflict is centuries old and is not found in many islamic countries." Did you mean 'is' or 'is not'?>>

It's a typo, thanks daggett.

daggett: <<The British notoriously did this [inflame conflicts amongst those over which they rule]on the Indian subcontinent which led to the ethnic cleansing and bloody partition of 1947. They did so in Palestine, Kenya, Ireland and, of course in Iraq by staging terrorist attacks so that they appeared to have been caused by local sectarians.>>

Generally speaking it’s not true that colonial powers were responsible for conflicts that arose between the local population after they have left the country. Very often old rivalries and conflicts erupted soon after independence.

In Palestine, the Jews fought the British because they refused them emigration to Palestine, a practice that was contrary to the spirit and aims of the Balfour declaration

“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object,..”
The Anglo-Jewish War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYHoK54w2kg).

Soon after the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Arab-Muslims declared war on the newly formed state of Israel. This is typical and symptomatic of Islamists who are now fighting the Buddhists in Thailand, Catholics in Philippines, Hindus in Kashmir and Christians in Serbia and Kosovo.

Its good that the Islamists (HAMAS) were soundly defeated in Gaza but unfortunately not annihilated as many of the leaders ran away like dogs to hide in Lebanon and Syria.

and "fighting...Christians in Serbia and Kosovo".

That's no typo - that's an old-fashioned "ignoramo" from a dullard Islamophobe.

And sucking up to white imperialist bullies (with a brief exception for the Zionist version instead)? Who'd have thought?

Got up late, after watchin Nadal down Vergasco,made a cup, and hit the net…

The IE wormholed me this line: “the nasty imperialist beast continuing to threaten and oppress the vast global majority of which we two dissident observers obviously form a tiny part”

Wow! it sounded like a scene from KINGKONG.
Had some nasty virus hijacked my IE and diverted me to rogue website?

And there was more: “The only dangers come from imperialist sponsorship of such blatant proxy terror as the Mumbai raid, various destabilization ops in Pakistan”

Holy cow!

It can’t be the King Kong website,Kong was a goody- underneath it all he was a real softy…
Whoever this was about was a real baddy.

I drilled down further…
Philip Tangs post came into view .
Now...it was beginning to make sense –here was something I could relate to.Thank God for Phillip Tang!

I had another swig of coffee and went back to the tennis