Re: Yet Another Roswell Thread


Ian Parker wrote:
On 16 Jul, 23:43, eina...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
There are in fact no specifically religious tenets. That is to say
mainstream tenets. The reason for the deline of Islamic societies is
nott religious. It may well be to do with the fact that socieities are
controlled by one man. China had, or course, no dominant religion. In
1421 a fleet explored the world. Then the Emperor took the decision to
abandon all further exploration. Why didn't the Chinese establish a
colony in California in (say) 1425? If they had the whole history of
America would have been very different. They knew it was there and had
the technology. BTW - 1421 has been criticised by scholars on a number
of grounds. One of them being that the author cannot read original
sources, even though these were destroyed. The Emperor not only put a
stop to further exploration, he specifically destroyed all the data
that came back. You can't imagine any Western society doing that can
you?

Certainly without the need for middlemen Islamic society was in deep
trouble. It should have invested in new technology when it did have
the wealth. Lepanto was in fact a victory for new naval technology.

There is an additional curiosity. This is something Japan did as well.
But that is the country was literally closed for foreigners. It´s like
they so strongly emphasized stability under the Ming emperors that
they sought to eliminate as far as they could potential sources for
instability, that appears to have incluted influences from foreign
sources. Foreign traders were no longer allowed to enter China.
Trading centers were established on the borders. In addition, Chinese
themselves were banned to go abroad on trading expeditions. That means
the extensive Chinese diaspora which already exchisted at that time in
SE-Asia was cut off from theyr original homeland. The extensive
trading houses in China no longer could trade outside China using
theyr own people.

It´s a curious thing that both China and Japan chose to close theyr
countries literally as far as they could and hence isolate them as far
as they could from foreign influences. It´s perhaps not so strange
that both countries fell behind.


Yes, the Lepanto, actually the turkish were one of the first armies to
successfully make use of artillery. But, the christian fleet had
galiases, some sort of a hybrid between a galley and a large sailing
wessel. A ship which could move sluggishly under oars, but had also a
row of cannons, light ones on the side abow the oar-holes, heavy ones
at the front and at the rear, some sort of an idea for an ocean
fairing fortress. They must have been devastating vs. the extremelly
lightbuilt gallays.


Ian Parker wrote:




There must be a realization that terrorism can´t be ended in a moment.
That can only be done gradually by redusing the pool of potential
reqruits for terror, which appear primarilly to be young people with
litle hope of jobs. There must be a realization that methods that harm
the average well being of the Palestinian people are only likelly to
increase the influence of radical terrorist organizations. It will
have to be accepted that for some time afterwards there will be a
degree of terrorism, which hopefully over time will fade away.

It would be a really bad thing if al-Qaeda got a foothold among the
Palestinians. So far the different groups, the Hamas and the PLO along
with theyr respective umbrella groups, have been able to keep other
groups more or less out.

I´m actually in the minority position that think that takeve of Hamas
on the Gasa Strip may actually provite some side benefits. During the
months of struggle for control between PLO and Hamas there it really
looked like both groups were loosing control over that area, i.e. that
other perhaps even nastyer groups were gaining a foothold. Now, with a
single group in power there, they may be able to keep a lid on things.
It will though depend on what the Hamas does think to be in its
interest.

I have an opinion which is very much a minority one. One that
CERTAINLY will never be endorsed by our military friends. Hamas and
Hezbullah are controlled by Iran. So what they do is very much
influenced by what happens in Tehran. As I think I said earlier the
war in Iraq is certain (pretty well) to have one clear victor. What
will Iran do if and when she has effective control over most of the
Middle East? I personally think it might be a good thing if Israel got
one powerful negotiating partner. Would Israel be destroyed? Israel
has a very considerable nuclear arsenal and when countries have power
they start thinking realpolitikally.

In terms of realpolitik Iran wants to consolidate its hold on Iraq, is
actually far more inte5rested in Lebanon and Syria than in Israel.
Holocaust denial goes down well in the Arab street, but as soon as you
have to take decisions which could possibly lead to nuclear war you
play a different tune.

There is yet another question, Central Asia. Iran could play a role in
the stabalization of the former Soviet Union. Russia has contructive
relations.

There is a considerable irony here. Iran is the baddest of the bad in
US demonology. Yet the US military have in fact facilitated the
creation of Iranian power. This leads one to have an extreme lack of
confidence in anything they tell us.

Iran does not want terrorist groups, particularly Sunni ones. It is
far too much at risk itself. Hamas will first concentrate on
eliminating all power sources but itself in Gaza. Then it will start
of the West bank. In point of fact the quickest way to stop the
insurgency in Iraq is to let the Iranians in. An Iranian victory will
mean that Al Qaeda will certainly not be tolerated. In fact Iraq look
likes being the biggest single defeat for the Arabs AND Al Qaeda that
there has been for some time. The Saudis are extremely alarmed.
Personally I think the Hamas will now concentrate on the West Bank. In
the meantime they will prefer the Gasa Strip to be quiet. It will be
very interesting to watch what will happen next.

Clearly the gowernment of Israel is worried. Precident Bush has also
been making noises about support to the Palestinian Authority. But, I
actually doubt that will really aid the PLO in its struggle against
the Hamas. The contrary may acually prove to come true. I wonder what
will happen if the Hamas gains control over the West Bank as well.
That outcome may not be very unlikelly.

Israel and the US will be forced to negotiate with Iran.


- Ian Parker

A likelly development in Iraq looks to me that it will develope into
some kind of a war in proxy between Iran and the sunny powers. Iran
will support the shites and the sunni countries will support the
sunnis. That kind of thing could maintain that war for quite a long
time. Iran might perhaps use the Hesbollah as well, and try to
radicalize *** minorities around the Middle East.

What may develope is some sort of a regional Cold War struggle. Most
certainly USA has developed the situation into Iranian hands. The
sunni Arabs must be seeing the actions of the Bush regime as an
absolute catastrophe.

I actually don´t agree that Iran controls the Hamas. The Hamas is a
sunni movement, not a *** movement. That is an important difference.
Hamas like the PLO is a people´s movement of the Palestinian people.
They are more religious while the PLO has had a more secular
nationalistic outlook. They are essentially competing for the hearts
and minds of theyr people, i.e. the Palestinans. In latter times Hama
has been gaining while PLO has been loosing ground.

If Hamas has been taking Iranian money, they I have litle doubt are
doing that for pragmatic reasons. But, I feel certain that Iran has
litle actual influence on the Hamas.

Cheers, Einar

.