Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique wrote:It will be fascinating to see how the balance of power shifts in a few years time when China starts throwing it's military weight around more explicitly.

Don't count too much on the Chinamen to come to your rescue.

shafique wrote:Then we'll see whether the bravado/chutzpah

You eman the right to defend oneself

shafique wrote:on the one hand complaining it is a weak beseiged nation surrounded by bloodthirsty mooslim nations bent on its destruction

I am not sure, but I don't remember Israel claiming recently its weak. And yes, its surrounded by Muslims amongst others that are insulted that a non-Muslim state is established in the House of Islam and are willing too meet their 72 virgin hookers in order to kill the evuuul djoooos. Very humilitating. Like the Crusaders. More a question for the religions section, but isn't an event where the House of Islam is turned into the House of War a break with the convenant with Allah?

shafique wrote:on the other hand the fanbois think it is a nation protected by God and which will remain invincible.

Which fanbois are you referring to?
Seems you want to make this in a religious conflict.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Don't count too much on the Chinamen to come to your rescue.

Hey, the Chinese are already here in Mauritius in force.

But why do you think I need rescuing? You're not stereotyping are you FD? Tut tut.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Then we'll see whether the bravado/chutzpah

You eman the right to defend oneself

Oh, you're a funny mind reader too now are you!

But no, I didn't mean that.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:on the one hand complaining it is a weak beseiged nation surrounded by bloodthirsty mooslim nations bent on its destruction

I am not sure, but I don't remember Israel claiming recently its weak. And yes, its surrounded by Muslims amongst others that are insulted that a non-Muslim state is established in the House of Islam and are willing too meet their 72 virgin hookers in order to kill the evuuul djoooos. Very humilitating. Like the Crusaders. More a question for the religions section, but isn't an event where the House of Islam is turned into the House of War a break with the convenant with Allah?

Interesting question, and I agree it belongs in the Religious section.

The historical fact is that the PLO is secular and there are many Christian Palestinians who are at the forefront of the liberation struggle. Israel helped set up what was to become Hamas to counter the PLO - back when they were the 'evil' ones.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of the spin that this is not about a land grab.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:on the other hand the fanbois think it is a nation protected by God and which will remain invincible.

Which fanbois are you referring to?
Seems you want to make this in a religious conflict.

I really can't see how the view of fanbois that it is about religion makes it something that I 'want'. I'm pretty clear - as is Bin Laden in his statements, incidentally - that this is about Israel's breaking of international laws and the appropriation of land that does not belong to it and the violation of laws governing how the occupier should treat the occupied. It is not a fight against Judaism (or Christianity for that matter).

Of course, the secular fanbois don't believe that Israel is God's gift to the Children of Israel - but those who refuse to condemn Baruch Goldstein as the religiously motivated terrorist he was (are you reading 'eh'?) do.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

When the tide goes out, we then see who has been swimming naked - as the saying goes.

Somebody has been reading about Warren Buffet here.

Well, I did use to work for the guy when I was in London!

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Well, I did use to work for the guy when I was in London!

Cheers,
Shafique

Get real! You serious?

Then who is explaining finance to who exactly!? I'm just an amateur here.

School me!

Small cog in a big machine. I worked for Gen Re - part of Berkshire Hathaway (sorry to disappoint).

The sage of Omaha is quite straightforward in his thinking though - if he can't understand it, he doesn't invest. He understands insurance, but called derivatives 'financial weapons of mass destruction' - so he's got good instincts. My instincts aren't as good - I joined AIG from there and at the time it felt like a sideways move to an equivalently strong company! (Doh!)

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm impressed.

Now, explain your cycle theory in the other topic if you like. I don't see how your thesis of 'no interest rates' policy would work in the real world.

Done.

shafique wrote:Done.

Banning the FED would make sense.

But banning interest rates in general is just asking for excessive risk taking by finding the best return available from asset inflation. Hence bubble prone.

Try and come up with a solution that makes sense Shafique. The logic doesn't add up so far.

It makes sense to me.

I don't see why not charging interest will lead people to invest recklessly? That doesn't compute.

The same firms that are now paying interest can instead share the gains they make with the capital instead. Am I missing something here?

Cheers,
Shafique

I replied to Berrin about sharia compliant loans. Those type of loans even contributed to speculative buying in Dubai property. There a video added also.

Read (and/or reply) in the other topic about the business cycle.