If Romney wins, there will be WW3

[sologdin]

none of the events described in the opening post are implausible generally, but they all seem to rest on an ahistorical appreciation of events, i.e., the allegations fail to apprehend the historical forces at work. it's therefore difficult for me to take any of the allegations very seriously.

much more importantly, though, is that the opening presentation herein doesn't partake of the conspiracist genre, even though it implies actual conspiracy.

generic conspiracism has the following elements:

a ) transhistorical duration, from ancient, or even prehistoric times, through the present, to some distant future telos;

b ) membership not only of shadowy groups such as freemasons, rosicrucians, illuminati, or the eygptian priesthood--but also aliens and other supernaturalisms;

c ) interpenetration of historical opposites: jews & nazis, marxists & capitalists, NATO & warsaw--all are tools of the same conspiracy, and, despite their ostensible enmity, work toward the same goals via a purported faux antagonism; and

d ) alleged objective of the transhistorical conspiracy is to dispossess currently-living persons of their particular rights, e.g., the right to privacy: the grand conspiracy must know what's on your internet or in your medicine cabinet; and

e ) the transhistorical conspiracy is sufficiently strong to manipulate historical events, infiltrate governments, stage wars--but it can be toppled (today!) by surly greasers on the internet, if only the truth can be brought to light.

based on these analytical factors, the opening post fails to allege conspiracism in grand form. i therefore move for dismissal under 12( b )( 6 ), &c.

[MinDonner]

I dunno solo. The Moon Landing conspiracy? 9/11 Truthers? JFK? They are all conspiracies which also fail to meet your criteria, aside from point e) which had the additional benefit of making me laugh my arse off. Refute if you dare!

[Ghiscari]

For those who don't speak sologdinese, allow me to translate.

"Alex Jones makes more sense than the OP."

You're welcome, thread.

[Elder Sister]

Thank you, Ghis. You're a sweet pea. :)

[RWHamel]

I dunno solo. The Moon Landing conspiracy? 9/11 Truthers? JFK? They are all conspiracies which also fail to meet your criteria, aside from point e) which had the additional benefit of making me laugh my arse off. Refute if you dare!

You forgot the Obama birthers.

I do refute that you laughed your arse off. I bet it's still attached.

[Lummel]

none of the events described in the opening post are implausible generally, but they all seem to rest on an ahistorical appreciation of events, i.e., the allegations fail to apprehend the historical forces at work. it's therefore difficult for me to take any of the allegations very seriously.

much more importantly, though, is that the opening presentation herein doesn't partake of the conspiracist genre, even though it implies actual conspiracy.

generic conspiracism has the following elements:

...

based on these analytical factors, the opening post fails to allege conspiracism in grand form. i therefore move for dismissal under 12( b )( 6 ), &c.

ah, this is sad. And there I was hoping on the basis of the OP that I needn't worry about saving for retirement anymore due to the likelihood of WWIII related annihilation. :(

[Saci Targaryen]

The Saudis didn't "usurp" the Arabian crown. They created it out of what had previously been tribal lands in inland Arabia that no one especially cared about. The Emirate of Diriyah goes back to the 1700s and the original alliance with Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. IIRC the Ottomans sent in Muhammad Ali (the ruler of Egypt, not the boxer) the first time they captured Mecca and Medina, which the Ottomans had used to legitimate their rule much as the Saudis do now. The only difference was that the Ottomans were already a great power and that they claimed the title of caliph, or successor to Muhammad. The Saudis did re-capture the holy cities under Ibn Saud and declare themselves protectors of Islam, and you're correct that they did so by once again enlisting Wahhabi fanatics.

Hussein bin Ali, king of Hejaz(Mecca and Medina) and true scion of the house of Mohammed, was usurped by Abdul Aziz al Saud on the early 1930's. al Saud brought Wahabbism to "mainstream".al Saud lived with his family in a simple dwelling. His primary occupation, and the family's sole source of income, was undertaking raids in the Najd.

[Sis Who Swears]

So much like-age here... so little like button. :(

[Seli]

So much like-age here... so little like button. :(

This exactly. [like]

[Saci Targaryen]

The Saudis have spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years. The bulk of this funding goes towards the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrasas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports imam training; mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of textbooks and other literature; and endowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamic scholars). Some of the hundreds of thousands of non-Saudis who live in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf have been influenced by Wahhabism and preach Wahhabism in their home country upon their return. Agencies controlled by the Kingdom's Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance are responsible for outreach to non-Muslim residents and are converting hundreds of non-Muslims into Islam every year.^{[71][72][73][74][75]}

[pig]

Zionist or not, Romney is bad for America and bad for the world.

[Winterfell is Burning]

"If Romney wins, there will be WW3'

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Ghiscari]

Hussein bin Ali, king of Hejaz(Mecca and Medina) and true scion of the house of Mohammed, was usurped by Abdul Aziz al Saud on the early 1930's. al Saud brought Wahabbism to "mainstream".al Saud lived with his family in a simple dwelling. His primary occupation, and the family's sole source of income, was undertaking raids in the Najd.

I skipped over the Hashemites because that's a contentious religious question unrelated to Romney bringing about the apocalypse. Personally, I find the the Hashemite claim to power specious. There is no "true" scion, merely people who style themselves sayyid or sharif based on 1400-year-old descent from Muhammad's daughter. But I say this through the lens of my Western upbringing that views the divine right of kings as absurd.

If you think the Hashemites would have been better rulers of Arabia than the Saudis, my answer is... maybe. We don't know. Maybe Iran would have control of those oil fields by now. (Saudi oil lies in a primarily Shia area of the country.) Like I said, I don't disagree with your characterization of Wahhabism, just everything else in your post.

[Sci-2]

I'm feeling under represented here:

http://3.bp.blogspot...a sith lord.jpg

Sorry, I try to keep my Star Wars and X-men fantasies separate!

[Saci Targaryen]

I skipped over the Hashemites because that's a contentious religious question unrelated to Romney bringing about the apocalypse. Personally, I find the the Hashemite claim to power specious. There is no "true" scion, merely people who style themselves sayyid or sharif based on 1400-year-old descent from Muhammad's daughter. But I say this through the lens of my Western upbringing that views the divine right of kings as absurd.

If you think the Hashemites would have been better rulers of Arabia than the Saudis, my answer is... maybe. We don't know. Maybe Iran would have control of those oil fields by now. (Saudi oil lies in a primarily Shia area of the country.) Like I said, I don't disagree with your characterization of Wahhabism, just everything else in your post.

The matter of fact is not whether or not the Hashemites would have been "better", but from the point of view of a lot of muslims, the al Saud are "illegitimate", they are like "Baratheons" if you will, and even though they won the crown through the right of conquest, muslims still regard them as "usurpers". Thats why they spent 90 billion dollars over the past 30 years on their "Wahabbi PR campaign" and Al Qaeda is a direct side effect of this.

[Darth Visenya]

Sorry, I try to keep my Star Wars and X-men fantasies separate!

I felt bad for the Democrats in your scenario, I just wanted to up their game a bit :P.

[Horza]

Dear God, he disagreed with my scenario. Does that make it somehow more credible?

You forget in the Middle East thread he thinks Israel can strike unilaterally because "the Jews are a crafty people".

[The Pita]

Im jewish, my grand-parents survived through the holocaust,

You said you were Sephardic EXPLAIN YOUR LIES, DAMMIT, EXPLAIN!

I certainly do not endorse everything in the OP, but does anyone think that Netanyahu doesn't want to drag the US into war w/ Iran?

...

He hasn't denied it himself. He's pushing the US into war with Iran at every opportunity.

That allegation is like saying that Ahmedinijad has declared Israel's actions to be problematic.

But that's beside the point of this thread.

You forget in the Middle East thread he thinks Israel can strike unilaterally because "the Jews are a crafty people".

We are not crafty. We come in peace. All are our friends.

[Ghiscari]

I never click on Israel or Middle East threads. Yes, it's because I'm racist.

[Saci Targaryen]

You said you were Sephardic EXPLAIN YOUR LIES, DAMMIT, EXPLAIN!

My family originally lived in Portugal, when they were kicked out on the 1600's and travelled through Europe until they ended up in Hungary and thats where they were around the holocaust. There were many Sephardi on eastern europe up until the holocaust, particularly on the Balkans(Austria Hungary until 1918)