Adamant wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:44am:



I am tempted to put this in the Islamophobes retarded thread.

Let's look at Egypt alone.

Egypt still has a massive agricultural sector - it employs about 10 million people, and constitutes nearly 20% of GDP.

Egypt grows large amounts of citrus, rice, wheat, vegetables, potatoes, sugar, dairy products and fruits.


Egypt's wheat production alone is 6 million tonnes. 5 million tonnes is enough to supply Australia's needs.

When Prophet Muhammed passed away, the population of the Byzantine Empire was less than half of Australia's current population. Even when the Empire was at its peak its poulation was not much more than Australia's is now.


Today, Egypt alone produces more than enough food to feed the amount of people that lived in the Byzantine Empire at its peak.

True Colours wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:


Quote:


If you were a retarded muslim you would use a technically and logically incorrect word like Islamophobe.

If Islamophobia is a legitimate word then surely Judeophobia must be a word that can be used for muslims who dont like jews.

True Colours wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:


What are you a mod now?

Read this and weep retard!


Today, Egypt imports some 80 percent of its agricultural products. “Everything starts with the farm,” said Mohammed Barghash, “If a country is unable to provide its own food, it is not worthy of the name.”

“If the U.S. is the mother of democracy, it should go to the people and help them feed themselves,” said Barghash. “Yet still we import most of our wheat from America."


[url]http://www.ethiopianreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35707[/url]

Egypt is reported to be the world’s largest importer of wheat. In 2010, the oil minister stated that Egypt imports 40% of its food, and 60% of its wheat.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/egypts-food-problem-in-a-nutshell-2011-1

Now answer this question asked by myself originally posted on.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376195051

How many Christians killed Christians in the name of Christianity over the period of Ramadan in America so that we are able to compare scores.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:



I did not mention Egypt He did. It was not an East African country I was  writing about GET YOUR FACTS in order before trying to call my posts BS. I clearly stated NORTH AFRICA! What part of that cant or wont you muslims understand, get the book or remain ignorant.

P/S why will TC not answer a simple question.

Adamant wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

Adamant wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:


Do you realise that Egypt's population todays is about 8 times greater than the entire Byzantine Empire's population was 1400 years ago?

If Egypt with a population of 82 million can produce 20% of the food it consumes today, that means it is producing more than enough food to feed the entire Byzantine Empire's population of 10 million 1400 years ago.




Therefore, Egypt is still a bread basket. It is just one with a massive population.

Egypt is the size of the state of South Australia, yet produces enough wheat to feed all of Australia.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:


The population densities are on google, the second sentence is common sense.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:


I don't disagree with any of that. But what point are you making? What were we arguing again? I'm pretty sure my only dispute was Yadda's claim that the Sinai had been "raped" by the muslims into a desert. Then adamant chimed in with his "North Africa is all desert since the muslims moved in" gem. But I don't believe you made those claims, so I'm not really sure why we are jabbering here. Do you agree that Yadda's claim was completely baseless?

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:


Are you just being contrary for contrary's sake?

The claim was that Dubai had no physical permanently built sewage system, and it was entirely dependant upon trucks to take it all away. That is wrong, the claim made in the video is wrong, its as simple as that.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:


And? Are you trying to say that only muslim countries stop being "primitive" only after they start to get wealthy? I'd say poverty and primitiveness go hand in hand - regardless of the religion.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:


You've got no argument from me that the UAE hasn't made great strides in social progressiveness. But let me point out - yet again - that your point about foreign interference is completely backwards. The UAE has *NOT* banned slavery - in fact they have reintroduced it as a direct consequence of their rapid oil-driven growth. Like all the Gulf States. They import Indian workers, abuse them, and make it literally impossible for them to leave. That is slavery in anyone's book. The point? That this has all happened while it has been a US client.

Quote:


I mean that they are actually greening the desert, rather than the egyptians damaging their side?

Quote:


Here it is again for you: If any group is actually in a position of necessity, it is the Egyptians, not the Israelis.

Quote:


You also spent a long time insisting that only part of the border has a difference you can see from space. You have mentioned the Nile delta many times, but have not made a sound argument that it somehow distracts the Egyptians from the Sinai.

Quote:


Great. A filthy oil rich country that still doesn't have a proper sewage system.

Quote:


Actually no, I explained that socially, they are still very primitive, having barely moved beyond Muhammed's standards.

Quote:


True. But ugly goes right to the bone. Islam manages to combine primitiveness with great wealth.

Quote:


I meant real slavery, not rpetend slavery.

Quote:


Literally?

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:13pm:


I kind of thought its common knowledge that Israel is greening the desert. Israel "makes the desert bloom" has been a common cliche for as long as Israel has been around. But what you are suggesting makes far less sense - since its all desert it would have to be a case of both sides greening the desert (again, why would Egypt bother?), and on the Egyptian side, they went too far, causing it to go (back) to desert. Since neither you or Yadda has provided any evidence of Egypt not just cultivating the Sinai - but cultivating it to the point of it becoming barren - I think we can dismiss this theory.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:13pm:


And? The article adament posted shows that the Egyptians have more than enough arable land along the Nile and Nile delta - the problem is making efficient use of it. Surely if you're going to make a point from this, the obvious thing would be to find out whether or not Egypt has in fact done anything - ie cultivated this area to the point of "raping" the soil no?  I'll give you a hint: no such cultivation has happened. Egypt has never cultivated the Sinai. There have been plans to develop an agricultural sector in the Sinai since 2010, but as yet nothing has really materialised.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:13pm:


LOL - My argument is not that the Egyptians are "distracted" from the Sinai, my argument is that the Egyptians have never attempted to cultivate the Sinai. I don't need to talk about the Nile to demonstrate that - I simply point out that not a god-damned thing has been done by the Egyptians to cultivate that area. I'd say thats a pretty smacking "sound" argument wouldn't you say?  My argument therefore is that Yadda's claim that the Egyptians have "raped" the soil of on their border with Israel (on the Sinai) is complete BS. If you two want to even begin to develop some sort of argument that the Egyptians have over-exploited the soil in that region, I would have thought it pretty freaking obvious that the first thing you do is to show me all the activity done by the Egyptians to cause that over-exploitation. Yes??

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:13pm:


Literally. Workers from South Asia have to hand in their passports when they arrive, and are not allowed to leave until they have paid off their visa. They work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in gruelling conditions, and are paid a pittance - most of which they send to their families back home. There is no concept of workers rights, unions are banned, and striking is illegal. Can you tell me any meaningful difference between this and "real" slavery?

I'm not sure why you scoff at this - I mean you were not shy to point out the UAE's primitiveness - yet somehow you are not prepared to call a spade a spade in regards to modern day slavery. Is it because it sits uncomfortably with your rosy world view of western countries causing their client states to turn away from slavery?