Originally posted by DeepThoughtPart 1.
Well the west has been messing around with the Middle East for donkey's years. I seem to remember the first Gulf War was well before the attacks on the world trade centre. Which were to do with the huge US military presence in Saudi Arabia, who are there to prop up the highly corrupt, unpopular and decidedly undemocratic government there. To argue th ...[text shortened]... then Hitler had clearly invaded Poland, Churchill didn't make that up to justify declaring war.
How do you think Islam spread from Saudi Arabia in the first place?
You can read about the Islamic conquest of Egypt here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/642Egypt-conq2.html
of Spain here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/conqspain.html
of Iran here:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_conquest/islamic_conquest.php
of Afghanistan and nearby locales here:
http://historymedren.about.com/library/text/bltxtafghan3.htm
of parts of the Indian subcontinent here:
http://www.khilafah.com/home/lographics/category.php?DocumentID=2254&TagID=24
of parts of Africa here (this one mentions the Islamic occupation of Jerusalem in 636AD):
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/ISLAM.HTM
...and don't get me started on the Ottoman Empire.
Islam has been militant from the start. It military expansion started very soon after its inception. This predates the crusades by centuries - in fact there wouldn't have been any crusades if Jerusalem had not been taken. Islam has been a pain in the Western butt for many centuries now.
And the first Gulf War was in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. That invasion also resulted in the US military presence in SA. They were there because of the demonstrated belligerence of Iraq, and with the blessing of the Saudi leaders.
I'll respond to the rest tomorrow - it's late.
Originally posted by dfm65We'll pass on the ancient history; besides do ya think Christianity spread to the New World and Australia peacefully? If you want a Holy War, go ahead; grab a crossbow and get over to the Middle East to fight Saladin pronto. The rest of us will just have to deal with the 20th Century and in that century the Western powers have incessently meddled in the internal affairs of Muslim states. From the establishment of Israel in Muslim majority lands to the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 to on and on and on. Spain has the right idea; troops out of the Middle East and presto! - no more terrorist attacks. Maybe the Brits should give it a try.
Part 1.
How do you think Islam spread from Saudi Arabia in the first place?
You can read about the Islamic conquest of Egypt here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/642Egypt-conq2.html
of Spain here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/conqspain.html
of Iran here:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_conquest/islamic_conquest.php
...[text shortened]... and with the blessing of the Saudi leaders.
I'll respond to the rest tomorrow - it's late.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderthat's ridiculous and a cop out. dividing history into 20thC and pre- is totally arbitrary.
We'll pass on the ancient history; besides do ya think Christianity spread to the New World and Australia peacefully? If you want a Holy War, go ahead; grab a crossbow and get over to the Middle East to fight Saladin pronto. Th ...[text shortened]... no more terrorist attacks. Maybe the Brits should give it a try.
the point is: there's no point wailing about Western interference in the Middle East, because these very same people have been going about conquering other countries for centuries. It just comes down to who is stronger at any given time in history. The Ottoman Empire was strong for centuries, got as far as Austria if memory serves, before being repulsed. When the British became more powerful they colonised parts of the Middle East.
The situation with these two cultures today is this: the West (primarily the USA and Western Europe) is the strongest military and economic entity on the planet. Islam, though having vast numbers of followers, is not nearly as strong and cannot confront the West directly. The Gulf Wars are an indication of what happens in this kind of direct conflict. But resentment festers in the heart of some - they see their traditions as being threatened by the attraction of the more prosperous and - let's face it - sexier West. And so we get terrorism - stateless, hidden, shifting - difficult to strike at using conventional military tactics. It's guerilla war taken a step further. But at the moment it is the only option for Muslims who want to wage war against the West.
There hasn't been much of a history of peace between these two cultures. I hope that can be rectified. But the way to achieve this is not appeasement and backing down. That will only make those who have been active in inciting hatred against the West look victorious and win them new followers. And if it can't be rectified, i know very clearly which side i want to win. Do you?
Originally posted by dfm65Try reading the "Suicide Bombers" thread in Debates since you pretty obviously don't know what you're talking about. The motivation of our present crop of Islamic suicide bombers is to get Western forces out of the Middle East. Since they're no good reason for Western troops to be in the Middle East, the West would lose nothing by removing them.
that's ridiculous and a cop out. dividing history into 20thC and pre- is totally arbitrary.
the point is: there's no point wailing about Western interference in the Middle East, because these very same people have been going about conquering other countries for centuries. It just comes down to who is stronger at any given time in history. The Ottoman Emp ...[text shortened]... followers. And if it can't be rectified, i know very clearly which side i want to win. Do you?
I don't believe in your "might makes right" BS or "clash of cultures" nonsense. You're calling for Holy War as much as Bin Laden. Nobody will win a world wide neverending war of the kind you are describing. Count me out.
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65Well there's the small matter of the crusades, Christianty has been spread by fairly murderous means over history. I really don't think that this has any relevance to anything.
Part 1.
How do you think Islam spread from Saudi Arabia in the first place?
You can read about the Islamic conquest of Egypt here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/642Egypt-conq2.html
of Spain here:
http://www.fordham.edu/hals ...[text shortened]... Saudi leaders.
I'll respond to the rest tomorrow - it's late.
I'm too drunk to type properly now, I'll try arguing tomorrow after I've got through the backlog of chess games I've neglected today - I finally got some work done though😲
Originally posted by no1marauderI slightly disagree, the winners will be George Bush, Tony Blair and their mirror image Osama bin Laden. The losers will be ordinary people dragged along into their mire.
I don't believe in your "might makes right" BS or "clash of cultures" nonsense. You're calling for Holy War as much as Bin Laden. Nobody will win a world wide neverending war of the kind you are describing. Count me out.
1 edit
Originally posted by SiskinWe aren't saying that these people aren't murderous ********. But the attack was aimed at the US embassy - they just didn't care who they killed on the way. Rather like our own military - the only (as far as I'm aware) British tank lost in the invasion was hit by a DU shell from another British challenger tank...
What about the bombings in Kenya, when Clinton was president. Hundreds of dead Africans for the crime against Islam of having a US Embassy in their country.