“banishing their Muslims kicked there ship building capabilities down a couple notches”
Then how come the Spanish and the Portugese became huge naval powers and had colonies all over the world after the “banishment” of the Moors?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
“banishing their Muslims kicked there ship building capabilities down a couple notches”
Then how come the Spanish and the Portugese became huge naval powers and had colonies all over the world after the “banishment” of the Moors?
[/quote]
In lixy’s fantasy land the Moors discovered America.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This is a red herring - what do these have to do with the subject at hand, which is why the sins of imperialism doesn’t apply to your precious Islamic empires?[/quote]
Goes to show how much suffering and damage US foreign policy has caused.
An empire is an empire. It’s a bad thing whether the people in charge are choir boys or satanical beasts. The ruled population will always suffer.
The difference is this: The Muslims who went spreading Islam thru the sword ended up in places where people were so oppressed that they didn’t mind being under Islamic rule because it was a lot less harmful than what they were previously under. Everything’s relative. Of course, not all conquered countries turned out so idyllic but on average, the locals thrived during those times.
The modern American empire is nothing like that. It’s a fight for control and money whereas Muslims fought for an ideology. Not that I agree with what the latter did but it’s sure benign compared to what’s happening in current times.
[quote]So when being either the oppressor or the oppressed, the result was the same - Muslim societies did the same thing with regards to advancing civilization: nothing.[quote]
Here’s something that might enlighten you in that regard.
Who do you think signs them? It’s the bastards in power that have no legitimacy whatsoever. Them remaining in power is closely linked to their bowing to washington. Remember that without US support, the Al-Sauds, Moubaraks and others would be toast.
Speculative, conjectural and mere theory. That’s all that is.
You can’t prove such conclusions.
I don’t know. What I’m sure about, is that terrorists will have a hard time recruiting suicide bombers.
Thanks for supporting my point.
Yeah, under transparent and fair elections, Islamists win by a large margin anywhere in the Arab world.
[quote]And do not Muslim societies complicit in the evils of imperialism of their past have to pay the wages of those sins? “Blowback”, and so forth?
If not, why not?
[/quote]
Because you can’t hold a billion and a half people responsible for whatever other people who shared their faith did many centuries ago.
Your theory of blowback is just ridiculous.
I guess it depends who the Muslim conquers were. I know that when they originally came out of Arabia, the world was divided between the Byzantine Empire, the Persian Empire and the Turkish Empire. The Byzantines and the Persians just went through a terrible war and were recovering. Some of the population ruled by the Byzantines had so many Christian sects, all different and all persecuted by the Byznatines, that they probably didn’t care who ruled them. Many converted, many did not.
The Druse, the Marionites, the Yezidiz and the Assyrians are some of the sects who did not submit. The Persians on the other hand ended up starting their own sects of islam.
But, on the other hand, if your town was conquered by Timur or Babur, you might have your head cut off and placed in a huge pyramid outside your town.
Turks and Mongols submitted to Islam to increase prosperity and trade. India fought against them hard for many centuries.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
“banishing their Muslims kicked there ship building capabilities down a couple notches”
Then how come the Spanish and the Portugese became huge naval powers and had colonies all over the world after the “banishment” of the Moors?
In lixy’s fantasy land the Moors discovered America.[/quote]
Like it or not, during the middle ages, the Muslims were WAY fucking beyond Western Europe.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
“banishing their Muslims kicked there ship building capabilities down a couple notches”
Then how come the Spanish and the Portugese became huge naval powers and had colonies all over the world after the “banishment” of the Moors?
In lixy’s fantasy land the Moors discovered America.
Like it or not, during the middle ages, the Muslims were WAY fucking beyond Western Europe.[/quote]
Dark ages not middle. By the middle ages they already were in decline.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
“banishing their Muslims kicked there ship building capabilities down a couple notches”
Then how come the Spanish and the Portugese became huge naval powers and had colonies all over the world after the “banishment” of the Moors?
In lixy’s fantasy land the Moors discovered America.
Like it or not, during the middle ages, the Muslims were WAY fucking beyond Western Europe.[/quote]
Unfortunately Islam is in the middle of their wn Dark Ages right now.
[quote]lixy wrote:
An empire is an empire. It’s a bad thing whether the people in charge are choir boys or satanical beasts. The ruled population will always suffer.
The difference is this: The Muslims who went spreading Islam thru the sword ended up in places where people were so oppressed that they didn’t mind being under Islamic rule because it was a lot less harmful than what they were previously under. Everything’s relative. Of course, not all conquered countries turned out so idyllic but on average, the locals thrived during those times. [/quote]
This is rank revisionism. You are completely transparent now - feeling defensive about a culture you know has a sordid colonial history that undermines all your colonial-guilt theories, you are just making stuff up.
So the oppressed under the Caliphate were happy to have their ideological overmasters? Please, Lixy.
If that be true, a fight for an ideology is one of the most awful engines of destruction and hate available - after all, a person becomes an enemy solely because of what they believe. Therefore, they either submit against their God given free will or die.
Nice job - you made my case for me.
[quote]Here’s something that might enlighten you in that regard.
Whatever half-baked propaganda you were attempting has been removed by the site.
If those in power have no legitimacy, how do they operate? Why haven’t the Muslim peoples stepped up and made demands of them, or better yet, overthrown them?
What is fascinating is that you say they have no legitimacy - but democracy is not recognized in Muslim societies, so why are the ruling parties illegitimate? Monarchs have always been afforded their authority.
And, curiously, the Islamists don’t want to replace the current monarchs with a more tolerant, more liberal group of rulers or government - in fact, they want to replace them with a harsher form of tyranny. The Islamists aren’t mad at the current group of Muslim rulers because they think they are oppressed - they are mad because the current rulers aren’t oppressive enough.
So how can the Islamists be the champions of the oppressed when they actually want to replace existing governments with something more oppressive?
Hmmm - yet another of Lixy’s half-literate left-wing theories fail under scrutiny.
[quote]Speculative, conjectural and mere theory. That’s all that is.
You can’t prove such conclusions. [/quote]
Nope, nope, nope - you say Western oppressors are holding back Muslim societies. So on that theory, the Muslims would therefore blossom if the oppressors left…
So how is that? Why would they? It’s your theory - surely you can tell me why the backwards barbarian Muslims will suddenly become enlightened humanists when the West leaves?
When you say “speculative, conjectural, etc.”, one thing comes to mind - you don’t have an answer to my question. Well, it is merely asking for a clarification of your theory - not up to it?
You claim that oppression is holding them back - well, tell me why you think they will suddenly explode into the modern age of humanism after the West leaves?
Exactly right - you have no idea. You shriek about Western oppression, but when the curtain is pulled back, you see Muslim society exposed for what it is. Whether the West is involved or not, there is no education to be had, no modernity to harness, no opportunity. The West ‘leaving’ will have no effect - the West isn’t stopping the Muslim masses from reading John Locke or learning organic chemistry.
Again, you don’t know. Or you refuse to know - that seems more likely. Apologists for Muslim societies like you always provide a smokescreen for what is really in play - a massive, humiliating inferiority complex when an internal audit is done on the Muslim society. It’s no fun to have to take responsibility for the shameful, self-inflicted misery while the modern world passes you by, creating wealth, health, and happiness for its people - so you create scapegoats to avoid having to deal with the duty to fix your own world.
You are being completely arbitrary where you draw the line - without an explanation as to why. Osama bin Laden still frets over the Crusades - how long ago was that? Your own radical Muslims defy every word you say with their actions - they hold people (Christians and Jews and Westerners generally) responsible for what they did centuries ago.
Again, you are trying to hide the ball. If OBL and his ilk get to get pissy about about what happened centuries ago, why are those same gripes not available to the victims of Islamic colonialism?
I know exactly why - you have thrown off all pretenses of being even-handed. You are a naked apologist for this barbarism, even when it forces you to ignore the information that stares you in the face and contradicts your claims. Why pretend to be anything else at this point?
That is close - what you meant to say is the theory of blowback is ridiculous.
lixy: you are owned.
I kind of feel sorry for you, except to insist on holding onto your skewed sense of reality/history.
Kudos to tbolt…writes what I wish I could say.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The modern American empire is nothing like that. It’s a fight for control and money whereas Muslims fought for an ideology. Not that I agree with what the latter did but it’s sure benign compared to what’s happening in current times.
[/quote]
Do you understand what the freedom to make money implies? It means that your earnings belong to you. Your property belongs to you. Your life belongs to you. You have a medieval view of money.
Look at the Chinese and Indians: Money and the rational pursuit of same is liberating. One of those countries is the largest democracy on earth and the other will soon be, whether they want it or not.
I suspect that the tide of history will scrape the Muslim theocracies into the dustbin of history — as rightly it should.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
“banishing their Muslims kicked there ship building capabilities down a couple notches”
Then how come the Spanish and the Portugese became huge naval powers and had colonies all over the world after the “banishment” of the Moors?
In lixy’s fantasy land the Moors discovered America.
Like it or not, during the middle ages, the Muslims were WAY fucking beyond Western Europe.
Unfortunately Islam is in the middle of their wn Dark Ages right now.[/quote]
Pretty much, yeah.
And in respoinse to the other response, the middle and dark ages refer to the same period, I believe. But yes, the Muslim world was in decline at the very end of the middle ages, approaching the Age of Exploration.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why haven’t the Muslim peoples stepped up and made demands of them, or better yet, overthrown them?[/quote]
Maybe they are s-s-s-stupid?
I haven’t read everything, but I haven’t seen Lixy claiming anything like that. But you are right, no doubt about it, no matter what Lixy has said.
[quote]You can’t prove such conclusions.
[/quote]
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I suspect that the tide of history will scrape the Muslim theocracies into the dustbin of history — as rightly it should.[/quote]
Why wait for the tide, when things can be hastened?
[quote]rugbyhit wrote:
lixy: you are owned.
I kind of feel sorry for you, except to insist on holding onto your skewed sense of reality/history.
Kudos to tbolt…writes what I wish I could say.
[/quote]
He is good. Thunder, if you ever write a book, put me down for the first autographed (I hope) copy! 
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So the oppressed under the Caliphate were happy to have their ideological overmasters? Please, Lixy.[/quote]
They weren’t happy, but they were better off than with the previous oppressors.
It’s a BBC documentary. Apparently removed due to copyright issues.
I see you know as much about Muslim societies as Fox wanted to tell you.
Guess there’s no point arguing with an expert in Arab countries’ politics.
Absolutely, that’s why I say fuck both of them.
Yes. For the only reason that they challenge the status quo.
Maybe, maybe not. At least they’ll be able to determine their own destiny. You know, like the universal human rights’ declaration grants them.
And so do you.
My own radicals? Osama Ben Laden?
What’s a bunch of crazy extremists have anything to do with rational people arguing over rational things?
So condemning US atrocities in Iraq makes me an “apologist for this barbarism”? You have a rather wicked view on things.
That’s where lots of intelligence experts will disagree with you.
To conserve knowledge and to preserve it… is quite different from gathering and finding new knowledge. The ottman empire and preceding ones were very good at the first, not so good at the second. Most people seem to confuse those two.
The problems of the ottman empire and those preceding it is nicely outlined in the book “What went wrong? The clash between islam and modernity in the middle east” (Bernard Lewis). I would recommend it to all parts in this discussion, since it sheds light on the entire playfield of which the problems arise.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
To conserve knowledge and to preserve it… is quite different from gathering and finding new knowledge. The ottman empire and preceding ones were very good at the first, not so good at the second. Most people seem to confuse those two.
…[/quote]
Exactly. The Ottoman Empire stifled thought, development etc.