AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,369
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
-
Features
The Middle East and the West: A Brief Historical Timeline.
- Thread starter AthenaAwakened
- Start date
Their big thing was sending armies to invade, conquer and subjugate.
But pesky bible thumping christians stopped those armies after they got as far as France in the west and Austria in the east.
You're cherry-picking facts. If your list justifies acts of terror against the west (and I don't believe terrorism is ever justified) then what came before justifies terrorism against the Muslims.
Shall we announce a policy of destroying one mosque per day until the violence stops? Use a MOAB to do it so people don't want mosques anywhere nearby and drive them out themselves.
- - - Updated - - -
You're out of touch with reality.
ronburgundy
Contributor
There are 2 distinct issues here.
One question is did the actions in and toward the Arab world by the West in the last century transform Islam into a religion used to promote and rationalize grossly immoral forms of violence and oppression.
The other question is did the actions of the West help Islam to retain or grow its power over the Arabic world, and to hinder progress toward secularization? (i.e, Are their more committed Muslims in the Arab world than their would have been?)
The answer is to the first is No, Islam was created to promote and rationalize violence and oppression, just like all monotheisms. True believers of Islam would still view the West as an evil threat due merely to its secularism and progressive values. The West would still be an objective threat to Islamic control by mere influence of its inherently appealing qualities to many oppressed and fatalistically controlled people inherent to any Islamic culture. IOW, their mindset and values would still support terrorism type actions, just as always has since the origins of Islam. Whether they would currently seek to act out on these views and attack the West is less clear.
The answer to the second question is "probably, yes". Secularism spread across the West without force. It arose, as it must, internally, organically, and gradually with the valuing of personal liberty, reason, and non-religious government naturally re-enforcing each other. External threat from outside a society virtually always impedes such values and promotes conservatism, orthodoxy, and unreason which are all fueled by fear. This occurs almost automatically, but obviously moreso if their are internal power structures using and inflating the threats to increase their own power, which clearly elements in the Arab world have done.
More complicated is whether the Arab world (separate from Muslim's in particular) would have gained more territory, resources, and global power without the West's actions. But even if that is the case, the Arab world would be less proportionately Muslim and more secular, thus ideologically opposed to Western secularism and more inclined to use modern warfare methods because terrorism is the method of the militarily weak.
One question is did the actions in and toward the Arab world by the West in the last century transform Islam into a religion used to promote and rationalize grossly immoral forms of violence and oppression.
The other question is did the actions of the West help Islam to retain or grow its power over the Arabic world, and to hinder progress toward secularization? (i.e, Are their more committed Muslims in the Arab world than their would have been?)
The answer is to the first is No, Islam was created to promote and rationalize violence and oppression, just like all monotheisms. True believers of Islam would still view the West as an evil threat due merely to its secularism and progressive values. The West would still be an objective threat to Islamic control by mere influence of its inherently appealing qualities to many oppressed and fatalistically controlled people inherent to any Islamic culture. IOW, their mindset and values would still support terrorism type actions, just as always has since the origins of Islam. Whether they would currently seek to act out on these views and attack the West is less clear.
The answer to the second question is "probably, yes". Secularism spread across the West without force. It arose, as it must, internally, organically, and gradually with the valuing of personal liberty, reason, and non-religious government naturally re-enforcing each other. External threat from outside a society virtually always impedes such values and promotes conservatism, orthodoxy, and unreason which are all fueled by fear. This occurs almost automatically, but obviously moreso if their are internal power structures using and inflating the threats to increase their own power, which clearly elements in the Arab world have done.
More complicated is whether the Arab world (separate from Muslim's in particular) would have gained more territory, resources, and global power without the West's actions. But even if that is the case, the Arab world would be less proportionately Muslim and more secular, thus ideologically opposed to Western secularism and more inclined to use modern warfare methods because terrorism is the method of the militarily weak.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,369
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
You have no answers AGAIN, and not enough self control to say nothing when you know nothing.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I think that Arab Muslims have plenty of historic reasons to blame the west for their misery, which leads to some terrorism. So do Africans, Blacks, American Indians, Asian Indians, native Australians, and etc.
untermensche
Contributor
Sounds like the US invasion of Iraq.
Started because GW's Christian god told him to. So he claimed.
You're still not addressing the fact that that list cherry-picked the setbacks Islam suffered while ignoring the fact that every such setback was the loss of lands it previously conquered.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,369
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
I offered a list provided by another source. I labeled it not a complete list but a brief list. And you can't really answer the question in the OP.
What has been left out that would be relevant to today's discussion of the current situation in the ME? How does what you think should be included change that current situation and please explain in your own words.
Just because someone else did the cherry-picking doesn't mean it wasn't cherry picked.
4321lynx
Veteran Member
History was written by the victors.
Now it is also written by the once vanquished.
Also by those with chips on their shouilders for any reason, and those who are politically correct and those with axes to grind, or beheading knives to sharpen.
And it is all over the 'net so it must be correct and "true" and is never, but never ever, propaganda, and Allah akbar, but YHWH and God are old white men's madhouse ravings.
And Arabs never ever hunted slaves and castrated the men and boys before shipping them overseas, that was invented by Stanley and doctor Livingstone I presume.
There, fixed it for you.
Now it is also written by the once vanquished.
Also by those with chips on their shouilders for any reason, and those who are politically correct and those with axes to grind, or beheading knives to sharpen.
And it is all over the 'net so it must be correct and "true" and is never, but never ever, propaganda, and Allah akbar, but YHWH and God are old white men's madhouse ravings.
And Arabs never ever hunted slaves and castrated the men and boys before shipping them overseas, that was invented by Stanley and doctor Livingstone I presume.
There, fixed it for you.
maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Be reminded of the other insufficiently acknowledged parts of the timeline:
From 1299 to 1699 the Islamic Ottoman Empire launched relentless wars of imperialism and conquest against the West. Scores of wars and hundreds of battles involving invasions of up to 150,000 Turks.
Ottoman Wars against Byzantines
Ottoman Launch of Albanian-Turkish Wars
Ottoman conquest of Bosnia (Ottomans executed King of Bosnia)
Ottoman wars against Serbia
Ottoman Conquest of Constantinople
Croatian–Ottoman Wars (Two hundred years of Croation resistance, ending in 100 years war with Ottomans).
Ottoman conquest of central parts of Hungarian Kingdom (The 150-year Turkish Occupation, as it is called in Hungary, lasted until the late 17th century but parts of the Hungarian Kingdom were under Ottoman rule from 1421 and until 1718.)
Ottoman conquest of Serbia and the Vojvodina rebellion
Serbian–Turkish Wars
Ottoman Wars against Venice
Ottoman Wallachian and Moldavian invasions
1526–1566: Conquest of the Hungarian Kingdom
Ottoman Empire invasion of Moldavia.
The Ottoman War in Hungary in 1566, Crimean Tatars as vanguard
Ottoman campaign against Rhodes, Malta and the Holy League
Ottoman conquest of Cyprus.
Austro-Turkish War, cause by a failed Ottoman invasion of Austria.
Polish-Ottoman Wars, launched by the Ottomans.
And Finally the Great Turkish War launched by the Ottomans.
This war marked the end of the relentless Turkish/Islamic expansionist phase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe
Ottoman/Islamic expansion was checked by 1700. The Ottoman Empire would launch some followup wars to retake lost European lands, and fight a series of holding actions, as uprisings among national people's spread: Greeks, Bosnian, Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Hungry etc. The Turk lost most of them.
From 1299 to 1699 the Islamic Ottoman Empire launched relentless wars of imperialism and conquest against the West. Scores of wars and hundreds of battles involving invasions of up to 150,000 Turks.
Ottoman Wars against Byzantines
Ottoman Launch of Albanian-Turkish Wars
Ottoman conquest of Bosnia (Ottomans executed King of Bosnia)
Ottoman wars against Serbia
Ottoman Conquest of Constantinople
Croatian–Ottoman Wars (Two hundred years of Croation resistance, ending in 100 years war with Ottomans).
Ottoman conquest of central parts of Hungarian Kingdom (The 150-year Turkish Occupation, as it is called in Hungary, lasted until the late 17th century but parts of the Hungarian Kingdom were under Ottoman rule from 1421 and until 1718.)
Ottoman conquest of Serbia and the Vojvodina rebellion
Serbian–Turkish Wars
Ottoman Wars against Venice
Ottoman Wallachian and Moldavian invasions
1526–1566: Conquest of the Hungarian Kingdom
Ottoman Empire invasion of Moldavia.
The Ottoman War in Hungary in 1566, Crimean Tatars as vanguard
Ottoman campaign against Rhodes, Malta and the Holy League
Ottoman conquest of Cyprus.
Austro-Turkish War, cause by a failed Ottoman invasion of Austria.
Polish-Ottoman Wars, launched by the Ottomans.
And Finally the Great Turkish War launched by the Ottomans.
This war marked the end of the relentless Turkish/Islamic expansionist phase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe
Ottoman/Islamic expansion was checked by 1700. The Ottoman Empire would launch some followup wars to retake lost European lands, and fight a series of holding actions, as uprisings among national people's spread: Greeks, Bosnian, Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Hungry etc. The Turk lost most of them.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,526
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Shall we remember a few things for perspective?
ISIS doesn't give a shit about history. They want the Earth to burn and start Armageddon.
bin Laden really didn't care about much except that the US was allowed on holy soil back when Hussein made a grab for Kuwait.
The history offers a simple context, both sides have been brutal against each other over a period of centuries. The last century, bad decisions were made with splitting up areas to form colonies. The US and the West made certain decisions about supporting leaders that wasn't in their own nation's best interests... for Western benefit.
That holds a particular context. Especially when looking at Syria for solutions with ISIS (an Armageddon death cult which is inspired a little bit by Islam). More western bombs and meddling isn't exactly something that the Arabic population is going to high five any time soon. When the West steps in, there is great mistrust. And why shouldn't they? The George W. Bush admin let Iraq burn while they tried to save face back home, and that wasn't even 10 years ago.
So to ignore the mistrust in the West is absolutely foolish. If the West is to be trusted in the Middle East, they need to start making decisions that are in the Middle East's best interest for a change. Sure, the Arabs need to make strives as well, but why the heck should they start if the West is just going to plant another dictator to create stability? It is their lives on the line, not ours. Until then, there will be people willing to convince other people to perform dastardly acts against the West in the name of the fallen civilians, alleged Arabic brotherhood, or just flat out insanity.
ISIS doesn't give a shit about history. They want the Earth to burn and start Armageddon.
bin Laden really didn't care about much except that the US was allowed on holy soil back when Hussein made a grab for Kuwait.
The history offers a simple context, both sides have been brutal against each other over a period of centuries. The last century, bad decisions were made with splitting up areas to form colonies. The US and the West made certain decisions about supporting leaders that wasn't in their own nation's best interests... for Western benefit.
That holds a particular context. Especially when looking at Syria for solutions with ISIS (an Armageddon death cult which is inspired a little bit by Islam). More western bombs and meddling isn't exactly something that the Arabic population is going to high five any time soon. When the West steps in, there is great mistrust. And why shouldn't they? The George W. Bush admin let Iraq burn while they tried to save face back home, and that wasn't even 10 years ago.
So to ignore the mistrust in the West is absolutely foolish. If the West is to be trusted in the Middle East, they need to start making decisions that are in the Middle East's best interest for a change. Sure, the Arabs need to make strives as well, but why the heck should they start if the West is just going to plant another dictator to create stability? It is their lives on the line, not ours. Until then, there will be people willing to convince other people to perform dastardly acts against the West in the name of the fallen civilians, alleged Arabic brotherhood, or just flat out insanity.