Muslims Muslims Muslims

[Bonam]

if you don't want to learn about Black history, don't pay attention. Choose not to learn anything about it. Kids are doing that in school all the time regarding all kinds of "specific knowledge" that they are having "rammed down their throats." It's the fact that you have a problem with it being presented that I don't get.

Yet we're "subjected" to all kinds of knowledge throughout our lives. Whether we want to learn it or not. We're "subjected" to all of the subjects that are deemed necessary to give us a good education and earn a high school diploma. We're subjected to learn math that most of us will never use in a million years. We're "subjected" to all of the classes deemed necessary to be granted degrees.

Black history month is not simply a school subject. I'm sure you can see the difference.

You do have a choice. Chose not to watch Black History Month.

But I do think if there were all kinds of educational spots on television, covering all the bases so to speak, maybe people wouldn't feel such a need for Black History Month, et al. In the meantime, rather than be upset about it, simply don't watch if you don't have any interest in learning about accomplishments made by Black people. If you'd rather specifially not know about that, for reasons I can't fathom, simply don't watch. Don't learn.

Well as it happens I think history is history. We should learn the significant aspects of the world's history, including contributions by whatever races to whatever extent they have been represented in that history. When I set out to learn history, I want to know the big picture. How things interrelated, how nations interacted, how wars were fought, whatever the case may be. I don't learn history just to try to glorify any particular race.

[M.Dancer]

The problem with Black History Month as a high school or primary school topic is, well, there isn't an awfull lot of material to cover. Even if you break it down to african history and north american black history, you caould cover the whole thing is a week.

Day one.

AM

African civilizations

PM

Colonialization

Day Two

AM

Slavery

PM

Civil Rights Movement

Day Three

AM

Famous people who happen to be black

PM

People whose last name is Black

Day Four

AM

Made up african holidays

PM

made up african names

Day Five

MLK Day Holiday

[Bonam]

The problem with Black History Month as a high school or primary school topic is, well, there isn't an awfull lot of material to cover. Even if you break it down to african history and north american black history, you caould cover the whole thing is a week.

Day one.

AM

African civilizations

PM

Colonialization

Day Two

AM

Slavery

PM

Civil Rights Movement

Day Three

AM

Famous people who happen to be black

PM

People whose last name is Black

Day Four

AM

Made up african holidays

PM

made up african names

Day Five

MLK Day Holiday

That's not true. Any people of the world have more than enough history to cover a month of classes. Or a year, for that matter.

The question is not how much history they have.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't learn history just to try to glorify any particular race.

Neither do Blacks, so some are tired of learning history that glorifies whites; which is why some would like to learn about Black history.

[Bonam]

Neither do Blacks, so some are tired of learning history that glorifies whites; which is why some would like to learn about Black history.

Then let them. No one is stopping them from learning black history. Why does that mean having a "black history month"?

[Bonam]

Neither do Blacks, so some are tired of learning history that glorifies whites; which is why some would like to learn about Black history.

Oh and by the way our history hardly glorifies whites. When I learned history here in Canada it was constantly presenting whites in a negative light, whether talking about ancient conquests and wars, or imperialism and slavery, or the 20th century.

[M.Dancer]

That's not true. Any people of the world have more than enough history to cover a month of classes. Or a year, for that matter.

The question is not how much history they have.

No it is true. Not much happened in africa for 100s of years. And what did happen wasn't written down. No great oinventions. No great empires....no nothing.

12AD The tsilumba people came and stole our goat

13AD. The tsilumba people came and stole our goat

14AD The tsilumba people came and stole our goat

snip

120AD The Tsilumba people came and stole our goat

snip

500AD Muslims came and stole all the Tsilumba people goats

snip

1700AD The Tsilumba people came and stole us and sold us to the Europeans....

[Bonam]

No it is true. Not much happened in africa for 100s of years. And what did happen wasn't written down. No great oinventions. No great empires....no nothing.

False. Plenty of Empires.

[M.Dancer]

False. Plenty of Empires.

Sorry, I meant REAL empires,..the kind that project power 1000s of miles away from their capitals... not tiny village states...

[M.Dancer]

False. Plenty of Empires.

Of that list only a few would be considered great empires....Cartage, Kush, the Egyptians and the Muslims...the rest are petty and inconsequential

[Bonam]

Of that list only a few would be considered great empires....Cartage, Kush, the Egyptians and the Muslims...the rest are petty and inconsequential

Nevertheless knowing all there is to know about all of them would be more than enough subject matter for a month of study. Not to mention the other aspects of black history.

[Hydraboss]

Let's have "White History Month".

Then we can get some beer and watch all the "protesters" come out and call us all "bigots", "racists", "bastards", "neocons", "Aryans", "crackers", "nigger-haters", "anti-Muslims", etc, etc, etc.

[Visionseeker]

No it is true. Not much happened in africa for 100s of years. And what did happen wasn't written down. No great oinventions. No great empires....no nothing.

12AD The tsilumba people came and stole our goat

13AD. The tsilumba people came and stole our goat

14AD The tsilumba people came and stole our goat

snip

120AD The Tsilumba people came and stole our goat

snip

500AD Muslims came and stole all the Tsilumba people goats

snip

1700AD The Tsilumba people came and stole us and sold us to the Europeans....

Wow! The ignorance is strong in this one.

Do some research Dancer. You'll find that there are some excellent pieces of historical works, backed up by archological findings, that reveal the multiplicity of African history. They were, and are, more than people preoccupied with goats.

[Visionseeker]

Sorry, I meant REAL empires,..the kind that project power 1000s of miles away from their capitals... not tiny village states...

You mean, like Canada?

[jbg]

No this thread is responsible for me looking him up, and the subject of this thread happens to be "Muslims Muslims Muslims" not black history month.

I agree on the "off-topic" issue. But this is not nor should be a white supremacy thread either. The fact is that the radicals among the Muslims are a uniquely vicious group, and the moderate Muslims need to call them out on it.

Lictor 616 derailed the thread.

[Bonam]

I agree on the "off-topic" issue. But this is not nor should be a white supremacy thread either. The fact is that the radicals among the Muslims are a uniquely vicious group, and the moderate Muslims need to call them out on it.

True, I agree with you. We could certainly use more condemnation and isolation of the radicals by the moderate Muslims.

Lictor 616 derailed the thread.

Yup. Although it wasn't much of a thread to begin with. Monkeyman didn't exactly make a very compelling argument.

[M.Dancer]

Wow! The ignorance is strong in this one.

Do some research Dancer. You'll find that there are some excellent pieces of historical works, backed up by archological findings, that reveal the multiplicity of African history. They were, and are, more than people preoccupied with goats.

Yes they also had cows. But as empires go, not so much. Egypt and Carthage maty have been african but certainly not black african...aside from one city in the east they left no acropolis, circus maximus, no great wall. Their effect was minimal even on their own continent and their dynasties short.

[M.Dancer]

Nevertheless knowing all there is to know about all of them would be more than enough subject matter for a month of study. Not to mention the other aspects of black history.

Carthage and Egypt and the islamic empires have nothing to do with Black History.

[lictor616]

Wow! The ignorance is strong in this one.

Do some research Dancer. You'll find that there are some excellent pieces of historical works, backed up by archological findings, that reveal the multiplicity of African history. They were, and are, more than people preoccupied with goats.

black african history (west african and sub saharan black history) stops at the Ghana Empire (which was a muslim arab caliphate) as well as perhaps Songhai (which was mainly Berber) and Nubia.

Anyone suggesting that ancient egypt was a sub saharan nation, or any part of the middle east is simply ignorant of history and trying to steal the history of other people to make blacks seem the superior... the fraudulent scribbling of Chekh Anta Diop should impose on NO ONE ...

[Argus]

This isn't the first time you've said you ignore me,

Tell you what, I will ignore your off-topic nonsense. That should shorten the replies considerably.

Actually, when you make a statement such as "the Muslim world is socially backward" the onus is on you to prove that statement to be true.

Proving the Muslim world is socially backward is like proving water is wet. When one is asked to "prove it" one is left with some doubts regarding the reasons behind the request.

That's what I was looking for - I was looking to see if your argument has any legs to stand on, and the opinions of two Imams who may have an audience of 1-2% of the total population of the Muslim world do not in any way account for what the other 98% think.

And if 2% of the Muslim world wanted Sharia law you might have a point. But it's well over 50% in most countries.

Go ahead and list away. Go ahead and post the Sharia Law poll results.

I thought you'd been reading my posts. I've posted numerous links to these surveys in this thread. Get off your lazy ass and go read them.

If you were to look at the last 100 years, at all of the deaths and the suffering caused by humanity, would you conclude that most of the crimes against humanity have been committed by Muslims? How about the past 50 years? 25? 10?

I'm sorry but I just don't think the history books back up your worldview.

I'm not talking about historical deaths in wars or whatnot. I said they were socially backward NOW, TODAY. And I note you simply ignored my mentioning Muslim world attitudes towards womens rights, homosexuality, freedom of speech, press and religion.

Turkey, Guyana, Senegal, UAE, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey. I think any of these states have made big positive steps from where they were when they gained independence,

Turkey is making strides towards and Islamic state, actually. Indonesia? The land of race riots, bombings and East Timor? Yes, a paradise on earth. The UAE is governed by filthy rich oil sheiks. No one else there has any rights, as far as I'm aware. Guyana - they're so enlightened towards gays it's against the law for men to wear dresses. Why they felt the need for a law like that is beyond me but then again homosexuality carries a life sentence in prison so I guess it's what one should expect. Senegal IS much more enlightnened. I agree with you there. You only get 5 years in prison for homosexuality there.

Looks like I struck a nerve. What was it specifically?

It was the utter blandness of using such a hoary old cliché like that, of using that as an excuse generations after colonialism, and completely ignoring the fact that if anything, Islamic countries have been going backwards, in terms of social advancement, since colonial times.

And I will stop saying that the situation of the developing world is party the fault of the West the minute Western nations stop supporting leaders in developing countries based on the criteria of if these leaders are going to align themselves with our economic/strategic interests and sell out their people for their own personal gain in the process

.

Oh please. Do you expect other nations to support leaders who are in opposition to their interests? Why on earth would they? When in history have they?

Colonialism is a rotten process for the colonized.

Not always. I'd think almost every African nation would be far better off being re-colonized.

Do you really think there'd be so much violence directed against Western interests in these countries if we didn't support corrupt and/or dictatorial regimes?

Actually, there really isn't much violence directed towards western interests - except in Islamic countries. The US never colonized the middle east, but much violence is directed against them from Islamic countries. And Africa, arguably the most victimized by colonial powers, has no terrorist organizations acting against the West - except for Islamic ones.

As for educational and scientific achievement - that's lower than European countries (us included) because colonial nations don't have the same tax base to fund them as well as we do, because (as explaned earlier) we were shrinking their economies for a few centuries and funneled all the growth to build our own systems. They're catching up.

No, they're not. Their education lags the world and continues to fall farther behind. Of the top 500 universities in the world, ranked according to quality of education, none are in Islamic countries. They've abandoned the very idea of science, preferring to study Islam. The following is an excellent read on education in the Islamic world.

Academic and cultural freedoms on campuses are highly restricted in most Muslim countries. At Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, where I teach, the constraints are similar to those existing in most other Pakistani public-sector institutions. This university serves the typical middle-class Pakistani student and, according to the survey referred to earlier, [5] ranks number two among OIC universities. Here, as in other Pakistani public universities, films, drama, and music are frowned on, and sometimes even physical attacks by student vigilantes who believe that such pursuits violate Islamic norms take place. The campus has three mosques with a fourth one planned, but no bookstore. No Pakistani university, including QAU, allowed Abdus Salam to set foot on its campus, although he had received the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his role in formulating the standard model of particle physics. The Ahmedi sect to which he belonged, and which had earlier been considered to be Muslim, was officially declared heretical in 1974 by the Pakistani government.

Science and the Islamic World

I think George Jonas had a good take on the Islamic world as well

It’s not their assets that define nations or religions in given historic moments but their liabilities. Goethe and Beethoven were part of Germany’s heritage even between 1933 and 1945, but the mass murder that defined Germany in the Nazi era was beyond redemption by poets and composers. Tolstoy and Tschaikovsky always belonged to Russia, but the definition of what being Russian meant during Stalin’s epoch came from the frozen corpses of the Gulag. Similarly, Islam’s definition in our times won’t come from the poetry of al-Maari or the medical canon of Avicenna, but from the fatwas of Ayatollah Khomeini and the press releases of Osama bin Laden.

The Islamic World's Malevelant zeitgeist

As for the Arab world, the 2009 UN report on human development in the Arab World stated things are no better than it's last report, and if anything are worse.

Arab human development report

It's wrong, but I can't really criticize this as irrational paranoia - when you muck around in countries the way we do, this is what happens.

In other words, we can't hold them to the same standards we hold, uhm, White people.

But that's not racist! Noooo, of course not!

Hope you don't mind me doing this, just returning the favour for that rant about me being a welfare-writer or whatever it was

rant? You said you were a writer, and that qualified you above all others. I suggested you were a welfare writer. You said nothing to actualyl disprove the theory.

.And MANY people have asked you to clarify your solution to these issues, not just me.

Which issues? I've already stated I'm against continued immigration from the Muslim world. I'm not sure there are a whole lot of other issues I've been asked to solve with regard to the world's muslims.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Argus

[JB Globe]

Proving the Muslim world is socially backward is like proving water is wet. When one is asked to "prove it" one is left with some doubts regarding the reasons behind the request.

If you were to say "social equality and human rights in the Muslim world is not comparable to that in Western countries" you might have something. But the minute you link that lack of social equality and human rights to the inherent inferiority of Islam, or of Muslim societies, you venture out into territory that can not be proven and an imagined reality in which Muslim societies cannot be reformed and/or evolve, but must be destroyed in order to create something better out of their ruin.

The reason you don't want to prove that Muslims and or Islam are inherently "socially backward" is because you can't.

And if 2% of the Muslim world wanted Sharia law you might have a point. But it's well over 50% in most countries.

That's half the story. If you actually knew something beyond newspaper headlines when it comes to the Muslim world, you might have mentioned the following:

- That support for Sharia Law is strongest in countries that have the most oppressive forms of government, whose government courts are a joke because all verdicts are influenced by political corruption. Governments that are most often not well-liked by their population and supported by Western nations. These Countries that have two major authorities: the state and the Mosque, and given the choice, people trust the mosque more than the state, and most would prefer Sharia (however less just it is compared to our legal system) than the legal system of a dictator or monarch. Meaning, it's a pragmatic choice as much as it is an ideological choice.

You might learn that if you read a book by a writer who spends his career researching the Muslim world, but you won't hear that in a 2-minute report on CNN.

You might also learn that there are several schools of Sharia Law, some are brutal, some are rather just problematic.

As usual with your arguments, you're simply trying to present something that is at-worst, a mixed-bag of good and bad, as all bad. Your back must be sore from turning all those molehills into mountains.

Again, I don't deny that there's popular support for Sharia in the Muslim world, but I absolutely do not subscribe to your lazy argument that it's because of, and symbolic of "inherent Muslim backwardness" I believe that this is a problem that can be improved upon, and that if we simply stop propping up corrupt regimes (which means biting the bullet and not being able to plunder natural resources and institute unfair trade practices) and allow reformers to get their work done, you'd see improvement.

I thought you'd been reading my posts. I've posted numerous links to these surveys in this thread. Get off your lazy ass and go read them.

Usually it's expected to repost a poll in a new thread if you mention it. Give me the name of the poll and the company that did it and I'll Google it myself.

I'm not talking about historical deaths in wars or whatnot. I said they were socially backward NOW, TODAY.

So you're limiting it to what time period exactly? A few years? Since 9/11?

How convenient - You would rather we left out all that recent history in which Western powers and non-Muslim majority nations committed genocide, or committed wars of aggression against other nations, or staged coups or assassinated democratic leaders in order to further strategic interests of Empire. Because of course, acknowledging that non-Muslims have never had a monopoly on crimes against humanity would invalidate your argument.

And fyi the 90's aren't ancient history - The Second Congo war is the deadliest conflict since WWII and that only ended in '93, and the Rwandan genocide happened in '94.

And if you want to get into the game of recent events, just look at the violent repression of uprisings in Tibet & Burma recent years.

It is simply not a radical position to assert that violence and injustice correspond not to if a state is Muslim-majority or not, but rather if a state is poor and/or post-colonial. There is a reason why the deadliest violence seems to occur in the poorest countries.

Your insistence on such a short time period also doesn't make any sense in terms of a historical analysis. When you're trying to get a clear idea of trends in a country, or a region, you don't just look at a few years, you evaluate a large time scale. You look at significant past events which may have influenced current affairs, etc.

And I note you simply ignored my mentioning Muslim world attitudes towards womens rights, homosexuality, freedom of speech, press and religion.

Actually I think I mentioned the lack of social equality and human rights before, but I rooted those in political, historical and economic factors, rather than where you root these in genetic/cultural factors.

Turkey is making strides towards and Islamic state,

Really? How so? Because the AK Party is in power? It's as secular as any American political party to be sure, but since Secularism in Turkey is almost like a religion - even small instances that could be twisted around to make it seem like you're influenced like religion are a big deal: ie - Allowing women to chose to wear hijabs in schools or government, or designating a prayer room at schools.

Islamic state? Do you know the definition of hyperbole? Or are you just completely unaware of how ridiculous you sound when you take EVERYTHING to the extreme?

actually. Indonesia? The land of race riots, bombings and East Timor?

Bombings - Are condemned by the vast majority of society, including the most popular Imams in Indonesia.

Race Riots - According to the only official report (Asian Human Rights Commission) the race riots were orchestrated by the military, which was loyal to former general and then dictator Suharto. They were meant to distract from the riots which began as food-shortage and mass-unemployment riots - the military government wanted to scapegoat someone and avoid the public wrath.

Did you know this or did you really think Indonesians just woke up one day and thought: "I hate Chinese people, let's beat some up for no good reason"

East Timor - You do realize that the invasion of East Timor utilized donated American military equipment, right? Equipment that was donated even after Suharto liquidated the Indonesian Communist Party (which was a legal political party) killing 500 000 people. You realize that this invasion occurred the day after Ford and Kissinger met with Suharto to okay the invasion and the use of US equipment, right?

Remember what I said about the West supporting corrupt and brutal dictators? You might have a short memory, but Indonesians don't - they remember US support of Suharto, and even though most don't blame the American public for it, among the terrorists this remains one of their primary reasons for wanting to go to war with the states.

If only we knew that supporting widely-despised dictators would entail bad consequences in the future.

One of my good friends lived in Jakarta for a few years and worked in Aceh after of the Tsunami - from her experience, Indonesia is NOT a radical country prone to violence because of Islamic backwardness. It's a post-colonial country with problems - much like the other countries you listed, which I wish I had time to explain why your characterizations of them are wrong, but I'd rather get through this post in entirety, however I think I've demonstrated by my much more detailed analysis of Indonesia & Turkey that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Oh please. Do you expect other nations to support leaders who are in opposition to their interests?

Empire isn't in the public interest. Supporting brutal dictators isn't in the public interest. It IS in the interest of political and corporate elites, however, if these dictators sell out their public and practically give away resources in return for a cut of the spoils.

Not always. I'd think almost every African nation would be far better off being re-colonized.

Considering almost every colonial nation was in worse shape post-colonialism than pre, I think this would be only a good deal for the colonists.

Actually, there really isn't much violence directed towards western interests - except in Islamic countries.

This violence doesn't correspond to if a country is Islamic or not, it corresponds more to if the West has a large presence in a country and/or a bad history of unfair dealings with that country. That's why there's no attacks in Senegal, but a lot in Saudi Arabia.

By the way, if the US had a large presence in Burma, or North Korea, how safe do you think it's people or assets would be?

Once again you're ignoring context.

And Africa, arguably the most victimized by colonial powers, has no terrorist organizations acting against the West - except for Islamic ones.

Really? How many African Islamic Extremist terrorist groups are there? Al Qaeda bombed those embassies, but those are a few attacks over a 15 year period - a problem no doubt, not exactly the catastrophe you're making it out to be. And although some of the culprits may have been African, Al-Qaeda is not an African organization.

And we won't pay attention to those non-Muslim groups that keep seizing oil rigs and fields in Nigeria and holding Western workers hostage, that would ruin your example.

No, they're not. Their [Muslim majority countries] education lags the world and continues to fall farther behind. . . .

I'll repeat myself: whatever you can say about education in Muslim-majority countries you can say about ANY post-colonial nation: that their education systems are not up to the standards of our own, and the primary reason usually is because these countries are poor and lack the tax base to support an education system, which is expensive but necessary. These countries may not have been the richest in the world (although some, like India, definitely were) prior to colonialism, but it doesn't help when your colonial masters have sucked money out of your country and caused your economy to shrink for a few hundred years.

In other words, we can't hold them to the same standards we hold, uhm, White people.

Not my words, again: It's wrong, but it's not entirely irrational. If we made more of an effort to be consistent in the application of international justice, and also attempted to make international institutions like the UN or IMF more globally democratic instead of concentrating their power in Western hands, this would make this kind of scenario a lot less likely.

^^^^

See what I did there? I criticized "us" and "them" because it was warranted - You should try sometime.

rant? You said you were a writer, and that qualified you above all others. I suggested you were a welfare writer. You said nothing to actualyl disprove the theory.

Again - you're either pretending to not have read my response to your accusations of me being a "welfare writer" or you honestly don't remember it. Do you have a learning disability that causes you to forget things or affects your reading comprehension? I can cut you some slack on this, I have an LD, and I know what it's like sometimes. But really, look back a few pages and you'll see that I explained that all of the projects I've worked on were either funded by networks, corporations or organizations and haven't received any government money.

Whereas my theory on the sources for your quotes is based on where those quotes are available via google (and anyone is free to test it out) your "theory" of me being a "welfare writer" is based on absolutely nothing. It seems like you just assumed that, because I'm a "liberal" and a filmmaker that I MUST be completely dependent on government.

Which issues? I've already stated I'm against continued immigration from the Muslim world. I'm not sure there are a whole lot of other issues I've been asked to solve with regard to the world's muslims.

Well what about your "Islam is socially backward/Islam is violent" line of thought? Surely this promotes pre-emptive aggressive military action action Muslim nations and a form of neo-colonialism to suppress them once defeated, correct?

[jbg]

If you were to say "social equality and human rights in the Muslim world is not comparable to that in Western countries" you might have something. But the minute you link that lack of social equality and human rights to the inherent inferiority of Islam, or of Muslim societies, you venture out into territory that can not be proven and an imagined reality in which Muslim societies cannot be reformed and/or evolve, but must be destroyed in order to create something better out of their ruin.

The reason you don't want to prove that Muslims and or Islam are inherently "socially backward" is because you can't.

*******

Well what about your "Islam is socially backward/Islam is violent" line of thought? Surely this promotes pre-emptive aggressive military action action Muslim nations and a form of neo-colonialism to suppress them once defeated, correct?

Why do you persist in ignoring the obvious? So posters have to waste time disproving palpable BS?

Most people don't want to prove that the sun rises in the southeast in winter.

[Argus]

If you were to say "social equality and human rights in the Muslim world is not comparable to that in Western countries" you might have something.

Semantics are apparently much more important to you than reality.

I'm quite comfortable calling them socially backward. I'm pretty sure you'd be quite comfortable calling any conservative you found in Canada socially backward - to say the least - if his social views were akin to that of the Muslmi world.

The reason you don't want to prove that Muslims and or Islam are inherently "socially backward" is because you can't.

Oh I think I've shown more than enough reasons to support the statement,

- That support for Sharia Law is strongest in countries that have the most oppressive forms of government,

I wasn't aware the British Labour Party constituted an oppressive government. Granted, only 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law, but to me, that's one helluva lot more than an "occasional radical".

You might also learn that there are several schools of Sharia Law, some are brutal, some are rather just problematic.

Is there a school where women aren't buried in the sand and stoned to death for having sex outside wedlock?

Usually it's expected to repost a poll in a new thread if you mention it. Give me the name of the poll and the company that did it and I'll Google it myself.

What part of "posted in this thread" do you not get?

So you're limiting it to what time period exactly? A few years? Since 9/11?

I guess I'm just not the towering intellectual you are. Us ordinary guys, you see, when we talk about "NOW" we mean like, well "Now". You know, as in - now.

How convenient - You would rather we left out all that recent history in which Western powers and non-Muslim majority nations committed genocide

The discussion was about how socially backward they are as a people, not whose military has been involved in the most adventures. For the record, given Muslim dispositions, my opinion is that were they not substantially weaker, enormously weaker, in fact, than the West, we would have seen a lot more violence on a nation level from them.

Actually I think I mentioned the lack of social equality and human rights before, but I rooted those in political, historical and economic factors, rather than where you root these in genetic/cultural factors.

I guess it's easier to argue a lost cause when you can make up things that are easier to argue against, huh?

I have never said a thing about genetics. You're inserting it is just another of your petty attempts at smearing me because you are incapable of arguing against my statements with any degree of intellectual honesty or ability.

Race Riots - According to the only official report (Asian Human Rights Commission) the race riots were orchestrated by the military, which was loyal to former general and then dictator Suharto.

What do you think the chances are of the military in Canada orchestrating murderous race riots?

Remember what I said about the West supporting corrupt and brutal dictators? You might have a short memory, but Indonesians don't - they remember US support of Suharto,

And Canadian support. Let's not forget that Chretien was an enthusiastic supporter of Suharto's.

If only we knew that supporting widely-despised dictators would entail bad consequences in the future.

We work with the governments which are in power wherever they are. Sometimes that means working with some pretty unsavoury people. But there are something like 100 countries in the world which are non-democratic so there really isn't any way around that.

Empire isn't in the public interest. Supporting brutal dictators isn't in the public interest.

Oil so we can heat our homes and fuel our cars is in the public interest, and almost all of it is controlled by "brutal dictators".

Considering almost every colonial nation was in worse shape post-colonialism than pre, I think this would be only a good deal for the colonists.

And they've been getting worse, year by year, at least in Africa and the middle east.

This violence doesn't correspond to if a country is Islamic or not, it corresponds more to if the West has a large presence in a country and/or a bad history of unfair dealings with that country. That's why there's no attacks in Senegal, but a lot in Saudi Arabia.

The US does not have a large presence in Saudi Arabia, and I doubt any of those who were involved in 911 had ever even seen an American.

I'll repeat myself: whatever you can say about education in Muslim-majority countries you can say about ANY post-colonial nation: that their education systems are not up to the standards of our own, and the primary reason usually is because these countries are poor and lack the tax base to support an education system,

Not a single of the worlds top 500 universities is in a Muslim nation. You don't find that telling? Saudi Arabia has lots of wealth, as do the other oil states. But not much in the way of education. I think the quote i posted was also a good indication. As the writer stated, his university already had three mosques, and was constructing a fourth. But it had no bookstore.

[JB Globe]

Why do you persist in ignoring the obvious?

Why do you only respond to my posts with one-liner pot-shots?

Why do you persist in being so arrogant as to believe your personal opinions are all objective facts?

You could only say someone is "ignoring the obvious" is if they are are going against something which is widely acknowledged as a objective truth.

And considering that there is not a large majority of Canadians who believe "Muslims are inherently socially backward" this clearly isn't the case here.

Please spare me these arrogant delusions of yours that your opinions are either objective facts or widely-held unless you have some statistical data to back yourself up.

So posters have to waste time disproving palpable BS?

No one HAS to do anything, Argus is willingly typing away - I'm not holding a gun to his head.

Just like you're willingly taking pot-shots at me and willingly ignoring my argument.

People in democracies disagree, the truth isn't always black and white, sorry to break it to you.

Most people don't want to prove that the sun rises in the southeast in winter.

That may be how the sun looks to you in winter, but a person looking at the same sun standing in Sao Paulo sees things differently.

It's funny how PERSPECTIVE CHANGES THINGS, doesn't it?

(Thanks for setting that one up for me, couldn't have done it better myself.)

[Hydraboss]

If you were to say "social equality and human rights in the Muslim world Alberta is not comparable to that in Western countries Eastern provinces" you might have something. But the minute you link that lack of social equality and human rights to the inherent inferiority of Islam Alberta, or of Muslim societies the Western provinces, you venture out into territory that can not be proven and an imagined reality in which Muslim Albertan societies cannot be reformed and/or evolve, but must be destroyed in order to create something better out of their ruin.

The reason you don't want to prove that Muslims Albertans and or Islam Christianity are inherently "socially backward" is because you can't.

Again, I don't deny that there's popular support for Sharia Christianity in the Muslim Albertan world, but I absolutely do not subscribe to your lazy argument that it's because of, and symbolic of "inherent Muslim Albertan backwardness" I believe that this is a problem that can be improved upon, and that if we simply stop propping up corrupt regimes (which means biting the bullet and not being able to plunder natural resources and institute unfair trade practices) and allow reformers to get their work done, you'd see improvement.

Wow. This whole thing sounds kinda familiar when you change just a few words. What's good as a defence for muslims should be just as valid for other Canadians, no? You still support the statement you made above, I assume?