A primer on Muslim "Anger"

[jbg]

If you count overall UN aid through UNWRA and other conventional UN aid agencies, other foreign aid, etc. with aid Israel has received I bet the "Palestinians" have received more. The "Palestinians" live in misery because that is the Islamic way; splendor for the rulers, squalor for everyone else.

[buffycat]

If you count overall UN aid through UNWRA and other conventional UN aid agencies, other foreign aid, etc. with aid Israel has received I bet the "Palestinians" have received more. The "Palestinians" live in misery because that is the Islamic way; splendor for the rulers, squalor for everyone else.

IOW you don't know. You are simply projecting your clear bias towards those who you think are inferior.

I still call BS to your 'bet'.

Israel, through not only the US but also Germany, Poland and other Europeon lands has recieved BILLIONS of dollars in aid, as well as nice free subs and planes and bombs etc since her creation by the UN.

So, I call nonsense to your assertion that the PA has recieved anywhere near the amount of aid that Israel has and continues to recieve - without any oversight of consideration of the effects of that so called aid.

Your bigotty knows no end sometimes jbg.

[Rue]

Is this thread really any different in quality than someone launching a discussion titled "A primer on Jewish 'scheming'?

I must agree with you Figleaf. The problem with using history to make negative generalizations about an entire people is that

it incites hatred of the entire people. I think in many debates I blast you, but fair is fair with this comment. Prejudice is

prejudice and its exactly why I am not comfortable with this thread at all and Riverwind knows spiritually I can not do anything but listen to

his words and try tell myself, as a Jew, if I am to genuinely be a good Jew, I can not hate Muslims or allow my knowledge of their

history or my perceptions to incite me into fearing and therefore hating them.

That spiritual point in Riverwind's words have not missed me.

My only disagreement with Riverwind is this. I do believe that a certain element of Muslims and I really do not know what size they are and just who they really speak for, but I fear it only takes a minority of them to be able to control a larger majority of Muslims for the simple reason that the Muslim world by far is still emerging and the vast majority of its peoples still do not read and so depend on their mullahs to explain the koran for them.

We forget that until the majority of Muslims learn to read and write, they can not on an individual level be able to develop critical thought.

So without generalizing in a negative way, I think froma purely anthropological point of view, Muslim society is still evry young and probably at a puritanical stage of development no different then when Christians were burning non believers at the stake.

That said the moderate Muslims or those Muslims who have learned to read, write and engage in the so called Western world, are people we need to forge alliances with if we are to try get the rest of the Muslim world to embrace critical thought and say less fundamental or orthodox methods of

thought and allow more individuality.

Yes at the preent time there is an element of facism in certain Muslim thinking. As a Jew of course it frightens me because when I read it and see it on Muslim t.v. and then echoed by so called anti-Zionists, I feel existential anghst. My radar of survival goes off thinking no its not just an isolated problem in the Middle East, it is spreading and we are all members of this planet and what effects one of us elsewhere effects us here as well.

I guess what I am saying is I am not as isolationist in my perceptions as perhaps Riverwind is nor do I think its realistic to think certain fundamentalists of the Muslim faith are harmless and can be left alone.

I do concede though that we can't possibly impose our values on others. They have to come to them on their own free will. If you try force it on people you get Iraqs. You can't take people who have never lived in what we think is democracy, march into their country, completely ignore their culture, destroy their infrastructure, award rebuilding contracts to everyone but Iraqis, leave them sitting without electricity, water or jobs for years while their country is over-run by private security guards protecting contractors and who far outnumber the US or British military presence and expect them to embrace you simply because you killed Sadam.

The Americans got rid of Sadam but have brought no vision.

The struggle we Jews have with this world and particularly Muslims or myself now with Riverwind, is to inunciate our fears in a way Riverwind can understand but in a way that also promotes what we think a positive future vision could be for all people.

I myself do not think there can be a comprehensive peace plan in the Middle East until Christians, Jews and Muslims, stop trying to define themselves in righteous terms and simply see themselves as guests on the planet whose actions can positively or negatively effect each other and so must learn to

find a way to coexist and not violate the rules of the planet which say no one life form can take precedent over another or is sueprior to another.

Sounds flaky but it works like this-you read anyone's history whether it be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc., there will be stories of people in the name of their creator or God killing others. Such history doesn't make us distinct, it makes as common and its precisely why we need to get over this pretension we are different.

Is it realistic to think Muslim extremists can be dialogued with no. I think certain Muslim extremists must be contained and if need be, killed to prevent them from killing. That said, I think it is just as important we find away to embrace those willing to engage in peaceful discussion to find alternatives to war and terror and that means stop using our religions or ethnic identities to look for reasons of difference and distrust and use them to find things in common that we can use to build networks of trust.

No I do not think people like Martin Luther King or Yithak Rabin or Anwar Sadat or Sitting Bull died in vain.

You want to deal with this-simple-set up common grass roots projects whereby Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., work together building sewage systems, roads, schools, community centres, water pipelines and can go to school together.

[Rue]

IOW you don't know. You are simply projecting your clear bias towards those who you think are inferior.

I still call BS to your 'bet'.

Israel, through not only the US but also Germany, Poland and other Europeon lands has recieved BILLIONS of dollars in aid, as well as nice free subs and planes and bombs etc since her creation by the UN.

So, I call nonsense to your assertion that the PA has recieved anywhere near the amount of aid that Israel has and continues to recieve - without any oversight of consideration of the effects of that so called aid.

Your bigotty knows no end sometimes jbg.

Funny Buffy but you seem to call him a bigot not because he engages in negative generalizations but simply because you disagree with the negative generalizations. You again miss the point. Negative generalizations of ANYONE is equally as problematic and this is why if JBG engages in negative gerenalizations they are questionable and precisely why your positiuons are as equally as questionable. Until you stop making negative generalizations about Jews and Israelis you are no better then JBG for doing the same bout Muslims in reverse.

Either way it is not helpful only don't you come on this post and now try claim you are righteous. Its like someone with bad breath telling another they have body odour.

By the way your naive simplistic black and white analysis of Israel getting funding but the PA not getting funding is completely wrong.

Go back and read how much money the PA has received and what it has done with it before you make such simplistic and inaccurate comments.

The PA has received many billions of dollars of aid and until you bother to find out the facts instead of posing subjective stereotypical preconceptions as facts, it will keep soaring over that righteous head of yours.

You might also want to try find out who supplies what to who in the Middle East. No its not the black and white formula you present nor has it ever been that simple. But then do you care about facts at all?

[buffycat]

Funny Buffy but you seem to call him a bigot not because he engages in negative generalizations but simply because you disagree with the negative generalizations. You again miss the point. Negative generalizations of ANYONE is equally as problematic and this is why if JBG engages in negative gerenalizations they are questionable and precisely why your positiuons are as equally as questionable. Until you stop making negative generalizations about Jews and Israelis you are no better then JBG for doing the same bout Muslims in reverse.

Uh, I don't make generalisations about all Jews, I am very careful to note that my beefs are with the behaviour of the Israeli Administrations. Your slander is not based on fact - just your own paranoia and persecution complex

By the way your naive simplistic black and white analysis of Israel getting funding but the PA not getting funding is completely wrong.

I never said that - show me where I said the PA recieved NO funding. I also acknowledge freely that the PA under Arafat likely embezzled huge sums - if his wife is any kind of indication! So don't go putting words in my mouth - oh I forgot that is YOUR SOP!!

The PA has received many billions of dollars of aid and until you bother to find out the facts instead of posing subjective stereotypical preconceptions as facts, it will keep soaring over that righteous head of yours.

LOL see above! What good does any of the money do if the state is by NO means soveriegn - if the state, or so called future state is under occupation and thus has ALL her borders (like there are any where Israel is concerned) controlled by the occupying force? Man - you are one blind dude always reverting to insults and smear, along of course with unsubstantiated accusations.

You might also want to try find out who supplies what to who in the Middle East. No its not the black and white formula you present nor has it ever been that simple. But then do you care about facts at all?

LOL Follow the money Rue!

[JB Globe]

What "logical errors and factual manipulations"?

I guess I have to repeat myself: the main errors you're making are 1- Religious/Ethnic Centrism, 2 - Selective Historical Reading, 3 - Inconsistency when applying your arguements to other religions/ethnic groups.

1 - Your argument assumes that the primary cause of historical events in the Islamic world is because of Islam, and similarly the cause of events in the Arab world is because of something ingrained in Arab ethnicity. Political and economic factors are NOWHERE to be found in your argument, as well as pressure from neighboring states and rival powers.

This argument is essentially the basis of many an anti-semitic argument that Jews have been persecuted throughout history simply because Jews are, in fact, evil. Therefor, the persecution Jews faced because of anti-semitism is justified, because Jews are evil. Just like your hatred of Muslims becomes justified, because they're all evil. Both your argument and the semitic argument completely ignore any other factor other than - the ethnicity or religion (or both) of said group.

To pretend to summarize a religion as diverse as Islam and to ignore political, foreign and economic factors is as ridiculous as summarizing Europe based exclusively on ethnicity and Christianity. Believing that Ireland and Romania are one in the same because they're both Christian is as ridiculous as believing Egyptians and Indonesians are one-in-the same.

2 - You make arguments using historical events and ignore other events which contradict your beliefs. Case in point, you reference piracy done by people who happen to be Muslims (Barbary Pirates up to modern day Somali pirates) and use this to back up your statement that "Their predatory habits on the trade of other peoples is also well-known."

Of course, you ignore (or perhaps are ignorant of) many cases where the opposite is true - in this case where Islamic states have promoted organized trade. One example is the Safavid Empire (which I mentioned earlier), which protected and taxed caravans which traveled the Silk Road across its territory, as well as trading luxury goods like Persian Carpets with Europe. Another example is the extensive Arab (and later, Ottoman) trade network on the Indian Ocean, stretching from Africa to Indonesia, and where the dominant merchant power on the Ocean for centuries. So if Muslims are inherently "pirates" because of their religion, why are Islamic states promoting trade throughout history?

Also, you claim the period of Islamic expansion post-Mohammed was "incredibly violent" however it was no more violent than the expansion of the Roman Empire, Alexander's Conquest, or the Portuguese or Spanish Empires. Yet they are civilized while the early Islamic Caliphate is barbaric? Again - selective reading of history.

3 - You don't apply the same historical analysis and/or ethical standards (which really shouldn't be present in a supposidly objective historical analysis anyway) to other cultures and societies. Case in point - the claim that Muslims are pirates because over the course of history, some pirates happened to be Muslim. Wouldn't this mean that since Christians committed similar acts of piracy over the course of history (ie - the Carribean) that they're also inherently pirates? If I were to take your sloppy analytical framework and apply it to other societies, I could make them look just as bad as you have made the Muslim world look.

Another example - you claim that the bible: "The Bible was probably a relatively accurate oral history . . . accurately described the savagery of neighboring people" - Show me one prominent historian that agrees with you that the bible accurately (as in, objectively) describes people considered by its authors to be "other" The reason no historian agrees with you is that the bible is only useful for seeing how its authors PERCEIVED other peoples. Just like Herodotus' writing serves to show us how the Ancient Greeks PERCEIVED other peoples. In short, both are obviously SUBJECTIVE accounts of history, and any historian worth their salt takes this into consideration when using them as a source.

If I apply your framework to other historical accounts however - the ancestors of modern day Germans, British, and French are barbaric, because Roman historians said so - and since you don't make a distinction between Phoenecians, Babylonians, Sumerians or modern-day Arabs, that means that the ancestors of today's Germans are one-in-the-same, and thus - Germans are barbarians. After all, they are all mass-murderers, right? (note the selective historical reading)

Another case-in-point: I made the following post:

"If Muslims are barbaric because at one point in history, one group of Muslims engaged in piracy and slave-trading, doesn't that mean that Christians are equally barbaric for engaging in an even larger slave-trade and piracy on the most grand scale (also known as Colonialism?)"

To which you responded:

The Muslims sold the slaves to the Christians.

Of course, it is factually incorrect to say that all slaves bought by European slave traders were rounded up by Muslims, many were however, but that isn't the point. Again, I'll repeat myself - if Islam promotes slavery because some Muslims engaged in the slave trade, than doesn't Christianity promote slavery as well? You admited in this statement that European powers (or Christians, as you call them, due to your Religious Centrism) are half of the problem in this equation - doesn't that mean they're equally as barbaric?

If by now most people haven't realized you have an extremely ignorant understanding of world history, this next quote illustrates it well, this was in response to a point I made that you had mentioned the "barbarity" of the ancestors to today's Arabs as claimed the (biased) bible, but left out any mention that these same people were the first city builders on earth, and pioneers in human civilization (Babylonians, Sumerians, etc) . . .

One, the Arabs drove out th people of Sumeria, Babylon and other early civilizations, at the point of a sword.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There was no such thing as Sumeria or Babylon at the time of Islam's beginnings in 5th century AD. Look it up. Sumeria ceased to exist as a state around 2000 BC, and Babylon fell after Cyrus the Great invaded in the 5th century BC. The people living in Arabia during the time of Mohammad were all considered Arab - they were all the same major ethnic group. This is representative of your entire argument in this post - you're speaking as an expert even though what little studying you've done is incredibly biased and selective.

When Islam started it was "convert or die"

In some cases this happend and in some cases it didn't and people converted by choice, or maintained their religious traditions. Does this mean that Islam is really evil? If it does, than isn't Christianity evil as well? After all, Spanish Conquistadors gave the "convert or die" ultimatum to hundreds of thousands of indigenous people in South America. Then again, in many cases people converted willingly.

Again - why are you applying different standards to different civilizations? I claim it's because you have a blatant anti-Islamic bias and you care more about making Muslims look bad than you do about being honest in your arguments.

Many of their practices were barbaric.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Now, would you like me to list equally barbaric practices of Christians, Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Indians and YES! Even us Jews - throughout the ancient world? Selective historical analysis - again!

Some stories were pretty blood-curdling, such as attacking forces that surrendered, or running up a truce flag and then continuing to fight.

Answer this honestly - do you honestly believe that there are not similar incidents in the Christian world before modern times, or have you just never heard about them before?

The actions of the Barbary Coast Pirates are very similar to OPEC; fobbing off productive people to enrich unproductive ones.

If you expect anyone to believe that ridiculous statement, you're going to have to provide more than a one-liner. A word of advice - if you don't have the time to back anything you say with research and facts, don't say it. It's pretty simple.

It's a mite bit worse in Muslim lands, don't you think?

Here's an idea - YOU are making the arguement that development corruption is worse in Muslim nations, so why don't YOU provide evidence of that? Or again, are you too lazy to do the work?

Excuse me, in June 1945 the Germans had made no effort to "make up for the crimes of the past"

I'm talking about today, 2007. Germany has made amends for WWII, the US hasn't made amends for supporting dictators in the Middle East, in fact, it still supports many of them while preaching that its spreading democracy to Iraq.

A far as your statement that "Israel doesn't engage in suicide bombing is because they don't need to" where are the Tibetan suicide bombers in China?

I never said that militarily inferior forces in a conflict ALWAYS resort to terrorism or guerilla warfare (two distinct things, mind you), it isn't automatic. What I said is that it simply is a tactic of forces which can't match the might of an organized, national army. To engage in terrorism means you give up your sense of morality - if Israel were to do that it would loose what international allies it still has, and it would gain little - terrorism is only useful as a tactic if your opponent can easily be influenced by violence. Palestinians see violence all the time, it would be useless.

And although I condemn terrorism and those who perpetrate it, I can't condemn an entire nation because of a tactic some paramilitary groups use.

The colonization became necessary in order to secure the sea and land travel lanes for trade against Muslim depradation.

Alright, now that we've had your brilliant one-liner summary of the entire colonial enterprise, I've just about had it for today.

Honestly, if you expect to win people over - which is the point of a debate - you're going to actually have to be honest in your arguement, know what you're talking about (which means studying) and be consistent in your analysis.

It also doesn't help to use bigoted comments, such as referring to both Turkey and Indonesia as "armpit countries" - What makes it worse is that you're a Jew, and you're directing the same kind of hatred that was once, and still is, directed at us at other peoples.

While you're at it, why don't you just go ahead and advocate for nuking the Muslim world as a "Final Solution" - because that's the next step.

[buffycat]

Wow JB Globe, what a wonderful and thoughtful response. It was refreshing to read such a literate and well thought out reply on this thread.

Thank you kindly.

[jbg]

I guess I have to repeat myself: the main errors you're making are 1- Religious/Ethnic Centrism, 2 - Selective Historical Reading, 3 - Inconsistency when applying your arguements to other religions/ethnic groups.

Sure is important but as you say not everything. Read on.

1 - Your argument assumes that the primary cause of historical events in the Islamic world is because of Islam, and similarly the cause of events in the Arab world is because of something ingrained in Arab ethnicity. Political and economic factors are NOWHERE to be found in your argument, as well as pressure from neighboring states and rival powers.

Why does Singapore thrive, whereas Indonesia and, to a lesser extent Malaysia both languish? I believe that the emphasis on dhimmitude and humiliation, if not threats to safety, of non-Muslims account for some of this. The anti-Chinese riots in Jakarta highlight this.

This argument is essentially the basis of many an anti-semitic argument that Jews have been persecuted throughout history simply because Jews are, in fact, evil. Therefor, the persecution Jews faced because of anti-semitism is justified, because Jews are evil. Just like your hatred of Muslims becomes justified, because they're all evil. Both your argument and the semitic argument completely ignore any other factor other than - the ethnicity or religion (or both) of said group.

The difference is that Jews generally out-achieved their surrounding people. This got them into trouble both because of raw envy and the perception that the lack of religious proscriptions from certain economic activities gave them unfair advanages.

To pretend to summarize a religion as diverse as Islam and to ignore political, foreign and economic factors is as ridiculous as summarizing Europe based exclusively on ethnicity and Christianity. Believing that Ireland and Romania are one in the same because they're both Christian is as ridiculous as believing Egyptians and Indonesians are one-in-the same.

Then why the broad similarities among Muslim countries, such as the tendency towards grinding poverty for the masses, corruption and wealth for the rulers, poor government, and frequent battles.

2 - You make arguments using historical events and ignore other events which contradict your beliefs. Case in point, you reference piracy done by people who happen to be Muslims (Barbary Pirates up to modern day Somali pirates) and use this to back up your statement that "Their predatory habits on the trade of other peoples is also well-known."

Of course, you ignore (or perhaps are ignorant of) many cases where the opposite is true - in this case where Islamic states have promoted organized trade. One example is the Safavid Empire (which I mentioned earlier), which protected and taxed caravans which traveled the Silk Road across its territory, as well as trading luxury goods like Persian Carpets with Europe. Another example is the extensive Arab (and later, Ottoman) trade network on the Indian Ocean, stretching from Africa to Indonesia, and where the dominant merchant power on the Ocean for centuries. So if Muslims are inherently "pirates" because of their religion, why are Islamic states promoting trade throughout history?

That "protection" is the protection of a "protection racket". At best, they excluded other toll takers and extorters, but the "protection" was so expensive as to drive the creation of sea routes to the Orient.

Also, you claim the period of Islamic expansion post-Mohammed was "incredibly violent" however it was no more violent than the expansion of the Roman Empire, Alexander's Conquest, or the Portuguese or Spanish Empires. Yet they are civilized while the early Islamic Caliphate is barbaric? Again - selective reading of history.

True.

3 - You don't apply the same historical analysis and/or ethical standards (which really shouldn't be present in a supposidly objective historical analysis anyway) to other cultures and societies. Case in point - the claim that Muslims are pirates because over the course of history, some pirates happened to be Muslim. Wouldn't this mean that since Christians committed similar acts of piracy over the course of history (ie - the Carribean) that they're also inherently pirates? If I were to take your sloppy analytical framework and apply it to other societies, I could make them look just as bad as you have made the Muslim world look.

Christian piracy was the act of individual criminals, not organized governmental authority.

Another example - you claim that the bible: "The Bible was probably a relatively accurate oral history . . . accurately described the savagery of neighboring people" - Show me one prominent historian that agrees with you that the bible accurately (as in, objectively) describes people considered by its authors to be "other" The reason no historian agrees with you is that the bible is only useful for seeing how its authors PERCEIVED other peoples. Just like Herodotus' writing serves to show us how the Ancient Greeks PERCEIVED other peoples. In short, both are obviously SUBJECTIVE accounts of history, and any historian worth their salt takes this into consideration when using them as a source.

I will research further, but it is known that there were flooding episodes that could have inspired the story of Noah, and as far as "Joseph's dreams" in Egypt it is known that weather moves in cycles of varying duration. Seven years would approximate the length of cycles of drouight and plenty. New York City, for example, has exceeded 60 inches of rain (no time now to translate into Trudeau Units) in consecutive years 1971, 1972 and 1973 (and you can almost add in non-consecutive year 1969), and then again in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and highly likely 2007. We have often experienced similar repetitive spells of relative drought, i.e. 1963-1966. Weather tends to run in like cycles, and I believe the Bible was picking that up. I believe that most scholars consider that many of the historical events, such as the ebb and flow of kings and empires, to be reasonably accurate.

If I apply your framework to other historical accounts however - the ancestors of modern day Germans, British, and French are barbaric, because Roman historians said so - and since you don't make a distinction between Phoenecians, Babylonians, Sumerians or modern-day Arabs, that means that the ancestors of today's Germans are one-in-the-same, and thus - Germans are barbarians. After all, they are all mass-murderers, right? (note the selective historical reading)

Not bad point. That is why US (dubbed NATO) troops continue to sit in Germany more than 60 years after the end of WW II; we have no interest in a repeat performance.

Another case-in-point: I made the following post:

"If Muslims are barbaric because at one point in history, one group of Muslims engaged in piracy and slave-trading, doesn't that mean that Christians are equally barbaric for engaging in an even larger slave-trade and piracy on the most grand scale (also known as Colonialism?)"

To which you responded:

Of course, it is factually incorrect to say that all slaves bought by European slave traders were rounded up by Muslims, many were however, but that isn't the point. Again, I'll repeat myself - if Islam promotes slavery because some Muslims engaged in the slave trade, than doesn't Christianity promote slavery as well? You admited in this statement that European powers (or Christians, as you call them, due to your Religious Centrism) are half of the problem in this equation - doesn't that mean they're equally as barbaric?

I agree and cannot countenance either parties' involvement in the slave trade.

Again - why are you applying different standards to different civilizations? I claim it's because you have a blatant anti-Islamic bias and you care more about making Muslims look bad than you do about being honest in your arguments.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Now, would you like me to list equally barbaric practices of Christians, Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Indians and YES! Even us Jews - throughout the ancient world? Selective historical analysis - again!

Answer this honestly - do you honestly believe that there are not similar incidents in the Christian world before modern times, or have you just never heard about them before?

Why do you persist in ignoring the obvious?

And although I condemn terrorism and those who perpetrate it, I can't condemn an entire nation because of a tactic some paramilitary groups use.

But what about the official spread, aided by Saudi funds, of hate education in Madrassas?

As for unresponded to materials, I will not respond to personal attacks. There were, to be sure, nuggets of facts mixed in, but in the interests of keeping my cool I did not try to extract them.

[JB Globe]

Why does Singapore thrive, whereas Indonesia and, to a lesser extent Malaysia both languish?

Comparing Singapore with Malaysia and Indonesia is like comparing Liechtenstein with Bulgaria - they're two different kinds of animal. How about we compare Singapore with other city-states, or rather nations small enough to function as if they were city-states - Qatar, Dubai (UAE grants its Emirates lots of political/economic independence). All three have used oil money to build highly diverse economies specializing in niche services and trade.

Qatar - Knowledge & Information - besides creating Al-Jazeera and other news networks the state has become the centre of learning for the Arab world and South Asia - in addition to home-grown schools, they've even set up dozens of branch campuses for schools such as Northwestern, Cornell, Texas A&M, Georgetown, and even the University of Calgary.

Dubai - Used it's oil money to build itself as both a free trade zone for ships on their way to European markets, and as a mid-way point for people heading on holidays to elsewhere, and eventually into a tourist destination itself. The national air carrier, Emirates, offers industry-best service at reasonable prices and people can save money by flying connecting flights through Dubai, rather than say British Airways straight to Thailand, for example. Once there, there's little/no cost if a person wants to change tickets and stay a week or two and enjoy the things the city has to offer which are found nowhere else in the world.

Both efforts in both states were guided by thoroughly modern and innovative rulers who had a vision and were dedicated to it. More importantly, both states have been politically stable and free from outside influence since gaining independence. That's the key.

Singapore - Might not have had the oil wealth, but it had always been a major shipping centre, and it used that money to engineer a diverse economy related to trade that includes financial services & tourism.

I don't understand why you highlighted Malaysia as a "backward" nation - it's HDI is higher than Russia's and Brazil's and its economy is growing in a sustainable way. A better comparison would be to compare Malaysia and Indonesia - why one post-colonial state is faring better than another - and I think it basically comes down to good governance - something Indonesia hasn't had until recently, partly through their own fault, and partly because the West (US mainly) supported oppressive regimes there during the Cold War to protect against "communist expansion"

Then why the broad similarities among Muslim countries, such as the tendency towards grinding poverty for the masses, corruption and wealth for the rulers, poor government, and frequent battles.

You're describing things which are common among all post-colonial nations. Be they Muslim-majority, South Asian, South American, African, Southeast Asian, etc. The thing is, because of your blatant anti-muslim bias, which dozens of people have commented on, so I'm afraid it's not just me, - you're ignoring anything that contradicts your religious-centric approach to looking at the Muslim world.

ie - "Muslim Piracy" vs. "Christian Piracy" - see the following statement:

Christian piracy was the act of individual criminals, not organized governmental authority.

1 - You can only call it "Muslim Piracy" or "Christian Piracy" if it is in fact influenced primarily by religious institutions - otherwise it becomes just plain, secular, money-grabbin Piracy. It's like claiming that murderer is a Christian murderer if he happens to be Christian, even if the crime had nothing to do with Christianity. That's what I mean by religious centrism, and its lazy. Similarly, is the United States army a Christian Army because most troops are Christian? The obvious answer is no - Christian theology doesn't drive the army's actions - secular factors do.

2 - This will be the third time I've mentioned the Persian Safavid dynasty's promotion of Silk Road trade through its borders and trade with Europe. This will be the second time I've mentioned trade on the Indian Ocean by Arab, Mughal, and Ottoman Islamic powers. This is what I'm talking about - you're stubbornly ignoring and refusing to even address historical facts which contradict your claims.

Either you weren't aware of these facts before (if the case, I suggest you do some more studying before you decide to take an expert position and make sweeping generalizations), or you were and left them out of your arguement because it didn't suit it.

Either way I think I'm finished here - the many errors you've made factually and logically in your arguments, combined with the fact that you never really respond with a though-out arguement to any of the points I raise, but rather 1-3 sentences, demonstrate your level of understanding about the topic.

My only question is do you really think that people who have studied this material can't instantly recognize an amateur posing as an expert?

There's nothing wrong with being an amateur in a certain subject, we all were at some point, and I am myself in other topics, but you never learn anything if you pretend you know everything and speak rather than listen. You went to temple, you should know that.

[jbg]

You're describing things which are common among all post-colonial nations. Be they Muslim-majority, South Asian, South American, African, Southeast Asian, etc. The thing is, because of your blatant anti-muslim bias, which dozens of people have commented on, so I'm afraid it's not just me, - you're ignoring anything that contradicts your religious-centric approach to looking at the Muslim world.

Grinding poverty was common in post-colonial U.S., Canada, Australia, Israel and New Zealand? Really?

2 - This will be the third time I've mentioned the Persian Safavid dynasty's promotion of Silk Road trade through its borders and trade with Europe. This will be the second time I've mentioned trade on the Indian Ocean by Arab, Mughal, and Ottoman Islamic powers. This is what I'm talking about - you're stubbornly ignoring and refusing to even address historical facts which contradict your claims.

The Silk Road was so dangerous that water-borne transport. A good thing since it led to the discovery on New Worlds.

Either way I think I'm finished here - the many errors you've made factually and logically in your arguments, combined with the fact that you never really respond with a though-out arguement to any of the points I raise, but rather 1-3 sentences, demonstrate your level of understanding about the topic.

Your interest in closing your eyes to the obvious is breathtaking. The recent shooting of the cricket team in Pakistan? Or the recent explosion at the hotel there? The Gaza rocket attacks? Give your head a shake.

And while I'm at it I'll give an example of a non-Muslim failed culture that threatens violence to get its way. The Quebecois, whose threats derailed the re-enactment of the Plains of Abraham battle. Successful groups and cultures don't have time to nurse old grievances and resentments. Failed ones excel at it.

[Oleg Bach]

It's hard to forget that your great great great great grandfather fell under the sword of the Christian crusaders who were never really Christians to begin with. This is what happens when frauds are committed - they cause confusion and an anger that lasts for a thousand years - a little misunderstanding - One says he is killing in the name of God as does the other one - and God gives instructions "don't kill anyone" - yet they did and do - humans are deaf. Deafer than the dead - Now I get it when Christ said "Let the dead bury the dead" - I suppose that some are walking about and are dead for all intent and purpose - so let the zombies kill the zombies - I don't have a problem with that...besides those ready to murder for a cause or other wise are all ready dead spiritually and do not care....... We should organize all the fanatic Christians and Jews and Muslims and let them have a few thousand acres - to fight it out - that would solve the problem - Someone get on that right away... We could call it the battle of ----- what's that biblical myth...you know the name of the last great battle - If they believe in prophecy - let them have it.......now where is the pop corn. Ulitmate war and fighting...this is going to be great - and blood running like a stream brushing against your knees - lets film it.

[jbg]

It's hard to forget that your great great great great grandfather fell under the sword of the Christian crusaders who were never really Christians to begin with.

We have undergone plenty of "Christian" persecution and you don't see us living out our lives in revenge attacks.

[Oleg Bach]

We have undergone plenty of "Christian" persecution and you don't see us living out our lives in revenge attacks.

That was not the point. The nominal Christian is different than the Christian of old..in fact, I really don't believe that Christianity ever reach the world in full - nor did the doctrines of Mohamid..all were hyjacked and used by the state - perverted and utlized for social control and have almost nothing to do with goodness or the God factor. It's like Freud for instance where his thinking was hyjacked by the Nazis and changed and utlitized to engineer a society that was controlable and slavish.

As for revenge - revenge is justice. Do the Muslims seek justice or are they simply being manipulated as the Christians and Jews are by powers that recognize the power of emotional and doctrinal control of a population - I doubt very much that the Mulahs, Priests and high ranking Rabbis actually are good and godly people - If they were we would see evidence of goodness - so far just strife and profit and power grabbing - It's spiritual henchmanship. These so-called religous leaders all answer to the state - For instance - once tax exempt - and as with the Vatican protectorate - They do what is expected - money rules all including the Muslims - terrorist attacks need funding - and truely spiritual people are usually not money minded.

This is much like the communist movement - communist by their very nature have no money. To fulfill their agenda they need backers - capitalist..who profit from the enslavement and duping of a nation - China for example makes western capitalist rich - go figure.

[JB Globe]

JBG,

Why are you digging up this old thread? Especially after accusing me of stalking you a few months ago.

There is ABSOLUTELY no incentive for me to respond to anything you write, because no matter how well-written, well-thought out, and how substantial my points are, you ALWAYS respond with one-sentance observations, which many times are actually generalizations or facts taken grossly out of context.

Your latest post illustrates this very clearly.

If you want me to respond to your posts, BUILD AN ARGUEMENT. One-liners aren't arguments.

Otherwise it's a waste of my time - I'm too busy researching for a living among other things to be doing it pro-bono in a debate with someone who is completely incapable of having a REAL debate about an issue.

[jbg]

JBG,

Why are you digging up this old thread? Especially after accusing me of stalking you a few months ago.

Because I felt like it. You are not the primary focus of my life, believe it or not.

There is ABSOLUTELY no incentive for me to respond to anything you write, because no matter how well-written, well-thought out, and how substantial my points are, you ALWAYS respond with one-sentance observations, which many times are actually generalizations or facts taken grossly out of context.

Yet you responded. I'll respond with any length post I deem fit, particularly to posts whose purpose is to troll and irritate.

Your latest post illustrates this very clearly.

And....

If you want me to respond to your posts, BUILD AN ARGUEMENT. One-liners aren't arguments.

My opening post here most certainly did build an argument, albeit one you vehemently disagree with. One of the great things about both the U.S. and Canada is that we are each entitled to our opinion, and to regard or disregard each other's opinion as much as we like.

Otherwise it's a waste of my time - I'm too busy researching for a living among other things to be doing it pro-bono in a debate with someone who is completely incapable of having a REAL debate about an issue.

I have plenty of real debates about issues. I just get the feeling that you're always spoiling for a fight. I am not going to be provoked into getting myself banned.

[JB Globe]

I just get the feeling that you're always spoiling for a fight. I am not going to be provoked into getting myself banned.

Debating isn't fighting, and properly researching your points won't get you banned.

As I stated before, if you're not going to put any effort into properly informing yourself about the topics you're talking about, or employ logical fallacies as a means of covering up the fact that you're uninformed about said topic, than there really isn't any point to discussing anything with you.

I have debates all the time on here and elsewhere with people who disagree with me, they just do their homework.

[Black Dog]

Successful groups and cultures don't have time to nurse old grievances and resentments. Failed ones excel at it.

What's the definition of a failed culture? How can a culture "fail" anyway?

[jbg]

What's the definition of a failed culture? How can a culture "fail" anyway?

By producing little but illiteracy, ignorance, violence and human misery. Less extreme for the French, say, than Muslims. The French produce ignorance, xenophobia and lack of work ethic.

[ironstone]

I would say you have spent too much of your life watching action movies that you have forgotten how to be a human being. The vast majority of Muslims in the world are not our enemies, however, we will turn them into enemies if we treat them like enemies and bomb their countries because their leaders don't lick our boots.

I repeat - we are in a position of strength. We have the power. We can choose to not react. In the long run we can prevail without being thugs like the Muslims that are trying to provoke us. In fact, I beleive that is the only path to a peaceful future. If the US bombs Iran over this nuclear issue we will be heading towards a generation of upheaval and bloodshed. You are incrediblely naive if you believe you can create peace with war - especially 'preemptive' wars.

Don't you mean peace through appeasement?

[Oleg Bach]

Don't you mean peace through appeasement?

No he means peace through not being a racist freak who believes that every brown eyed dark skinned Muslim is the devil...I will always remember the young Muslim man taking care of his dying mother in the hospital bed next to my daughters' - He was the only one to bring her water when she was thirsty - and the family was sweet and kind to me..BUT - I have seen some Muslim immigrants who look me in the face as if they want to kill me - You have to sort them out - to deal with the Muslims in such a broad stroking manner is like saying all Jews are jerks - when only some of them are.

[jbg]

Don't you mean peace through appeasement?

That's what the political party I belong to, the Democratic Party preaches. Iran's Supreme Ayatollah shot that down fast just yesterday.

[DogOnPorch]

That's what the political party I belong to, the Democratic Party preaches. Iran's Supreme Ayatollah shot that down fast just yesterday.

A rather incredible response from Iran. A perfect oppotunity to start from square one, so to speak. They must have their own peace plan but will spring it on us at a later date.

[jbg]

A rather incredible response from Iran. A perfect oppotunity to start from square one, so to speak. They must have their own peace plan but will spring it on us at a later date.

I'm sure their "pieces plan" is airborne and very dangerous.

[Argus]

What's the definition of a failed culture? How can a culture "fail" anyway?

Somalia is a failed culture, a culture which has produced such disharmony, such lack of anything approaching a sense of community or values or ethics or morality that it distintigrates into nothing more than violent warring gangs

[DogOnPorch]

From the heavy irony department...

Muzzammil Hassan, founder of the US TV channel 'Bridges' created to combat negative perceptions of Muslims stands accused of beheading his wife.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/13/new.york.beheading/