Islam - What's your view on it?

[xyloscissor]

I'm sure said countries would love to.

No one wants to give up land they have claimed.

That seems contradictory to me, I'm sure you've thought it through but didn't express it correctly?

 

[mustafur]

That seems contradictory to me, I'm sure you've thought it through but didn't express it correctly?

That's because you need to think it through, they Claimed land as in a Government did.

The People are not land.

 

[xyloscissor]

Your sure the countries would love to make new borders to create peace just as long as they don't lose any land in the process?

 

[mustafur]

Your sure the countries would love to make new borders to create peace just as long as they don't lose any land in the process?

I couldn't of made the sarcasm more obvious.

 

[xyloscissor]

Because the site doesn't have emoticons of course. A serious answer to my question would be more interesting.

 

[Scaff]

So if the culture conflicts have been going on longer than Australia existed, and long before the British divided up the region a few decades ago, how would the blame fall on the Brits if the problems have been going on for centuries?

Anytime you redefine borders (and it doesn't matter who's doing it), unless great care is taken it will result in friction (either existing or newly created) and a high probability of violence.

It's not a situation that is unique to the Middle East, it's happened in Europe (repeatedly, and for centuries, and resulted in the two largest wars ever), it's happened in the Americas and it's happened in Aisa.

It happened in Australia, but was rather one sided and almost resulted in the genocide of the indigenous population. Australia is also far from a happy clappy melting pot, with its own internal issues along cultural and racial divides.

Now is the redefining of borders the only cause of conflict? No, but it certainly can't be ignored and has been done very, very badly at times (the partition of Indian being a very good example).

 

[xyloscissor]

(the partition of Indian being a very good example).

I don't know what this is or what it means, elaborate or give a link?

 

[mustafur]

I don't know what this is or what it means, elaborate or give a link?

When India was split up, spliting the Muslim parts (Bangladesh and Pakistan).

Before that it was all India.

 

[xyloscissor]

When I think of India many things come to mind, many things such as nukes but much more. Don't ask me why but I always think of BENAZIR BHUTTO which prolly makes no sense except to me.

What I think the most of is some very very very very special people to me that are from Tibet, a family that moved in right next door to me, such special people full of love and love of life, they fled to India you see? Eventually finding there way here to the U.S. so while I don't have a great understanding I do have contact.

 

[Scaff]

I don't know what this is or what it means, elaborate or give a link?

It was the splitting of India into different countries at the end of British rule, it resulted in the largest displacement of people in human history and up to 2 million deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

The planning for this was lead by a man with no experience in the region, and who was only given 5 weeks to complete the task, the 'new' nations were not directly involved (they were allowed to make statements but not to be involved) and Radcliffe himself wanted the process over as quickly as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliffe_Line

 

[Johnnypenso]

Anytime you redefine borders (and it doesn't matter who's doing it), unless great care is taken it will result in friction (either existing or newly created) and a high probability of violence.

It's not a situation that is unique to the Middle East, it's happened in Europe (repeatedly, and for centuries, and resulted in the two largest wars ever), it's happened in the Americas and it's happened in Aisa.

It happened in Australia, but was rather one sided and almost resulted in the genocide of the indigenous population. Australia is also far from a happy clappy melting pot, with its own internal issues along cultural and racial divides.

Now is the redefining of borders the only cause of conflict? No, but it certainly can't be ignored and has been done very, very badly at times (the partition of Indian being a very good example).

Some flowery prose, but still doesn't change the fact that they've had a hard time getting along in this region for many centuries and we have no idea what would have happened had the inhabitants been given a greater say in defining the regional borders or if they were able to do it themselves. It may have turned out worse for all we know, for a number of reasons.

 

[Scaff]

Some flowery prose, but still doesn't change the fact that they've had a hard time getting along in this region for many centuries and we have no idea what would have happened had the inhabitants been given a greater say in defining the regional borders or if they were able to do it themselves. It may have turned out worse for all we know, for a number of reasons.

Yes because Europe has had millennia of peace and brotherly love during the same time frame!

Its only since 1945 that European states have managed to not wage bloody and almost continual war on each other, and even that has had its moments since then (notably Soviet invasions in the '50's and '60's, civil unrest in a number of countries for that whole period and more conflicts since the collapse of the Soviet union).

To claim that the have had a harder time getting along historically in comparison to the neighboring region (Europe) would require a rather heavy revisionist fantasy in terms of Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes because Europe has had millennia of peace and brotherly love during the same time frame!

Its only since 1945 that European states have managed to not wage bloody and almost continual war on each other, and even that has had its moments since then (notably Soviet invasions in the '50's and '60's, civil unrest in a number of countries for that whole period and more conflicts since the collapse of the Soviet union).

To claim that the have had a harder time getting along historically in comparison to the neighboring region (Europe) would require a rather heavy revisionist fantasy in terms of Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

What are you talking about? Who is talking about Europe?

 

[Scaff]

What are you talking about? Who is talking about Europe?

I was and you replied to it.

Or are you going to use nothing for a comparison?

I mean we can look at others if you like.

Asia's an other big one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Asia

The America's are bigger than most would suspect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Americas

Africa's another big one, and we don't have a written record for most of it's past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa

Or were you thinking in comparison to a softer target, like my three cats?

 

[xyloscissor]

@Scaff

It must have been your wording that threw me for a loop, either that or lack of sleep. I was thinking 'what abarigini or navajo what is going on' lol

I'm still not convinced that so called more appropriate borders would stop any of the nonsense we see in the region and one reason I say that is the west's desire to divide and secure resources.

 

[ryzno]

Did someone say cats? I wanna see!!

 

[xyloscissor]

Did someone say cats? I wanna see!!

 

[Johnnypenso]

I was and you replied to it.

Or are you going to use nothing for a comparison?

I mean we can look at others if you like.

Asia's an other big one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Asia

The America's are bigger than most would suspect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Americas

Africa's another big one, and we don't have a written record for most of it's past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa

Or were you thinking in comparison to a softer target, like my three cats?

Yes, I replied to it by dismissing it. Point remains, you have no idea what would have happened if history were different.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, I replied to it by dismissing it. Point remains, you have no idea what would have happened if history were different.

So the middle East has a problem with historic conflict but your not willing to compare that to any other part of the world.

Why?

Your attempt to dismiss it failed utterly given that historical no part of the world has been great at getting on

 

[Johnnypenso]

So the middle East has a problem with historic conflict but your not willing to compare that to any other part of the world.

Why?

Your attempt to dismiss it failed utterly given that historical no part of the world has been great at getting on

You're so focused on the trees you can't see the forest. My point had nothing to do with whether the ME had any more or less historical conflict than anywhere else. That's your chariot to ride and utterly irrelevant to my point. The root of my recent responses is Mustafar's contention that British influence in drawing up borders is indirectly the cause of today's issues in the ME.

Given the divisions already in the region that have existed for centuries, all we can really say is that things might have been different given different territorial boundaries, but we can't say with any certainty it would have been better or worse.

we have no idea what would have happened had the inhabitants been given a greater say in defining the regional borders or if they were able to do it themselves. It may have turned out worse for all we know, for a number of reasons.

Point remains, you have no idea what would have happened if history were different.

 

[Scaff]

You're so focused on the trees you can't see the forest. My point had nothing to do with whether the ME had any more or less historical conflict than anywhere else. That's your chariot to ride and utterly irrelevant to my point. The root of my recent responses is Mustafar's contention that British influence in drawing up borders is indirectly the cause of today's issues in the ME.

If it has nothing at all to do with the point then why did bring it to the discussion?

Some flowery prose, but still doesn't change the fact that they've had a hard time getting along in this region for many centuries and we have no idea what would have happened had the inhabitants been given a greater say in defining the regional borders or if they were able to do it themselves. It may have turned out worse for all we know, for a number of reasons.

Now as to the other issue, I've not been distracted from it, rather I've addressed it repeatedly.

Now a question in regard to the West having a part in how bad the ME? Do you think that British support of the birth of Saudi Arabia and Israel not a contributor to the current situation? What about the invasion of Iraq or the CIA and British Intelligence services role in overthrowing a democratically elected leader, installing a puppet ruler and then sitting back as it resulted in an extremist coup in Iran?

Now I personally would never state these were the only factors, but they certainly are strong contributors to the current situation.

Now as far as the contemporary status of any group, I've already covered that, and you don't have to wait long in historical terms for the situation to change.

Anytime you redefine borders (and it doesn't matter who's doing it), unless great care is taken it will result in friction (either existing or newly created) and a high probability of violence.

It's not a situation that is unique to the Middle East, it's happened in Europe (repeatedly, and for centuries, and resulted in the two largest wars ever), it's happened in the Americas and it's happened in Aisa.

It happened in Australia, but was rather one sided and almost resulted in the genocide of the indigenous population. Australia is also far from a happy clappy melting pot, with its own internal issues along cultural and racial divides.

Now is the redefining of borders the only cause of conflict? No, but it certainly can't be ignored and has been done very, very badly at times (the partition of Indian being a very good example).

It was the splitting of India into different countries at the end of British rule, it resulted in the largest displacement of people in human history and up to 2 million deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

The planning for this was lead by a man with no experience in the region, and who was only given 5 weeks to complete the task, the 'new' nations were not directly involved (they were allowed to make statements but not to be involved) and Radcliffe himself wanted the process over as quickly as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliffe_Line

 

[Johnnypenso]

If it has nothing at all to do with the point then why did bring it to the discussion?

Once again, Mustafar introduced the idea that the British dividing up the Middle East without consulting the inhabitants as a major contributor to today's conflict. So the salient point in my response that you quoted above is,

we have no idea what would have happened had the inhabitants been given a greater say in defining the regional borders or if they were able to do it themselves. It may have turned out worse for all we know, for a number of reasons.

I have no idea why you are going on about European history, it seems bizarrely out of left field.

 

[Scaff]

Once again, Mustafar introduced the idea that the British dividing up the Middle East without consulting the inhabitants as a major contributor to today's conflict. So the salient point in my response that you quoted above is,

I have no idea why you are going on about European history, it seems bizarrely out of left field.

And had that been what you posted I would agree with you. However its not all you posted, what you posted consisted of two elements:

".....still doesn't change the fact that they've had a hard time getting along in this region for many centuries and we have no idea what would have happened had the inhabitants been given a greater say in defining the regional borders or if they were able to do it themselves. It may have turned out worse for all we know, for a number of reasons."

You can't just pretend that you didn't write the first part (my highlight), and as such asking for some context and comparisons (to understand if this is indeed a factor as your full post would seem to suggest) is not " bizarrely out of left field", rather its perfectly reasonable.

I'm also not just going on about European history, I'm using it as a comparison to your first point (and have not limited it to European history) and have also repeatedly discussed and addressed your second point.

"Now I personally would never state these were the only factors, but they certainly are strong contributors to the current situation."

"Now is the redefining of borders the only cause of conflict? No, but it certainly can't be ignored and has been done very, very badly at times (the partition of Indian being a very good example)."

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

My post and the article used to source it was not about Empire at all, as a good number of countries that the UK has invaded or been at war with never formed part of the Empire.

Nor did I state a position on the pros and cons of it at all, as such your link missed the point totally.

The point was that map showing how something has spread, influenced or been in conflict is not an indicator of the merits or issues with the institution in question at all.

Oddly you did with your initial post exactly what you are now using a source to complain about. Happy to point out that historical Western Empires should be judged fairly and without automatic bias, yet that's exactly what you did in regard to Middle Eastern Empires!

Wait where did I do this?

I was saying that we always are reminded of the bad parts of British imperialism, and never are other nation's or ideologies really discussed in the same vain. Everyone else's problems directly stem from us in some way or another, nicely leading to....

Now a question in regard to the West having a part in how bad the ME? Do you think that British support of the birth of Saudi Arabia and Israel not a contributor to the current situation? What about the invasion of Iraq or the CIA and British Intelligence services role in overthrowing a democratically elected leader, installing a puppet ruler and then sitting back as it resulted in an extremist coup in Iran?

I mean, this kind of enabling is what allows a people to always play the victim. Isn't it about time people in that region stand up and are held accountable before blaming the West at every convenience. I mean grow a pair for God's sake! Iran turned into a ultraconservative state because of Islam. Saudi Arabia is ass-backwards because of Islam. If Saddam pulled an Assad we'd have people wanting the West to intervene as some kind of world police. I see this rush to play the victim in real life and it has been evident in this thread.

Now as far as the contemporary status of any group, I've already covered that, and you don't have to wait long in historical terms for the situation to change.

Well let's cover it again.

This is a prediction of the changing demographics of religions

This is the UK (there's an updated version for 2011 https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...jFBnwFA5FUFFmi-RQ&sig2=03_RY83eeit6kMr53JgC2A )

More extensive analysis can be found here, showing how it almost doubles in 10 years:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ulation-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years

And then there's the list of chronological events highlighting the Islamisation of the UK:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...and-fears-of-more-isis-inspired-a6832391.html

Maybe not a problem, but then when you look at the Christian population in Islamic dominated areas:

Or the Jewish "exodus" from France:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...and-fears-of-more-isis-inspired-a6832391.html

and you start to see how this new phase of the spread of Islam manifests throughout the world. By out-breeding and out-converting anything else, the invasion will continue, and it's up to Europeans if they are prepared to submit.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Maybe not a problem, but then when you look at the Christian population in Islamic dominated areas:

Or the Jewish "exodus" from France:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...and-fears-of-more-isis-inspired-a6832391.html

and you start to see how this new phase of the spread of Islam manifests throughout the world. By out-breeding and out-converting anything else, the invasion will continue, and it's up to Europeans if they are prepared to submit.

Why would it be "a problem" at all unless one considers any member of a religion to be a terrorist/extremist/nutter?

I'd also suggest that you look at Johnson & Zurlo in a little more detail - much of the decline is not due to the emigration suggested by your graph but to the change in self-identification. You can see a very similar trend in the UK where only 2% of the population practice Christianity at a church even semi-regularly... how do you think that compares to 1910?

 

[xyloscissor]

I mean, this kind of enabling is what allows a people to always play the victim. Isn't it about time people in that region stand up and are held accountable before blaming the West at every convenience. I mean grow a pair for God's sake! Iran turned into a ultraconservative state because of Islam. Saudi Arabia is ass-backwards because of Islam. If Saddam pulled an Assad we'd have people wanting the West to intervene as some kind of world police. I see this rush to play the victim in real life and it has been evident in this thread.

Bravo 👍

It's like raising a child, "don't like my rules and rational? Good, go on then little one and fly the coup."

 

[Scaff]

Wait where did I do this?

I was saying that we always are reminded of the bad parts of British imperialism, and never are other nation's or ideologies really discussed in the same vain. Everyone else's problems directly stem from us in some way or another, nicely leading to....

I'm at a loss to understand which other Empire to discuss when it comes to the countries in question? I can't just make ones up that took over these countries, its the British empire being discussed because they were the ones in control in the cases under discussion!

Nicely leading to.......

I mean, this kind of enabling is what allows a people to always play the victim. Isn't it about time people in that region stand up and are held accountable before blaming the West at every convenience. I mean grow a pair for God's sake! Iran turned into a ultraconservative state because of Islam. Saudi Arabia is ass-backwards because of Islam. If Saddam pulled an Assad we'd have people wanting the West to intervene as some kind of world police. I see this rush to play the victim in real life and it has been evident in this thread.

You would have a point had I said it was the only factor involved, but I've never once said that (quite the opposite). As such the only reason you could disagree with what I've said is if you believe that it played no part at all.

Now if that's what you are saying then I would have to contend that such a bold statement is going to need quite a bit to support it.

Well let's cover it again.

This is a prediction of the changing demographics of religions

This is the UK (there's an updated version for 2011 https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiNz9f2mL3RAhXF0RoKHeylAVIQFgghMAE&url=http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/hindu-muslim-and-sikh-adherents/&usg=AFQjCNGxQw-2atwNljFBnwFA5FUFFmi-RQ&sig2=03_RY83eeit6kMr53JgC2A )

More extensive analysis can be found here, showing how it almost doubles in 10 years:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ulation-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years

And then there's the list of chronological events highlighting the Islamisation of the UK:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...and-fears-of-more-isis-inspired-a6832391.html

Maybe not a problem, but then when you look at the Christian population in Islamic dominated areas:

Or the Jewish "exodus" from France:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...and-fears-of-more-isis-inspired-a6832391.html

and you start to see how this new phase of the spread of Islam manifests throughout the world. By out-breeding and out-converting anything else, the invasion will continue, and it's up to Europeans if they are prepared to submit.

And then you had to go all Britain First.

Given that you clearly love statistics, how about a few more.

Terrorism (and deaths resulting from it) was at its highest level in the '60's and '70's in Europe, its been on the decline since that time (and as you like to ignore that correlations doesn't equal causality it must be because we have more Muslims. After all as the number of Muslims goes up, terrorist deaths go down - yes that ridiculous - but that's what your doing with the stats above).

http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015


Not only that but the largest cause of terrorist related deaths (since 2006) is still European separatist movements).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe

Bravo 👍

It's like raising a child, "don't like my rules and rational? Good, go on then little one and fly the coup."

No its not like that at all.

We didn't own these countries, we took them by force. You want a child based analogy, its like going to your neighbours house, taking it over, killing the parents, stealing a lot of what they have and then going back to your house and being surprised when the chaos you left behind doesn't turn out fine.

 

[xyloscissor]

You want a child based analogy, its like going to your neighbours house, taking it over, killing the parents, stealing a lot of what they have and then going back to your house and being surprised when the chaos you left behind doesn't turn out fine.

That is why I own guns

We'll differ on it I guess, if you've read other things I've posted on the matter you will see that I am opposed to what the west has done and continues to do.

There has to be some accountability for those doing what they do though don't you think? If the region could get their act together it would be much harder for the west to meddle, it's also crazy to me that people can so easily keep blaming the past for their current problems.

 

[Scaff]

That is why I own guns

We'll differ on it I guess, if you've read other things I've posted on the matter you will see that I am opposed to what the west has done and continues to do.

There has to be some accountability for those doing what they do though don't you think? If the region could get their act together it would be much harder for the west to meddle, it's also crazy to me that people can so easily keep blaming the past for their current problems.

I'm actually referring to historical meddling on the whole, and by meddling its more accurate to say taking a country over by force, exploiting it and leaving a power vacuum on the way out.

 

[xyloscissor]

I'm actually referring to historical meddling on the whole, and by meddling its more accurate to say taking a country over by force, exploiting it and leaving a power vacuum on the way out.

We are on the same page there, I thought we were speaking of moving forward.