There should be a lot more like this guy speaking out about the backwardness of Islam

Frank Booth said:
I can somewhat tolerate backwardness to an era like 1908, where many of these middle-American buffoons live. Stay in your trailer and be happy, and I will promise not to visit your state unless passing through.

It is a bit problematic, though, when you combine the backwardness of the year 908, toss is a few trillion petro-dollars, and unleash it in places outside of your god-forsaken middle-Eastern wasteland. The gap between the 20th century and the 10th is pretty wide.
Click to expand...

Yes, so the first thing you should do is probably ask yourself why your government has been allied with the House of Saud, the main proponents and supporters of the "backwardness of the year 908" (btw in 908 the Muslim world was civilized and rich compared to Europe, which was backward, feudal, barbaric, etc.).

The reason there is such backwardness in the Islamic world is because the West has been supporting Salafist nutjobs at the expense of progressive secular Arab nationalism for more than a century now.
 
Starting with the slimy Limeys who divided up the Middle East on a map with no regard for existing peoples and cultures...
 
Asoka said:
The reason there is such backwardness in the Islamic world is because the West has been supporting Salafist nutjobs at the expense of progressive secular Arab nationalism for more than a century now.
Click to expand...

You are making an assumption that the Arab-speaking world can govern itself in a pluralistic, progressive, secular (giggle, giggle) and mature way. I make so such assumption. Until they do that whole Reformation-Counter Reformation-Renaissance-Age of Enlightenment-Peace of Westphalia-Industrial Revolution-Spread of Socialism-World War-post history "thing", they will largely remain frozen in time as people who want to restore a time and place that a Mongol invasion took from them in 1258.

"MoveOn" indeed.
 
Legion TrollTARD said:
Why should any sovereign nation be obliged to "govern itself" in a manner acceptable to foreigners?
Click to expand...

Another painfully ignorant post. The ME debate isn't about sovereign nations governing themselves. It is about the exportation of terror to other nations including neighboring states and those nations attacking neighboring member states to the UN.

Dumbfuck.
 
Truth Neglector said:
Another painfully ignorant post. The ME debate isn't about sovereign nations governing themselves. It is about the exportation of terror to other nations including neighboring states and those nations attacking neighboring member states to the UN. Dumbfuck.
Click to expand...

My response was to this post:

Frank Booth said:
You are making an assumption that the Arab-speaking world can govern itself in a pluralistic, progressive, secular (giggle, giggle) and mature way. I make so such assumption. Until they do that whole Reformation-Counter Reformation-Renaissance-Age of Enlightenment-Peace of Westphalia-Industrial Revolution-Spread of Socialism-World War-post history "thing", they will largely remain frozen in time as people who want to restore a time and place that a Mongol invasion took from them in 1258. "MoveOn" indeed.
Click to expand...

Not surprised that you didn't perceive that.
 
Truth Neglector said:
Once again; It didn't start with Limeys dumbfuck. The ME is littered with the attempts of imperial ambitions as long as there have been empires. I'll understand if you're too stupid to comprehend the real issues in the ME.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you'd answer my question.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
 
Frank Booth said:
You are making an assumption that the Arab-speaking world can govern itself in a pluralistic, progressive, secular (giggle, giggle) and mature way. I make so such assumption. Until they do that whole Reformation-Counter Reformation-Renaissance-Age of Enlightenment-Peace of Westphalia-Industrial Revolution-Spread of Socialism-World War-post history "thing", they will largely remain frozen in time as people who want to restore a time and place that a Mongol invasion took from them in 1258.
Click to expand...

You make so many assumptions about history it's difficult to know how to begin responding to your post.

We'll start with the obvious: you assume history progresses in a line, which is not true. You assume history is characterized by a single, universal path of development, which is not true. You assume that the Western model is normative, which is not true.

Next, you assume there is any legitimacy whatsoever to this "yearning for the past" supposedly exhibited by--who, exactly? All Muslims? Who is the "they" you mention in the last sentence here?

As you should probably know, the values of any of the real caliphates were drastically at odds with the values currently espoused by Daesh. The caliphates were tolerant (much more tolerant than contemporary Christian states--for example homosexuals were a frequent fixture in the courts of the Caliphs), multiethnic, and progressive. Indeed, the Rashidun Caliphate came closer to espousing those nice values in your post than any Western government for at least another thousand years.

As for a more modern example, we need make no such assumption. In the years after World War II, the Middle East was perfectly on its way towards governing in the manner you describe until the West toppled basically all of the nascent democracies in the Middle East and replaced them with various dictatorships.

Of course, one might wonder why you apparently believe it to be an "assumption" that humans can govern themselves in a reasonable way. It's almost as if you are prejudiced against Muslims (or is it Arabs?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top