Originally posted by jerZ07002
ummmm....to a certain extent they do. Most of their problems are internal, yet, muslims are the least self-critical group of people on the face of the earth. America is an easy scape-goat for muslims. by blaming us they don't have to take responsibility for their own deficiencies. Islamic governments also have an interest in blaming the US for their internal problems because it diverts criticism away from their governments. The US is complacent with this scenario because as long as there is stability in the ruling government the oil will flow cheaply.
Every government in the middle east right now was put there by Ameirca and the UN. The Middle east was broken up after the world war, and America along with the UN put people in charge of each country with their own intrests in mind, because they didn't want the muslim empire to gain power again. And that is how it has been ever since. And that is the primary reason why most arabs hate Ameirca and the west, because the west broken up their empire and put fools in charge of it.
And as a further afront to the Arabs, they gave Isreal to the jews. Whom 1400 or so years ago, killed Prophet Muhammad. Today those [the jews from 1400 years ago] people are called zionists.
Id say they have plenty of reason to hate the west, based on the west and its own actions.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
Every government in the middle east right now was put there by Ameirca and the UN. The Middle east was broken up after the world war, and America along with the UN put people in charge of each country with their own intrests in mind, because they didn't want the muslim empire to gain power again. And that is how it has been ever since. And that is the primary reason why most arabs hate Ameirca and the west, because the west broken up their empire and put fools in charge of it.
if all muslims are as misinformed as you that is a shame. First, you need to give credit where it is due - Britian (and the rest of europe by way of their colonization of the ME) played a much larger role in shaping the middle east than any other country. Second, by WWI the ottoman empire was facing significant internal struggles. The ottoman empire was not a homogeneous empire. There were many different ethnic groups with different religions (the classic factors contributing to internal struggles). To suggest that all people of the middle east would have united is ridiculous. The shia and sunni don't even get along today! what makes you think they could form an enormous empire without struggles? The only way an empire could be formed in the middle east is through an authoritarian dictatorship (kind of like what you already have in the form of smaller nation states). Oh, but if that actually occurred, i'm sure you idiots would blame the US for that regime.
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
And as a further afront to the Arabs, they gave Isreal to the jews.
i can see how that would piss off arabs. but, don't give all that credit to the US. Isreal was formed because europeans, for some reason, really don't like jews. moreover, most israelis are europeans.
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
Whom 1400 or so years ago, killed Prophet Muhammad.
i've read several version about his death. ironically, the only versions saying he was killed by jews comes from muslim sources. anyway, even if he was killed by jews, too ing bad. muhammad was a brutal murder in his own right. if he was poisoned, he simply got what his ass deserved!
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
Id say they have plenty of reason to hate the west, based on the west and its own actions.
unsurprising comment.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
1) We support their authoritarian regimes.
so what? if there was a popular uprising, there isn't much our support could do for that government. we certainly wouldn't join the fight against the population.
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
2) We invade and occupy their countries.
of all the muslim countries the only real example you have is iraq (afghanistan is a different beast because we had proper justification for what occurred there). that's hardly enough to say we invade muslim countries. the US has gone to war more with countries of christian and buddhist religious majorities. Is the US an invader of christian countries and buddhist countries? Moreover, if we were invaders of muslim countries, indonesia and saudi arabia would be much better targets.
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
You are right about the governments who resist American interests. But that isn't so black and white either. Iran has every right to be against America, after all, we deposed their democratically elected government in favor of an authoritarian puppet. But at the same time, the authoritarians divert the people's dissatisfaction with their freedoms to the outside enemy.
who said anything about iran?
hardcore trancer
Sure looks like Israel (as always) is looking forward to work with Obama to bring peace to the region.:o
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
so what? if there was a popular uprising, there isn't much our support could do for that government. we certainly wouldn't join the fight against the population.
Perhaps when you are being oppressed, and some foreign power is providing huge amounts of support of your oppression, you might not like that, you know? Popular uprising? That's what Iran did, and for some reason, they'r the bad guy.
quote:
of all the muslim countries the only real example you have is iraq (afghanistan is a different beast because we had proper justification for what occurred there). that's hardly enough to say we invade muslim countries. the US has gone to war more with countries of christian and buddhist religious majorities. Is the US an invader of christian countries and buddhist countries? Moreover, if we were invaders of muslim countries, indonesia and saudi arabia would be much better targets.
Originally posted by Krypton
In addition to the US back authoritarian regimes in the region.
You also forgot about the invasion of Egypt in the 1950's.
If you still think they have nothing to be mad about, think again...
ummmm....the US did not invade egypt; that was israel, france, and britian. you're almost as bad as cronodevir.
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
You indirectly did. You mentioned, "Islamic government blame the West for their internal problems."
that was a general statement.
cronodevir
Its funny how people split europe and the us. Considering both entities have the exact same goals. And methods for doing them.
jez, nothing you said refuted anything I posted, you just added your own comments...
DJ Damerchi
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
ummmm....the US did not invade egypt; that was israel, france, and britian. you're almost as bad as cronodevir.
Ey, infact the US was actually quite pissed off at those involved in that operation...This was before Nasser turned heavily to the Soviets which caused America to heavily back Israel, resulting in the relationship today(inb4 it is argued that the Israel invasion back then=americas invasion)
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
jez, nothing you said refuted anything I posted, you just added your own comments...
while riding the subway today I read a great quote by poincare, which was in an advertisement: "to doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection."
you, my friend, sit on both sides of that fence, doubting everything positive about the US and believing everything spewed by a muslim.
if you re-read the posts i wrote, you will clearly see that i contradict your claims.
you said:
(1) The US put in place governments - i said europeans (especially britian) were instrumental in shaping the political boundaries of the ME.
(2) you suggested a muslim empire would have risen post-WWII if not for the US - i said the muslim world is fragmented by different ethnic groups and it is not homogenous, thus a muslim empire would be highly unlikely without an authoritarian dictatorship (a situation that seems to be undesirable given your contempt for the current authoritarian regimes you say were instituted by the US).
(3) you said mohammad was killed by jews - i raised doubt about that because it comes from muslim sources, a clearly biased point of view on the situation.
cronodevir
1. US/Europe..whats the difference?
2. Whether or not a muslim empire would have risen is not relevent, but the fact is the middle east was split and the west put its own people in to rule it, to maike sure an empire wouldn't rise again.
3. Jews reported how many jews died during ww2, clearly there is bias. Ameircans report what is happening to ameirca troops in Iraq, clearly there is Bias, history is written by those who won, so clearly there is bias. What's your point?
In all 3 cases, your words mean pretty much "meh". Atmost you are arguing points of schmantics.
A servant woman, who was an announced jew, admited to putting posion in the tea of Muhammad. That is the account of any legitimate historian, from the 6th century up to now. And those that say otherwise, have only done so recently, like, within the past 200 or so years. Muhammad isn't the most documented man in history for no reason you know.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
1. US/Europe..whats the difference?
seriously??? you just lost whatever credibility you had!
the US and europe, in certain respects, are similar, but are also vastly different in many respects.
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
2. Whether or not a muslim empire would have risen is not relevent, but the fact is the middle east was split and the west put its own people in to rule it, to maike sure an empire wouldn't rise again.
you said, "And that is the primary reason why most arabs hate Ameirca and the west, because the west broken up their empire and put fools in charge of it."
your argument is based on a faulty premise: that a muslim empire could have risen. In reality, prior to WWII, the ottoman empire was falling apart internally from its various areas. If no country actually feared a muslim empire, then countries wouldn't put in place governments to prevent the occurrence of something that was unlikely to occur.
A more likely reason for the breakup into smaller areas is because there was no longer one authoritarian regime with a tight grip. That power vaccuum gave local power-brokers the ability to move in an claim the right to the area. For example, the House of Saud claimed its right to rule over lands in the arabian penisula well before (in the 18th century) the fall of the ottoman empire. The same situation played out in northern africa (i.e., egypt, morrocco), and other areas of the empire. The west didn't insert these ruling parties, instead, these ruling families inserted themselves in the decline of the ottoman empire, and the west simply recognized their legitimacy.
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
3. Jews reported how many jews died during ww2, clearly there is bias. Ameircans report what is happening to ameirca troops in Iraq, clearly there is Bias, history is written by those who won, so clearly there is bias. What's your point?
jewish deaths during WWII and the death of US troops in iraq are more easily verifiable than who killed mohammad in the 600s. The further away from the event, especially something that occurred in the 600s, the less reliable the information. Consequently, when only muslim sources say mohammad was poisoned by a jew, but nonreligious sources say he died without claiming the reason, i'm highly suspect of the muslim version. You people clearly hate jews, so blaming mohammads death on jews is very convenient (especially considering the jews are the primary scape-goat for most muslim problems).
If history was written by those who won then why is the jewish version of WWII (as you claim) the predominate version? Clearly, the jews did not win WWII.
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
In all 3 cases, your words mean pretty much "meh". Atmost you are arguing points of schmantics.
what the hell is schmantics? do you mean semantics? If so, that's not even close to true. Semantics is the study of meaning (i.e., the relationship between words). I'm disputing your factual claims. That is not semantics!
quote:
Originally posted by cronodevir
A servant woman, who was an announced jew, admited to putting posion in the tea of Muhammad. That is the account of any legitimate historian, from the 6th century up to now. And those that say otherwise, have only done so recently, like, within the past 200 or so years. Muhammad isn't the most documented man in history for no reason you know.
then cite it foo!
cronodevir
US/Europe are about 90% the same. The only difference is people in europe are very arrogant and like to claim otherwise. But that is a different dicussion all together.
The muslim empire was already there, and it oppressed europe for more than a thousand years. And in modern [last 150 - 200 years] times, europe finally had power [because of ameirca] to put an almost permanate thron in the middle east, that helped bring it to what it is today. And the people who took over the various regions were give that power by the west, no election took place, nobody bought anything, the west simply said "these guys are in charge, anyone who disagrees will be at war with us" So no one said anything and the people jsut lived with an oppressive government placed by the western world. Take lebenon for instance, you HAVE to be a christian, by law, to be president. That was put in place by europeans.
"the further away the event, the less reliable the information" <--that's bull. Because by that standard, no one knows a single thing about acient greece. By that standard, I can claim acient egypt never existed. Which would clearly be wrong, but hey "it happened long ago, so there is no verifiable information"...yeah, what to go sherlock.
So, hundreds of thousands of scholars over the last 1400 years who happen to be muslims are wrong about Muhammads death, the hudnreds of thousands of people who were alive at the time and gave testemony are all wrong, but 5 jews or christians in some universitity in the past 50 years are right according to you. Why are we still arguing?
The Jews did win in ww2. The jews are also the primary contributor to WW2 information. Which pretty much makes most mainstream information about ww2 suspect. Personally, I don't even think ww2 was about race, hitler wanted to get rid of this banking system infesting his land at the time, and it was 100% owned and ran by jews, he used the general german racism as a key to motivate the germans into doing just that. Most places were trying to escape the banking system, and hundreds of eyars before that was a primary reason for the establishment of ameirca. To escape the banking system and interest. Back then it was called usury.... but hey, I guess saying it was about race makes hitler seem more "evil".
