Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

The Middle East is Beyond Redemption

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It seems as though if you are western, that you cannot criticize other nations because of post colonial influence. The typical 'no culture is superior' defense every time we critique another culture. We seem to doubt ourselves. In short: we are too polite. I say we dismiss this ultra polite pleasantries and stand up for our opinions. The Middle East is a wreck. It is full of ignorant people who manage to get in power. The M.E. human rights records are appalling. Hypocritically, the Middle East seem to think that the west is some sort of cultural baron and yet the Middle East censor any alternative opinion that counters their culture. IS it any wonder why so many people from the M.E migrate to Western nations? Western society is more closer to Islamic law than any of those nations. The people of the M.E should not run away. They should stand up for their rights and change their nations because they are a wreck.

    Today I heard about how a charity worker in Pakistan got killed because we didn't pay a ransom. Whilst I wont say that is typical, not everybody is a murderer, it's certainly not atypical. For a supposedly moral and religious region, they sure do enjoy murder.
    • 66 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The Middle East is a wreck partly because of the West interfering...
    and way to go and generalise on an entire geographical continent and it's people/culture/beliefs. :facepalm2:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamCorrect)
    Today I heard about how a charity worker in Pakistan got killed because we didn't pay a ransom. Whilst I wont say that is typical, not everybody is a murderer, it's certainly not atypical.
    Makes sense :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBBQ)
    The Middle East is a wreck partly because of the West interfering...
    and way to go and generalise on an entire geographical continent and it's people/culture/beliefs. :facepalm2:
    The M.E has been a wreck for thousands of years. They are no angels. Most of the slave trade was dominated by the Persians et al.
    • 74 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    First off, Pakistan isn't in the Middle East.

    Secondly, whilst I do agree that in the West there is a lot of dithering over condemnation of Middle Eastern regimes and a lot of moral and cultural relativism, please also do bear in mind that a lot of the time the Western powers are actually fine with dealing with despots...the West's close relations with the Saudi regime being one obvious example. Far from turning a blind eye, a lot of the time we actually seek to maintain the status quo for our own interests and to maintain a healthy oil supply to our multinational companies.

    They should stand up for their rights and change their nations because they are a wreck.
    This is all well and good, but when the overwhelming majority of Middle Easterners are uneducated in matters relating to politics, simply revolting won't change much. Has Egypt actually improved since Mubarak was overthrown? Or are the Egyptians slowly beginning to replace one dictator with another?

    (Original post by IamCorrect)
    The M.E has been a wreck for thousands of years. They are no angels. Most of the slave trade was dominated by the Persians et al.
    Are you stupid?

    http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-...-cylinder.html
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Pakistan eh? Yeh the Middle East is some rough place.

    Not a fan of South America either, those Chinese can't be trusted.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Defining of the term 'Middle East' is subjective.
    • 74 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamCorrect)
    Defining of the term 'Middle East' is subjective.
    No it isn't, this isn't a debate on religion, we're discussing a very specific geopolitical term and Pakistan has nothing to do with it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    i know where i am glad to live, the fun free west. love it.

    'The contentious new law forms part of the parliament’s reform programme and is also set to lower the minimum age of marriage to 14, eradicate women’s right to employment and education and right to end unhappy or abusive marriages without the spousal interference.'

    http://www.tribune.com.ng/sun/sunday...ith-dead-wives

    Egypt making it legal for a man to shag his dead wife, lovely.

    the middle east has no room to talk when it comes to morals, a lot of their laws and ways are bloody disgusting
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    No it isn't, this isn't a debate on religion, we're discussing a very specific geopolitical term and Pakistan has nothing to do with it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJhSe...eature=related

    ^^^ Arabs slavery

    Also the term Middle East is subjective depending on socio-historic circumstance.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The Middle East has been the cradle of civilisation for thousands of years, it's by no means a perennial basketcase. I think most of the issue stems from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the fact that the enlightenment/secularisation didn't occur to the same extent as it did in Europe.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The Middle East was pretty much the birth place of civilisation as we know it.

    Being an active warzone doesn't change that.

    OP is butthurt.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBBQ)
    The Middle East is a wreck partly because of the West interfering...
    Not really true. If Britain hadn't intefered in the Middle East during WW1 then the Arab peoples would have remained under foreign occupation from the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Surely by helping the Arabs to win their independence and self-determination, our inteference was positive?

    If the US hadn't provided aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War then Israel would probably have been defeated by the Arab armies and a second holocaust would have occurred. Surely this was positive Western inteference?

    If the West hadn't launched Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991, then Saddam Hussein would have continued to rule over Kuwait (going against the self-determination of the Kuwaiti people) and would have also conquered Saudi Arabia, which would have not only taken away the self-determination of the Saudi people, but would also have given Saddam control of over 50% of the world's oil. Would the region be better if we'd allowed such an evil tyrant to gain hegemony over it? No - this is yet another example of positive Western inteference.

    Problems in the Middle East aren't the fault of the West. The true blame for the state of the region lies with:

    A - The Romans, for destroying the Second Temple and expelling the Jews from the Holy Land, causing them to be dispersed around the world. They were inevitably going to want to return, which would inevitably cause problems in the region.

    B - The Prophet Mohammed, for inspiring believers in his religion to conquer the entire region by force, and for writing a Holy book which advocates jihad (holy war) against non-muslims - something which inevitably is going to cause problems in the region.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Super Cicero)
    Not really true. If Britain hadn't intefered in the Middle East during WW1 then the Arab peoples would have remained under foreign occupation from the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Surely by helping the Arabs to win their independence and self-determination, our inteference was positive?

    If the US hadn't provided aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War then Israel would probably have been defeated by the Arab armies and a second holocaust would have occurred. Surely this was positive Western inteference?

    If the West hadn't launched Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991, then Saddam Hussein would have continued to rule over Kuwait (going against the self-determination of the Kuwaiti people) and would have also conquered Saudi Arabia, which would have not only taken away the self-determination of the Saudi people, but would also have given Saddam control of over 50% of the world's oil. Would the region be better if we'd allowed such an evil tyrant to gain hegemony over it? No - this is yet another example of positive Western inteference.

    Problems in the Middle East aren't the fault of the West. The true blame for the state of the region lies with:

    A - The Romans, for destroying the Second Temple and expelling the Jews from the Holy Land, causing them to be dispersed around the world. They were inevitably going to want to return, which would inevitably cause problems in the region.

    B - The Prophet Mohammed, for inspiring believers in his religion to conquer the entire region by force, and for writing a Holy book which advocates jihad (holy war) against non-muslims - something which inevitably is going to cause problems in the region.
    Saddam got permission from them the US before invading.

    He was a fool to trust them, they were just playing games.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    so was middle earth, thank god 'the men of the west' came to save it...(sarcasm implied)
    • 106 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamCorrect)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJhSe...eature=related

    ^^^ Arabs slavery

    Also the term Middle East is subjective depending on socio-historic circumstance.
    Yes of course, the Arabs did enslave people but so did most of the world at the time. It's not a thing of "We can absolve all of our guilt, because someone else did it as well"

    If you show that video, which has Muslim in the title, then I refer you to this wiki link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery

    (Original post by Wiki)
    Lewis elucidates that it was for this reason that "the position of the domestic slave in Muslim society was in most respects better than in eitherclassical antiquity or the nineteenth-century Americas" and that the economic situation of such slaves were no worse than (and even in some cases better than) free poors

    I'm not an advocate for slavery, but it's clear that slaves were not that much worse off than the domestic population, or even better off in the ME
    • 106 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badcheesecrispy)
    i know where i am glad to live, the fun free west. love it.

    'The contentious new law forms part of the parliament’s reform programme and is also set to lower the minimum age of marriage to 14, eradicate women’s right to employment and education and right to end unhappy or abusive marriages without the spousal interference.'

    http://www.tribune.com.ng/sun/sunday...ith-dead-wives

    Egypt making it legal for a man to shag his dead wife, lovely.

    the middle east has no room to talk when it comes to morals, a lot of their laws and ways are bloody disgusting
    All

    All this has been refuted:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...e=3&p=37334786
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    the middle east is different, true, however you have to be very ignorant to suggest they are a wreck. they are civilised, just in a way different to america and the UK.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamCorrect)
    Defining of the term 'Middle East' is subjective.
    Even if it was, it is known that Pakistan isn't part of the Middle East. The same way, Japan is not past of the Middle East.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    Saddam got permission from them the US before invading.

    He was a fool to trust them, they were just playing games.
    Where does Saddam even say that? All Saddam says is that he thought that he was implicitly given permission.

    Anyway, he was stupid enough to bring his troops all the way to the border with Saudi Arabia.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 6, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.