The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Western Imperialism: The reason for growth of radical islam and poor muslim lands

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Avatar for Al-Fatihah
Al-Fatihah
OP
Original post by DorianGrayism
OOPS !

Earlier today:





Actually, it does. They were defeated in 27 years.

They invaded Indian Territory.

That means, they didn't control the entire of India. That also means they were not undefeated for centuries.

Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Wars

In case you claim I don't provided sources LOL


Response: Now show from your own source where it states that the Deccan wars was the first invasion and conquest into Indian territory? Exactly. It says nothing of the sort.

You quoted a particular battle, not the very first invasion and conquest of Muslims in India. So your logic fails.
Reply 81
Avatar for Al-Fatihah
Al-Fatihah
OP
Original post by Thriftworks
]
You should buy a video game called Empire total war, its partially set in India in the 18th century, with the Mughals, Maratha and Mysore etc.


Response: Is it a PS3 game?
Original post by Al-Fatihah
Response: Is it a PS3 game?

PC
Reply 83
Avatar for Al-Fatihah
Al-Fatihah
OP
Original post by Thriftworks
PC


Okay.
The Ottoman Empire was Muslim and imperialistic, so there were and are definitely imperialistic muslims.
Original post by Al-Fatihah
Response: Now show from your own source where it states that the Deccan wars was the first invasion and conquest into Indian territory? Exactly. It says nothing of the sort.

You quoted a particular battle, not the very first invasion and conquest of Muslims in India. So your logic fails.


I didn't say it was the first invasion. I said that they were defeated when they tried to expand into India.

So they didn't control India. So you are wrong when you wrote earlier:


Original post by Al-Fatihah

They ruled India for 1000 years



They didn't rule for 1000 years. They didn't rule India. When they tried to invade the rest of India, they were defeated.

So wrong on virtually all fronts.
Original post by Al-Fatihah
Okay.


Don't buy it. It is one of the worst Total War Games out there. Siege Battles are awful. Get Rome/Medieval Total War or wait for Rome Total War 2.
Original post by Thriftworks
You haven't made an argument. You cannot state the Iraq war as evidence without saying why you believe so. the same goes for all other pieces of what you consider evidence stated. Economics is about the distribution of resources. Politics is about the activity of governance of an area.


Politics is about control and power in order to govern. Economics is about producing and allocating resources like oil.

My examples are almost tautological. A democratically elected leader overthrown for oil (Mossadeq). Another democratically elected leader overthrown to ensure that nation remains a colony and to gain its rich resources. (Lumumba). I thought you were wise enough to understand my point without me giving you a lesson, I overestimated your knowledge.

You cannot prove to me that the foreign policy has changed so dramatically since Lumumba.

The Iraq war=western interference to ensure a potentially powerful nation does not become powerful (fact), and to gain resources (disputed).
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by amineamine2

The Iraq war=western interference to ensure a potentially powerful nation does not become powerful (fact), and to gain resources (disputed).


Which one?
Original post by DorianGrayism
Which one?


The term "Iraq War" is used for the 2003- one.

The 1991 war is called the Gulf War.
Reply 90
Avatar for Al-Fatihah
Al-Fatihah
OP
Original post by Thriftworks
The Ottoman Empire was Muslim and imperialistic, so there were and are definitely imperialistic muslims.


Response: The Ottomans were not imperialists. This is evident in their conquest, where their focus of expansion was not the Africa continent and neighboring areas where they could have controlled without difficulty. Instead, their focus was the fall of christian and western powers who were imperialists themselves and fought to prevent it.
Reply 91
Avatar for Al-Fatihah
Al-Fatihah
OP
Original post by DorianGrayism
I didn't say it was the first invasion. I said that they were defeated when they tried to expand into India.

So they didn't control India. So you are wrong when you wrote earlier:





They didn't rule for 1000 years. They didn't rule India. When they tried to invade the rest of India, they were defeated.

So wrong on virtually all fronts.


Response: Then since it's clearly not their first nvasion, then the source defeats your argument as to how long India ruled since it clearly does not refer to the first invasion and conquest. So your logic fails.
Reply 92
Avatar for Al-Fatihah
Al-Fatihah
OP
Original post by DorianGrayism
Don't buy it. It is one of the worst Total War Games out there. Siege Battles are awful. Get Rome/Medieval Total War or wait for Rome Total War 2.


Response: Okay. I'll have to look into it and see so I can really know just how good it is.
Original post by amineamine2
The term "Iraq War" is used for the 2003- one.

The 1991 war is called the Gulf War.


How was Iraq potentially powerful when it had sanctions placed upon it?
Reply 94
Avatar for FCI
FCI
Original post by Al-Fatihah
Response: Then since it's clearly not their first nvasion, then the source defeats your argument as to how long India ruled since it clearly does not refer to the first invasion and conquest. So your logic fails.
so far you have failed to grasp the meaning of the words 'imperialism' and 'logic'as per the above to again show up your earlier fallacy -source Brittanica- "Mughal dynasty, Mughal also spelled Mogul, Arabic Mongol, Muslim dynasty of Turkic-Mongol origin that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th TO THE MID 18th century, after which it continued to exist as a considerably reduced and increasingly powerless entity until the mid-19th century" =Ie- 3-400 years. (as oppossed to "1000 years") http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ghal-dynastySo now we have proven you were beng false in your claims, now what? do you shut this thread down and try again
Original post by Al-Fatihah
Response: No they didn't, supported by your inability to show otherwise.

That's not a response at all! You think that the Ottomans were a special fluffy Empire driven by love of chocolate and kittens, as opposed to those nasty white-people Empires. It's up to you to show a difference
Reply 96
Avatar for Al-Fatihah
Al-Fatihah
OP
Original post by FCI
so far you have failed to grasp the meaning of the words 'imperialism' and 'logic'as per the above to again show up your earlier fallacy -source Brittanica- "Mughal dynasty, Mughal also spelled Mogul, Arabic Mongol, Muslim dynasty of Turkic-Mongol origin that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th TO THE MID 18th century, after which it continued to exist as a considerably reduced and increasingly powerless entity until the mid-19th century" =Ie- 3-400 years. (as oppossed to "1000 years") http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ghal-dynastySo now we have proven you were beng false in your claims, now what? do you shut this thread down and try again


Response: How many times must it be said to you that the dynasty that you are referring to is not the first muslim dynansty in India? Really, how many times? There were at least 4 dynastys prior to the one you redundantly keep referring too. Your own source doesn't even say it was the first dynasty. So your complete ignorance on the sugject once again fails to disprove anything. You wanna try again?
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 97
Avatar for Al-Fatihah
Al-Fatihah
OP
Original post by Observatory
That's not a response at all! You think that the Ottomans were a special fluffy Empire driven by love of chocolate and kittens, as opposed to those nasty white-people Empires. It's up to you to show a difference


Response: The Ottoman Empire were not imperialists. It's up to you to show the difference.
Original post by DorianGrayism
How was Iraq potentially powerful when it had sanctions placed upon it?


It had one of the world's strongest armies, oil, potential WMD, and a powerhungry leader. Thus, "potentially" powerful. The western sanctions crippled the people, as they do, not necessary the regime. Nevertheless, the western sanctions and western invasion are both what is called "western interference", my point exactly. So thanks for proving my point further :smile:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by amineamine2
It had one of the world's strongest armies, oil, potential WMD, and a powerhungry leader. Thus, "potentially" powerful. The western sanctions crippled the people, as they do, not necessary the regime. Nevertheless, the western sanctions and western invasion are both what is called "western interference", my point exactly. So thanks for proving my point further :smile:


They didn't have one of the world's strongest armies. They were not even in control of large parts of Iraq.

Their Oil facilities were crippled and old.

The Western Sanctions and bombing campaign had destroyed the Iraqi regime and Iraq was effectively bankrupt by the end of the 90's.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you