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

Yes, unless the west interferes like they did by war and sanctions! Just sanctions by itself wouldnt work, long term wise. So they had to interfere again, by war. Duh. I keep repeating myself.

Except we're talking about west interfering with other nations. So the 1991 War backs up my point, and again shows that you're wasting your time on trivia, rather than arguing against my main point.

Why do you resist learning anything about the subject you are trying to discuss? I know you haven't read anything remotely academic on the topic. What you don't seem to understand is that we are not having a debate here. You have shown that you don't even understand the basic terms involved. How do you expect to engage in a discussion of imperialism if you don't understand the term, insist upon making up your own definition, and refuse to look it up? How do you expect to engage in a discussion of the Ottoman Empire if you refuse to read anything academic about it? You have been presented over and over again with facts which rip your ludicrous arguments--that would be laughed at by any historian and would get a failing grade in high-school history--to shreds, but your incomprehension is so complete and your logical reasoning skills so lacking that it has not impacted on your confidence in your laughable conclusions. Please trust me on this. You have what, half a bachelor's in business? Have you ever even taken a history class? Opened a history book? I just don't understand why you don't want to actually learn about the things you're trying to discuss. It makes no sense.

Response: In other words, you still have no proof that the muslims or the Ottoman empire were imperialists, thus exposing and debunking yourself as usual. Thanks for the clarification.

That is just your assertion. No evidence.

They had worked for close to 15 years. So show me evidence that it wasn't going to continue to work and that Iraq would be able to start to use the massive Oil reserves.

If it is so obvious, there should be a UN report on the matter.




No, I am not talking about the West interfering with other nations.

I have specifically said that I want to talk about the example that you used. NOT about general Western policy.

SO I want a quote where I said that your viewpoint on Western interference is wrong. Otherwise you have no reason to keep on talking about it with me.

The fact that Saddam would always have oil is evidence enough that sanctions only work short time, unless the leader is removed or gives up. As long as Saddam was in power, there was a possibility of him producing oil. After 15 years, it was clear that Saddam wasn't giving up, and America would rather use the oil under Saddam than let it be at waste for any longer. Sanctions can't go on forever. Patience runs out.

Well I was talking about western interference, then you got involved and started speaking about something irrelevant. Be glad I even took time to reply to your irrelevant interruptions. I didn't say you disagreed, I said the contrary and used that as evidence that you have descended into trivia.

OK, with a sentence like that, combined with the wanton and merciless abuse of the English language, I'm ready to call bull****. There's no way you're serious.

I don't mean to get involved in this debate, but how can the Ottomans run an Empire and yet not be imperialists? The definition of imperialism is running an Empire. Certainly, my book on Empire/Imperialism has a very big chapter devoted to the Ottomans.

So, you are making more assertions without evidence.

Again, I want a UN report that says "just sanctions by itself wouldnt work, long term wise." That was your assertion. Evidence.

Let's start with that and then we can move onto your other new assertions without evidence.



Well, it wasn't irrelevant. It was your example. Unless your example is irrelevant.

If I didn't disagree, then show me where I agreed with you.

So once again......Quote Please!

Your reading skills are close to zero. First you claim you do not disagree with me, asserting that I claimed you did. When I refuted this and merely stated that I do not claim you disagree, you state that you do disagree? Haha you're confused. The fact that you stated ''show me where I said I disagree with you'' suggests that you didn't disagree, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to deny your disagreement.

Ok. Good. So we can agree that you cannot find a quote where I disagree or agree with your viewpoint about Western interference?

This requires a yes or no answer.

I edited........ yet

So the answer is yes or no.

Last time.

IF you want to talk about something else. We can do it after once, this is finished.

Yes I have pointed you to two quotes now

Where did I state "the west does interfere"?

Post number and time

the thirdn a liar like you.

I see you completely edited your post. Noticed that you were wrong, perhaps?

Tick tock.

Where did I say the "the west does interfere"? You said I stated that and you put it in quotation marks.

Post number and time should be your next post.

I have given you enough quotes which suggest you agree. Care not to change your whole post next time when realising you're wrong? I can give you more quotes but knowing you, you'll probably change your previous post too!

Response: The definition of imperialism is the practice of extending the power and dominion of a nation. The Otomans never did that, so they were not imperilaists. They did not practice extending their empire. Rather, they fought to defend against western imperialism, resulting in the extension of their empire when victorious. There is a difference. If someone wages war on you and you fight in defense, that is not imperialism. Yet when christopher Columbus set out to find new land strictly for the purpose to have it conquered and extend the empire, as what occured in America, that's imperialism.