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

I'm sorry?

I said "The irony of 'relative poverty' is easily demonstrated.

I then demonstrated that people get poorer when median incomes drop (yet according to relative poverty they are better off), and I demonstrated that they are better off when median incomes rise for the opposite reason.

I also demonstrated that no one seems to care about actual income figures, all they seem to care about is 'relative poverty' figures

Then you said 'I don't see the irony' which indicates that you don't actually understand what I was saying, even though it was so simple a child could understand. I even provided examples with figures to demonstrate what I was talking about.

Then you continued going on about how more people were in relative poverty at the time of Thatcher and that was a bad thing, and you know why more were allegedly counted as being in poverty? Because the median income rose.

So, lets have your answer then?

Either your main argument that you were trying to teach me is that 'relative poverty' was an accurate benchmark in the time of Thatcher and is still an accurate benchmark today, or 'relative poverty' was an accurate benchmark in the time of Thatcher but is not an accurate benchmark today.

Which is it?

No, you're getting the order wrong. You mentioned the irony, I said poverty is not ironic and under Thatcher, the poor got poorer and that was my main point. I didn't care about the term relative povert, you obsessed over it and ignored my main point, the point which was relevant to the thread, in contrast to your point.

The poor did not get poorer under Thatcher.

Do present your figures to back your claim.

Are you not aware of the working class in the North? The mass unemployement there and the the decline of factories under her which Thatcher didn't care much about?

The poor did not get poorer under Thatcher.

Do present your figures to back your claim.

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?

Response: And prior to the muslims having any land whatsoever, it was still western imperialism no matter how you try. The fact still remains that the muslims were not imperilaists. They themselves were persecuted and fought against since the time of Muhammad due to western imperialism, leaving the muslims to defend themselves and fight them, gaining conquest and land in the process.

None of the modern western states even existed before Islam. Who are you blaming now - the Romans? The muslims defeated and conquered the Romans, and stole their territory. You have no case here..

Rushidun Empire
Umayyad Empire
Abbasid Empire
Ottoman Empire

Islam is fundamentally built on military conquest; it literally would not exist otherwise. Of course, there is no true muslim


No outside country ever conquered Arabia which is where Mohammed began his own Empire. On the contrary, Mohammed invaded Mecca, deposed the original government, and outlawed its native religion.

So they defended against imperialism by conquering the weak Balkan states such as Bosnia, because they were somehow going to control them?

Armenia must have been a great imperial force too by the way they were treated.

is your aim to single handedly make a mockery of moslems? you are repeatedly contradicting your postion referring to ottomans, mughals umaayads etc, then trying to pretend moslem armies only ever foguht againt their own perseuction lol. most of the people in the countires these moslems invaded had never even heard of mohammed or islam till moslems armies turned up on their doorstep. i doubt 99% of moslems on tsr would be moslems today if their ancestors had not been subjected to that very imperialst expansion into their ancestral counitres. So its laugahble you would put together a thread deploring 'western imperialism' I think historically the moslem imperialists jsut got outdone at their own game, and this is sour grapes whinging of epic proportions.

you have already demonstatred your ignorance on pretty much every subject that has come up in this thread. there were no moslem dynasties in india prior to the mughals, the moslems first traveleld to india as merchants and made much lucrative trade in precious metals and spices, then bviously motivated by greed for these commodities, the moslems via their caliphs made many attempts to invade india, at first only manging to hold a couple of minor states in modern day pakistan and afganistan. it was not till later persian and then mongol/mughal forces succeded in entering as far as modern day delhi that the moslems established any sort of dynasty in northern and western india but even then thet faaild to fully enter central and southern india. Whichever way you want to look at it, there limitations were not due to morality , but down to incapabilty. They were eradicated from india by a comparatively tiny british army

there were no moslem dynasties in india prior to the mughals,..

Response: This dummy we have here seems to be trying to win a medal in incompotence. Did you just state that there were no muslim dynasties in India prior to the Mughals? Matter of fact, let me quote this idiocy real quick before a cowardice act pursues and you edit and deny you made the statement.Haha. Okay simpletone. Then tell us, who is Mahmud of Ghazi and Muhammad bin Qasim?

Response: Your idiocy never seizes to amaze. Every conquest that you provide of muslims are over Western lands, so that alone shows their interest in defending islam by defeating their imperialism. The evidence is clear. Even after the Ottomans were defeated, they went to America for the sole purpose of conquering more land. Nobody from America attacked the. So your idiocy is entertaining. The muslims could have easily controlled and conquered all of Africa so if they were imperialisys, they would have done so. So your logic, as usual, fails.

i wouldnt want to dispossess you of this 'medal of incompotence' (even though im not familiar with the spelling of this word) i think it was quite clearly pointed out to you that the above held small territories laregly where is now pakistan, and that ghazi eventually reached delhi, neither constitues a dynasty. It was the mughals that invaded and laid a lasting rule over, again parts of north and western india and held so for a few centuries, till the british kicked them out. But again thanks for highlighting the point that 5 people here have already made to you- that moslems are perfectly comfortable furthering their own imperialistic desires by invading other peoples countries. USA invading moslems countries appears jsut to be some sort of historic karma.

well i was actually referring to moslems imperialism and conquering of regions in africa and pakistan. And the largest moslem populations in uk today being from somalia and pakistan, simply inherit moslem heritage from the fact moslems invaded and colonised their ancestral landmoslems did indeed control most of upper saharan habitable africa, till the europenas arrived, and ran the african slave trade for nearly a millenium

Response: How sad. So easy to expose you. So now the Ummayad period and the ghazi period was not a dynasty? According to who? Exactly. No authority that you can provide will ever state that they were not dynasties. So as usual, you are alone in your idiocy. Furthermore, no one ever denied the muslims were conquers. That does not make them imperialists. They were conquering those who were trying to conquer them. You need to quit while you are behind and stop pretending as if you know what you are talking about or you'll be exposed again.

Response: Exactly. They conquered a region that was ruled by the Byzantine and Roman Empire and that was it. They did not continue to conquer all of Africa when they could have easily done so. So your own evidence shows that there goal in conquest was solely to defeat the Byzantine and Western powers because they were the imperialists, as proven by the very conquest of America. So again, your logic fails.

they wernt a dynasty in asia, no. they were arab and persian empires, whcih as has already been explained to you countless times, venturing east into the indian subcontinent, but didnt get particualrly far. it was the much following the much later military superior mongols took control of islamic empires, that islam expanded substantially out of the middle east. And the moslems attmepts to invade india (and africa, etc for that matter ) were simply down to islamic imperialistic greed- these countries were not "trying to conquer moslems" at all. Shows how ludicrously tainted and fallacious moslems view of history is lol.

somalia and pakistan were not under roman rule, pakistan was not under any foreign rule at all, till the moslems invaded it.

Response: and the Roman empire existed before any muslim empire existed and attacked the muslims first. So fighting back in defense and becoming victorious is not imperialism. Debunked as usual.

Response: Muhammad's conquest of Arabai does not change the fact that all of his conquest and fights were in self-defense of Western imperialism, whether it was the Byzantine or Roman Empire. So you still fail.

It strains credulity that the entirety of the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, parts of Southern France, the Balkans, Persia and North West India all attacked Arabia. Let's see what wikipedia has to say:

"According to Muslim biographies, Muhammed, having received intelligence that Byzantine forces were concentrating in northern Arabia with alleged intentions of invading Arabia, led a Muslim army north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of pre-emptively engaging the Byzantine army; the news, however, proved to be false."

The Muslim propagandists claim that Mohammed invaded the Byzantine Empire because he thought they might attack them but they weren't going to. Hmm. But even this story seems to be a self-serving myth:

"However, there is no contemporary Byzantine account of the Tabuk expedition, and many of the details come from much later Muslim sources."

What we do know is that, "Muslim Arabs after 634 certainly pursued a full-blown invasion of both empires [ie. also Sassanid Empire], resulting in the conquest of the Levant, Egypt and Persia for Islam."

I would also point out that not starting a war (and it seems the muslims did start them, although they usually had convoluted legal justifications/historical myths to claim they didn't - just like the Romans before them) doesn't mean that absolutely any settlement imposed is not imperialism. Suppose Britain and the US sold the population of Germany into slavery after WWII for instance.


How was Mohammed's conquest of Mecca self-defence against Western Imperialism? Seems a clear-cut case of Mohammedan Imperialism directed against other Arabs.