Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    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.

    Why do you keep ignoring my point? Answer that. Is it too complicated perhaps?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    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?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Either stay on topic or the thread will be closed
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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?

    (Original post by Steevee)
    The poor did not get poorer under Thatcher.

    Do present your figures to back your claim.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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?
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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..
    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.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    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 :rolleyes:


    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callan)
    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.
    Response: Whether the states were weak or not has nothing to do with their intent and allegiance with the Byzantine empire, the same empire that was fixed on imperialism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    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
    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.

    (Original post by FCI)
    there were no moslem dynasties in india prior to the mughals,..
    Haha. Okay simpletone. Then tell us, who is Mahmud of Ghazi and Muhammad bin Qasim?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    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.

    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    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: 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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    somalia and pakistan were not under roman rule, pakistan was not under any foreign rule at all, till the moslems invaded it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    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.
    Response: In other words, you've reduced your argument to playing with words. Then define a dynasty and why the Ummayada were mot a dynasty, if you are truthful. Until then you have no argument.

    As for imperialism, you failed to tell us who Muhammad bin Qasim is. Why is that? The answer is obvious. By stating who he is, you can't possibly conclude the muslims were imperialists because no source on him supports so. Debunked again by your own ignorance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    somalia and pakistan were not under roman rule, pakistan was not under any foreign rule at all, till the moslems invaded it.
    Response: Pakistan was under Indian rule and India first attacked the muslims, supported by your ducking and dodging to tell us who Muhammad bin Qasim is. Somalia reverted to islam, so it was not conquered by invasion, supported once again by your inability to show that muslims first conquered somalia by invasion. Debunked as usual.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    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.

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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    This is laughable. You quoted a Source that says that an army was about to invade Arabia as proof of what? You just proved my point. Muhammad was attacked first So it is not imperialism to fight off an attacker, thus proving that the Muslims were not imperialists. Thanks for the assistance.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.