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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, Africa is poor. That is why they didn't take over it. It also why the Romans never bothered either.

    That is why the conquered Spain and tried to go into France before they were defeated.
    Response: Africa is not poor. A currency is dependent upon who is in authority so such can not be the reason for there not to be a conquest. Those in authority can make their own currency.





    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    You didn't ask me for a source. So, if you don't ask me for one then obviously I am not going to provide it. Also, you could just google it because it is easy to find.

    They were defeated in the Deccan wars by the smaller Marathra Army as I have already stated.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Wars#Background

    Well, they did expand their territory. Otherwise they wouldn't have controlled all of India. The Mughals didn't just start with the entire of India.
    Response: And google will tell you that they ruled for India for centuries. And once again, no one is disputing their defeat. The question is imperialism, and the fact that they were defeated centuries later is proof that they were not imperialists because before their defeat, they went centuries without defeat. Yet during that time, they only controlled India and not their neighbors.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Arabia and Muslims in the Western media-television, is like a spoiled noisy 4 year old todler, crying 23 houres a day for attention.....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: Africa is not poor. A currency is dependent upon who is in authority so such can not be the reason for there not to be a conquest. Those in authority can make their own currency.
    I am not talking about a Currency.

    You don't need a currency to be rich. You just have to have something that is valuable. Having a 100 Chickens is more valuable than having a peso. There is very little of worth in the desert.

    Obviously, you ignored the fact that they invaded Spain and kept it for hundreds of years.


    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: And google will tell you that they ruled for India for centuries. And once again, no one is disputing their defeat. The question is imperialism, and the fact that they were defeated centuries later is proof that they were not imperialists because before their defeat, they went centuries without defeat. Yet during that time, they only controlled India and not their neighbors.
    Actually, no, that is incorrect. They controlled large parts of Afghanistan as well.

    No, they were not defeated centuries later. That is why I told you to look at the link. They were defeated within a hundred years of their expansion into Southern India.

    That is why you NEVER mention the Deccan Wars (1681) because you are a liar.

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

    "It is the longest recorded military engagement in the history of India. It started in 1681 with the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s invasion of the Maratha territory"
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: But the question is imperialism. The Ottomans did not set out to conquer land just because they wanted to be the most dominant, unlike Europe. They specifically did so, supported by the conquest of America, which was a conquest with that specific purpose.
    Define Imperialism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I urge anyone to read about Operation Ajax 1953 - how the US and the UK overthrew the first (and to date, only) democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister and replaced him with a dictatorship. This prime minister was a liberal, pro-human rights politician who nationalised Iranian oil and was therefore overthrown by the west, who replaced him with a brutal dictatorship(s)
    Look at Iran now.

    West=bad
    East=worse

    edit: this is no conspiracy theory btw, it's an undisputed historical event acknowledged by both west and east.
    It happened in 1951 however, as said by yourself it is a historical event. The gulf war was a historical event.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inquirer)
    Define Imperialism.
    Enough with your semantics, it enrages me.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    Enough with your semantics, it enrages me.
    Go take a shower if it does.. because I don't give damn.

    Your majesty :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inquirer)
    Go take a shower if it does.. because I don't give damn.

    Your majesty :rolleyes:
    People constantly use semantics to muddy the waters of debates. Just consult the oxford English dictionary if you are so unsure of a definition.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    It happened in 1951 however, as said by yourself it is a historical event. The gulf war was a historical event.
    Eh no, it happened in 1953, as I claimed. Look it up.
    A historical event and quite a significant one. 9/11 is a historical event too.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Eh no, it happened in 1953, as I claimed. Look it up.
    A historical event and quite a significant one. 9/11 is a historical event too.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
    - Mistyped
    Point : Solely using an event that happened 60 years ago to form an opinion on the current foreign policy's being pursued by the UK is illogical as it does not account for the massive amounts of change experienced in both countries over that time period. 60 years ago the British Empire was still around.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: Yet your your claim is not common knowledge and complete rubbish of the actual facts, supported by your inability to show any source stating otherwise. .
    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: Imperialism is to set out to conquer or rule a land of people through military force or by other means in order to expand their authority. So it is you who clearly has no idea what imperialism is, for the redundancy in saying that muslims inavded lands is not proof of imperilaism. For the invasion was not done with the intent to expand territory or rule, but in defense of other nations who were threatening and attacking them. .
    ok so now you are making the truly retarded assertion that every country the moslesm marched into was an act of self defense :rofl: really are there no depths of fallacy you wouldnt sink to ?
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Defensive war is not imperialism. Every invasion by the muslims were against the opressors. This is a clear fact, as North Africa, India, and Spain confined to the same territory for years without expansion, when could have easily done so. .
    So you are actually making this assertion lol. Wow stupidity of this level is truly rare these days!
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: Which still means that in their time of rule for centuries, they were not defeated for centuries. Yet in that period of time, they did not expand. There is absolutely no way you can get around that, supported by the fact that you still can't provide a single source that says that the muslims did not rule the lands for centuries. A century of rule means that for a century they still could not be defeated. .
    I think i already pointed out to you the moslems ruled various lands for centuries (particualrly in africa and mid-east), just not as long as you falsely claimed. But you are clearly not aware that the mongols invaded the mid east, conquered the moslems, sacked the hub of islamic empire bagdhad and piled tens of thousands of moslem skulls outside the palaces gates. Gengis khan was almost certianly responsible for thousands of times more deaths of moslems than obama and bush combined. again your complete lack of historical knowledge is beyond beleif.
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Yet within that time frame, was Europe and the rest of Africa conquered by the muslims? No. That shows that they had no interests in world domination and were not imperialists..
    No, it showed they werent capable of doing so. Most of north and central africa was islamic terrirtory, moslesm attmpeted on number of occassion to invade from there into europe without success. Ummayads attmepted as early as the 8th century and were defeated.
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: The muslims made several attempts to invade Europe in the end, to defend against the imperilaism of Europe. So again, this is not an example of imperilaism by the muslims. .
    in the 8th century there was no 'european imperialsm' but this didnt stop Umayads form atempt to conquer europe.
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: A war against islam is a war no one can win, but the muslims. Whether a person is a muslim or not, it doesn't take religion to know that. That's the reason why western countries separated religion and state because if a war appears to be a religious war against islam, history shows who the victor is. It's the muslims. America didn't try to just run through every muslim land because that would make all muslims unite and it would be an all out war that they cannot win. So instead, they claim they are acting to bring freedom. The video link in the OP clearly shows this. .
    the britsh wiped out the moslem empire in asia with a handful of trops (comparatively. The french and italians did the same in morth africa, so clearly that is false dogma, but whatever helps you sleep at night. They simply did to the moslems, what the moslems did to africans and middle easterns beofre. Nowdays the americans can walk into any moslems country they wish, as it has shown. USA arnt trying to attack all moslems- again if they did, they would jsut carpet bomb them into submission , they have the military might to do so without breaking a sweat. USA are attacking islamists that fester in isialmic countires, and they do so with surgical strikes like drones, Special Ops and air strikes. If you threaten people, expect to be targetted. Simple.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    - Mistyped
    Point : Solely using an event that happened 60 years ago to form an opinion on the current foreign policy's being pursued by the UK is illogical as it does not account for the massive amounts of change experienced in both countries over that time period. 60 years ago the British Empire was still around.
    Oh right, it looked as if you were correcting my date.

    I wasn't forming an opinion on current foreign policy, I was backing up OP's post that the situation in the ME is partly the west's fault too.
    And what makes you think things have changed? The same foreign policy approach is still in use. Re: Mossadeq, this keeps happening every decade, look at Lumumba, Sadat, and current western interference.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Oh right, it looked as if you were correcting my date.

    I wasn't forming an opinion on current foreign policy, I was backing up OP's post that the situation in the ME is partly the west's fault too.
    And what makes you think things have changed? The same foreign policy approach is still in use. Re: Mossadeq, this keeps happening every decade, look at Lumumba, Sadat, and current western interference.
    Many things have changed since 1953, for example the end of the cold war. This has radically changed Western foreign policy. I see no evidence for the denial that western foreign policy has changed since 1953.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    Many things have changed since 1953, for example the end of the cold war. This has radically changed Western foreign policy. I see no evidence for the denial that western foreign policy has changed since 1953.
    I said the same appoach still exists. Details have changed. Western interference for oil and power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I said the same appoach still exists. Details have changed. Western interference for oil and power.
    You simply cannot prove this. There is no irrefutable evidence of any western intervention for power.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I am not talking about a Currency.

    You don't need a currency to be rich. You just have to have something that is valuable. Having a 100 Chickens is more valuable than having a peso. There is very little of worth in the desert.

    Obviously, you ignored the fact that they invaded Spain and kept it for hundreds of years.
    Response: You don't need chicken to be rich either, so your logic is invalid. Africa is not poor.

    And the conquest of Spain was not ignored and actually proves my point.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism;42174482
    Actually, no, that is incorrect. They controlled large parts of Afghanistan as well.

    No, they were not defeated centuries later. That is why I told you to look at the link. They were defeated within a hundred years of their expansion into Southern India.

    That is why you NEVER mention the Deccan Wars (1681) because you are a liar.

    [URL
    )

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Wars[/URL]

    "It is the longest recorded military engagement in the history of India. It started in 1681 with the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s invasion of the Maratha territory"
    Response: Your own link doesn't even say they they were defeated within hundred years. You it is you that's clearly doing the lying. Furthermore, it shows a severe display of ignorance. The link itself tals about a specific war, not the initial invansion of India. The fact that you don't know this shows that you are the least in knowledge on the subject.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    You simply cannot prove this. There is no irrefutable evidence of any western intervention for power.
    Then you're very naive indeed and have no clue about how politics work.

    Of course not, wars and foreign policy have nothing to do with power, and the US has no interest in money. That's not the meaning of economics and politics at all, no *

    * Sarcasm

    Evidence: Iraq-war? Operation Ajax? Patrice Lumumba?
    The whole cold war?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    And the conquest of Spain was not ignored and actually proves my point.
    OOPS !

    Earlier today:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    For there is no logical reasoning for an empre in North africa to not expand their territory in Africa, but instead seek to conquer Europe..

    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)

    Your own link doesn't even say they they were defeated within hundred years.
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Then you're very naive indeed and have no clue about how politics work.

    Of course not, wars and foreign policy have nothing to do with power, and the US has no interest in money. That's not the meaning of economics and politics at all, no *

    * Sarcasm

    Evidence: Iraq-war? Operation Ajax? Patrice Lumumba?
    The whole cold war?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: You don't need chicken to be rich either, so your logic is invalid. Africa is not poor.

    And the conquest of Spain was not ignored and actually proves my point.



    Response: Your own link doesn't even say they they were defeated within hundred years. You it is you that's clearly doing the lying. Furthermore, it shows a severe display of ignorance. The link itself tals about a specific war, not the initial invansion of India. The fact that you don't know this shows that you are the least in knowledge on the subject.
    ]
    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.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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

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