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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: Again you embarrass yourself. Whatt's amusing is that you imply that I need to be educated on the sybject and you don't. Yet when asked to prove that the muslims or the Ottomans were imperialists, you still have presented nothing. The reason is obvious. It's because you clearly have no knowledge or logic of the subject and can't prove your already exposed claim. Try again.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    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!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    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.
    Response: You should have called that before you started. For you've been spouting nonsense from the start that you still can't prove. We still see no proof. You should quit while you're behind. Then again, idiocy is your forte. So as you were.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

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

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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. The 'quote' is from not your last post but the one before.

    You clearly stated that ''the west does interfere'', so in other words, you agree. You also agreed that before 1991, Iraq was powerful, but west interfered=my point backed up. So you once again agree with my main point, which means you're wasting your time on trivia.

    It's called logic. Sanctions do not remove oil for all eternity. So they only work short term wise. The oil will still be there, so it doesn't work long term wise

    You prove to me that the Iraq War was not really about reducing the power of Iraq. You prove to me that Saddam would never be able to produce oil and the Americans were not worried about this or losing patience at all. You haven't showed me a single piece of evidence yet
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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 my post before I saw your reply, I thought you might be not be sharp enough to find the quote.

    The 'quote' is from not your last post but the one before.

    You clearly stated that ''the west does interfere'', so in other words, you agree. You also agreed that before 1991, Iraq was powerful, but west interfered=my point backed up. So you once again agree with my main point, which means you're wasting your time on trivia.

    It's called logic. Sanctions do not remove oil for all eternity. So they only work short term wise. The oil will still be there, so it doesn't work long term wise

    You prove to me that the Iraq War was not really about reducing the power of Iraq. You prove to me that Saddam would never be able to produce oil and the Americans were not worried about this or losing patience at all. You haven't showed me a single piece of evidence yet
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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

    Are you denying these quotes came from you?

    Yes or no, do you deny it? Because they are right in front of you.

    For the agreement/disagreement quote, it's the one in bold, I think your first post on this page.

    the third point is the fact that you agree that iraq was only weak since late 1990s, due to sanctions (I can quote you here too!), so they weren't weak in 1991, so you agree with my main argument that west interferes to reduce power
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Yes I have pointed you to two quotes now
    Where did I state "the west does interfere"?

    Post number and time

    Come on.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Where did I state "the west does interfere"?

    Post number and time
    the third point is the fact that you agree that iraq was only weak since late 1990s, due to sanctions (I can quote you here too!), means they weren't weak in 1991, so you agree with my main argument that west interferes to reduce power. The 91 example shows I'm right. So you're wasting your time on trivia.

    ‘’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. ‘’

    That's one of the quotes which suggest you did not disagree. Otherwise you wouldn't deny it the way you did above


    ‘’If I didn't disagree, then show me where I agreed with you.’’ - I included this one just to show how confused you are.


    Both quotes come from you. Do you deny that? Then you're a liar and I shall not waste more time on a liar like you.

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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The size of the Ottoman Empire means that at some point, the start of the expansion meant that it had to have invaded an area and then assert it's influence. Why the **** would anyone think people willingly joined some sort of United States of Arabia or something? It invaded Spain, Spain was never Islamic and I assume that it's natives prior to Muslim imperialism didn't agree to it, like your stupid Harry Potter story tells you they did.

    I hate people up their own arses, lying about their history, making themselves look like some unrealistic utopia of *******s. They try and take credit for mathematics breakthroughs when it started before Islam, ancient Babylonians. And so ****ing what?

    I laughed at the suggestion what is essentially politically correct slavery, to make whites/European empires seem so much worse and to make themselves seem like heavenly beings.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    the thirdn a liar like you.
    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.


    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I see you completely edited your post. Noticed that you were wrong, perhaps?
    No,I wanted you to say that you could find the quote. That is why I asked the question and edited the post.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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!
    But...you won't provide the post number and time.

    When did I say "the west does intefere?"

    That is all I asked in the last three posts.

    EDIT: Actually. Don't care. Everyone can see for themselves if you gave a post number and when you lied.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    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.
    1) The Ottomans did exactly that. You do realise that the Ottoman Turks didn't acquire lands stretching from the Balkans to southern Arabia by inviting the inhabitants down for a nice cups of tea whilst negotiating how they would willingly give their land over and subjugate themselves to Ottoman rule, right?

    2) The Ottomans did extend their Empire... I don't think you're serious. Do you honestly believe that the Ottoman Empire existed since the beginning of time in the same size it was at its largest?

    3) The Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299- a full 200 years before the first European settlers in the Americas. Unless the Ottomans had the best fortune tellers in history, how was the Ottoman Empire in response to Western imperialism? Heck, it could even be argued that the Ottomans were partly responsible for Western imperialism in the Americas, as they needed a new trade route to the spices of India and China that didn't pass through Ottoman territory.

    4) What Christopher Colombus did was shameful colonialism. I'm not arguing that fact. You just seem to be defending Ottoman colonialism because it was perpetrated by people of the same religion as you, which is a morally repulsive position to hold.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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.