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

    4
    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.
    Dude, you are being trolled.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CEKTOP)
    Dude, you are being trolled.
    Yeah I finally picked up on that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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.
    Example of a quote I quoted you on: Post number 121, 13 h ago.

    I crushed your argument so now you won't counter argue, instead you're desperately trying to change the topic of argument. Well it didn't work, I have even provided you with a post number. It's over.

    Now you didn't reply to the fact that I did quote you and directed you to the quotes. In fact you denied it. That makes you the liar and NOT me.

    Liar liar liar na na na na
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    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.
    Response: Once again, no one disputes the fact that the Ottoman Empire expanded. Yet the fact stil remains that their expansion was into Western territiory to prevent western imperialism. So they were not imperialists themselves. They were fighting off the imperilaism of the West. So your argument still fails to show imperialism by the Ottomans.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: Once again, no one disputes the fact that the Ottoman Empire expanded. Yet the fact stil remains that their expansion was into Western territiory to prevent western imperialism. So they were not imperialists themselves. They were fighting off the imperilaism of the West. So your argument still fails to show imperialism by the Ottomans.
    So the Ottomans invaded land and subjegated people to their rule in an imperialist fashion... yet because they did so to prevent Western imperialist expansion, they're not imperialists? Wait, what? In what alternate universe does that any make sense?

    Say you're going to buy a slave... but I buy the exact same slave before you can. Does that mean I'm not actually a slaveowner?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    So the Ottomans invaded land and subjegated people to their rule in an imperialist fashion... yet because they did so to prevent Western imperialist expansion, they're not imperialists? Wait, what? In what alternate universe does that any make sense?

    Say you're going to buy a slave... but I buy the exact same slave before you can. Does that mean I'm not actually a slaveowner?
    I read the discussion, and you aren't going to make much progress here.

    The problem is, with normal people, you start a discussion, both sides present arguments and facts to support their case and reach a conclusion. Certain people however start with a conclusion, ignore all counter arguments presented, and keep insisting their conclusion is the right one and must be accepted. You really cannot change a conclusion he's already made and unwilling to change no matter what.

    Just my two cents.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    So the Ottomans invaded land and subjegated people to their rule in an imperialist fashion... yet because they did so to prevent Western imperialist expansion, they're not imperialists? Wait, what? In what alternate universe does that any make sense?

    Say you're going to buy a slave... but I buy the exact same slave before you can. Does that mean I'm not actually a slaveowner?
    Response: Again, you make absolutely no sense. The Ottomans faught against imperialism. The West were the imperialists. So no, fighting someone to prevent them from taking you over IS NOT imperilaism.

    According to your logic, if someone tries to come into a person's house and take over their home and the person defends themself, then the person defending themself is the imperialist. Sheer idiocy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Example of a quote I quoted you on: Post number 121, 13 h ago.

    I crushed your argument so now you won't counter argue, instead you're desperately trying to change the topic of argument. Well it didn't work, I have even provided you with a post number. It's over.

    Now you didn't reply to the fact that I did quote you and directed you to the quotes. In fact you denied it. That makes you the liar and NOT me.

    Liar liar liar na na na na

    Speak for yourself.


    Add in 'run away from a direct question' as well
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: Again, you make absolutely no sense. The Ottomans faught against imperialism. The West were the imperialists. So no, fighting someone to prevent them from taking you over IS NOT imperilaism.

    According to your logic, if someone tries to come into a person's house and take over their home and the person defends themself, then the person defending themself is the imperialist. Sheer idiocy.
    But what the Ottomans did, in your slightly mad version of things, was saw someone going into someone else's house, 2 doors down, so the Ottomans went and broke into the house next door to prevent the guys 2 doors down getting into their house.

    And to add, your arguments make no sense. I'm honestly not sure whether you're a very good troll or a very stupid person :holmes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: Again, you make absolutely no sense. The Ottomans faught against imperialism. The West were the imperialists. So no, fighting someone to prevent them from taking you over IS NOT imperilaism.

    According to your logic, if someone tries to come into a person's house and take over their home and the person defends themself, then the person defending themself is the imperialist. Sheer idiocy.
    This argument is going in circles. As the above poster said, I'm not sure if you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp what I'm saying (even when I gave you a nice, easy analogy), or you're just a troll.
    (Original post by Inquirer)
    I read the discussion, and you aren't going to make much progress here.

    The problem is, with normal people, you start a discussion, both sides present arguments and facts to support their case and reach a conclusion. Certain people however start with a conclusion, ignore all counter arguments presented, and keep insisting their conclusion is the right one and must be accepted. You really cannot change a conclusion he's already made and unwilling to change no matter what.

    Just my two cents.
    I know that now. I shan't waste any more time in here. Shame, really, could've been an interesting discussion.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Many non-muslims have a misconception of why muslim lands are in such bad conditions, constantly engaging in extreme violence, and their hatred towards the West. Many blame the islamic texts for the reason.

    The evidence appears to disagree with this notion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TojC0uY5cW8

    Is the West and its imperialism the blame for the growth of radical islam and the establishment of poor and conflicting muslim states?

    Let's have a dialogue.
    The west hasn't had an empire for a good while now and the dominant imperial power in the middle-east has been the muslim Ottoman Turkish Empire.

    Nice try though.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)

    Speak for yourself.


    Add in 'run away from a direct question' as well
    God you're stalking me now?

    I got tired of repeating myself, you just don't get it. I gave up trying to teach you something because you kept ignoring my main argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    But what the Ottomans did, in your slightly mad version of things, was saw someone going into someone else's house, 2 doors down, so the Ottomans went and broke into the house next door to prevent the guys 2 doors down getting into their house.

    And to add, your arguments make no sense. I'm honestly not sure whether you're a very good troll or a very stupid person :holmes:
    Response: There is no source that says the Ottomans broke into a house next door to prevent guys two doors down from getting into their house. So as usual, your idiocy is evident. At least you are consistent, despite everything you post having no evidence and reflects the logic of a braindead person.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    This argument is going in circles. As the above poster said, I'm not sure if you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp what I'm saying (even when I gave you a nice, easy analogy), or you're just a troll.
    Response: Likewise. And when we consider the fact that all evidence that you can bring regarding Ottoman conquest is in one direction, which is against the West, and the fact that the West was already conquering muslim Spain prior to any invasion by the Ottomans, then that proves that they were not imperialists, but were defending against imperialism by the West. As usual, your logic fails.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    The west hasn't had an empire for a good while now and the dominant imperial power in the middle-east has been the muslim Ottoman Turkish Empire.

    Nice try though.
    Response: Which makes absolutely no sense when it was the West that defeated the Ottoman empire, and defeated the muslims in Spain prior to defeating them. So that logic utterly fails.

    Nice try though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    God you're stalking me now?
    Not stalking you, I just happened on the post and thought I'd have a laugh at the hypocrisy of accusing your opponents of running away and refusing to counter argue.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I got tired of repeating myself, you just don't get it. I gave up trying to teach you something because you kept ignoring my main argument.
    Translation: "answering the question would have made me look stupid, so I'm not going to bother."

    If you still believe you are right, what is the problem? It is a very simple question.

    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?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Not stalking you, I just happened on the post and thought I'd have a laugh at the hypocrisy of accusing your opponents of running away and refusing to counter argue.



    Translation: "answering the question would have made me look stupid, so I'm not going to bother."

    If you still believe you are right, what is the problem? It is a very simple question.

    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 have missed the point (again!)
    The point is that whatever reply I gave you, you ignored it and so I didn't bother replying to someone who doesn't read what I write, or ignore what I write.
    So technically, you're the one running away, so the hypocrite is you.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: Which makes absolutely no sense when it was the West that defeated the Ottoman empire, and defeated the muslims in Spain prior to defeating them. So that logic utterly fails.

    Nice try though.
    Don't know what the reconquista has to do with anything since the Muslims started from Arabia and conquered all the way up to the gates of Vienna and to the southern marches of France, into India down to the east Indies.

    Nice try though bro.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: There is no source that says the Ottomans broke into a house next door to prevent guys two doors down from getting into their house. So as usual, your idiocy is evident. At least you are consistent, despite everything you post having no evidence and reflects the logic of a braindead person.
    You know what, I'm going to debate the way you do.

    There is no evidence to show that the Ottomans ever invaded to the West and you can't source your claim that they only did it to fight Western Imperialism, this shows your idocy as you make claims you cannot back up. As usual you make vauge claims with no evidence and then demand evidence that cannot possibly exist for other claims. This just shows that you have the logic of a braindead person and cannot source any of your claims.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    No, you have missed the point (again!)
    The point is that whatever reply I gave you, you ignored it and so I didn't bother replying to someone who doesn't read what I write, or ignore what I write.
    So technically, you're the one running away, so the hypocrite is you.
    Er, I answered all of your points.

    I notice how you keep obfuscating to avoid answering the one I DIRECTLY posed in my last post though.

    It really is very simple... A or B.
 
 
 
  • 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.