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)
    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.
    Nope, you ignored my whole main argument and kept switching the topic.

    I wonder why?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Nope, you ignored my whole main argument and kept switching the topic.

    I wonder why?
    I'll humour you. Copy and post any points you think I failed to answer, and I'll direct you to where I did so, or if I missed something, I'll deal with it... Can't say fairer than that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)

    As for islamic imperialism, there has never been a such.
    So the Ottoman conquests of the balkans wasn't Imperialism? The vassal states they created and controlled, Transylvania and Wallachia being some.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callan)
    So the Ottoman conquests of the balkans wasn't Imperialism? The vassal states they created and controlled, Transylvania and Wallachia being some.
    Response: No it wasn't imperialism. The West themselves were the imperialists, so the Ottomans fought in defense and were able to conquer land in the process.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callan)
    So the Ottoman conquests of the balkans wasn't Imperialism? The vassal states they created and controlled, Transylvania and Wallachia being some.
    Don't even bother with this fella. It's pointless, even when you define Imperialism, point out that it was the Ottoman Empire, explain to him why it's Imperialism he'll just keep saying 'Nope, they just did because the West did so it wasn't Imperialism!'

    Saw someone waste a couple of hours on him yesterday, it's really not worth it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    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.
    Response: And prior to any conquest of Arabia by the muslims, the byzantine empire in the West was already established and fighting the muslims, forcing them to fight back in defense , which allowed them to conquer land. So fighting against imerialism is not imperialism.

    Nice try though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Don't even bother with this fella. It's pointless, even when you define Imperialism, point out that it was the Ottoman Empire, explain to him why it's Imperialism he'll just keep saying 'Nope, they just did because the West did so it wasn't Imperialism!'

    Saw someone waste a couple of hours on him yesterday, it's really not worth it.
    Response: Stop crying. It's sad to watch.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 214613)
    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.
    Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?
    Excuse me? Proof of what? Your entire 'debate style' is to ask for a source on everything, and when things are sourced you either ignore those sources or ask for yet more sourcing on the most obvious of claims. I'm simply doing the same to you. Source all your claims please. Everything about the Ottoman's only fighting in defense, Western Imperialism, why and where you get your definition of Imperialims from etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Excuse me? Proof of what? Your entire 'debate style' is to ask for a source on everything, and when things are sourced you either ignore those sources or ask for yet more sourcing on the most obvious of claims. I'm simply doing the same to you. Source all your claims please. Everything about the Ottoman's only fighting in defense, Western Imperialism, why and where you get your definition of Imperialims from etc.
    Response: To the contrary, you were exposed for making foolish and false claims, only to find out that the evidence you were providing actually refuted your own argument and you've been crying ever since.

    As for the Ottomans, the evidence was already presented. Prior to any expansion by the Ottomans, the West had already seiged much of the land in Spain by the muslims and taking the land of Spain since the 700's A.D. , long before there was an Ottoman empire which came to power in 1299. The evidence is from your favorite source, wikipedia. Debunked as usual.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I'll humour you. Copy and post any points you think I failed to answer, and I'll direct you to where I did so, or if I missed something, I'll deal with it... Can't say fairer than that.
    The main point of poverty under Thatcher?
    Do you deny that you simply responded that you don't care about it, thus ignoring the whole crust of my main argument?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    The main point of poverty under Thatcher?
    Do you deny that you simply responded that you don't care about it, thus ignoring the whole crust of my main argument?
    Now now, don't be coy. Your point was about 'relative poverty' being a reliable benchmark of poverty under Thatcher, wasn't it?

    Your first reply to me was when you were objecting to me saying that the irony of poverty was easily demonstrated.

    Pol Pot Noodles destroyed the rest of your points, but you kept banging on about income levels, measured as 'relative poverty' was a relevant benchmark.

    Then you started obsessing about mean incomes, even though I was talking about medians (as because that is what the relative poverty stats are based on.

    So, now, A or B?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: To the contrary, you were exposed for making foolish and false claims, only to find out that the evidence you were providing actually refuted your own argument and you've been crying ever since.

    As for the Ottomans, the evidence was already presented. Prior to any expansion by the Ottomans, the West had already seiged much of the land in Spain by the muslims and taking the land of Spain since the 700's A.D. , long before there was an Ottoman empire which came to power in 1299. The evidence is from your favorite source, wikipedia. Debunked as usual.
    Land that muslims themselves conquered a few hundred years before. I don't see where you're going with this - if you think we should undo any border changes between Islam and other religions that were the result of warfare, Christianity should still be in Aleppo, Baghdad and Tripoli, and the Muslims wouldn't even own Mecca.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If genuine and not a troll.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Now now, don't be coy. Your point was about 'relative poverty' being a reliable benchmark of poverty under Thatcher, wasn't it?

    Your first reply to me was when you were objecting to me saying that the irony of poverty was easily demonstrated.

    Pol Pot Noodles destroyed the rest of your points, but you kept banging on about income levels, measured as 'relative poverty' was a relevant benchmark.

    Then you started obsessing about mean incomes, even though I was talking about medians (as because that is what the relative poverty stats are based on.

    So, now, A or B?
    Yes, my whole point was that there's nothing ironic about poverty. Then you started blabbing on about the term income poverty, ignoring everything I said about the fact that those at the bottom can become poorer irrespective of the median income. You said you don't care.

    Noddles didn't destroy anything. But ofc, you're very unbiased in that sense, aren't you?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Yes, my whole point was that there's nothing ironic about poverty. Then you started blabbing on about the term income poverty, ignoring everything I said about the fact that those at the bottom can become poorer irrespective of the median income. You said you don't care.

    Noddles didn't destroy anything. But ofc, you're very unbiased in that sense, aren't you?
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Land that muslims themselves conquered a few hundred years before. I don't see where you're going with this - if you think we should undo any border changes between Islam and other religions that were the result of warfare, Christianity should still be in Aleppo, Baghdad and Tripoli, and the Muslims wouldn't even own Mecca.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: I agree. Muslims are to blame for their conditions, not islam. So I don't say that muslims are not to blame. However, I say the growing conditions of conflict and poverty was the result of Western Imperialism. So both sides are to blame.
    Western Imperialism only overcame the Muslim lands due to the Muslims having a love of this world and a hatred of death. I feel that is the root cause of the problem.

    I could point the finger at the Western powers that be all day, but if the root cause is not dealt with, the Muslims not turning back to the Qur'an and Sunnah with sincerity, than we won't see an end to the Western powers domination in certain regions.
    Offline

    17
    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.
    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.

    The fact still remains that the muslims were not imperilaists.
    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:

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Fatihah)
    Response: No it wasn't imperialism. The West themselves were the imperialists, so the Ottomans fought in defense and were able to conquer land in the process.
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.