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

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?

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.

So the Ottoman conquests of the balkans wasn't Imperialism? The vassal states they created and controlled, Transylvania and Wallachia being some.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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: 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.

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.

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.