something to ponder about islamic extremists

[PoeticInjustice]

thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=005d505293841b44660366dd0115a0e2&t=149522&page=2&pp=25

got linked to this while trying to research headstamp codes for 7.62x54r.

at any rate, apparently, someone doesn't want us using any jewish manufactured ammo to blow holes in extremist muslims...the thread isn't too terribly interesting, but on the second page I found this little beauty of a post:
__________________________________________
I'd recommend everybody go read some Bernard Lewis and Victor Davis Hanson and get a sense of the long history at work here.

These people (the "Islamic civilization") have a extravagently detailed victimhood complex going back to Lepanto. At root it has almost nothing to do with Israel, that's just the latest strawman, it is the realization of the inability of their once vaunted civilization to provide for the basic needs of the people vis a vis the vitality and productivity of the West. They know they had something special once and instead of blaming the intransigence of their religious leaders toward change, they turn the blame outward to the mythical "other"; the Jews, The Crusaders, the West in general as now personified by the US.

The secular leaders refuse to institute the reforms necessary to enter the modern world and so explicitly allow the fundamentalists to control the dialogue to maintain their own shaky hold on power. It is a system which will collapse because it is built on lies, much like communism fell apart, but it will take constant effort and vigilence on the part of the West. In the meantime, due to the monopoly on information of the fundamentalists and their passive supporters in power, NOTHING we do will change one iota their general view of the West. If it isn't IMI and the Zionists, it will be some other twisted fact or outright lie to keep the peasents enraged.

We ARE engaged in a "world war" here. It is a war between a medieval civilization in its death throes and a West so enlightened, it forgets that jealousy, NOT reason, has been the root cause of war since the dawn of man.
_________________________________


definately something to think about
*dons his flameproof underwear*

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

I only really have one beef with that synopsis.

the whole reason this situation exists is because the religious leaders DID try to modernize back in the 19th century while still remaining true to their islamic past, which is fine. the problem was, however, that in bringing in the western advisers, they opened up their lands to merchants, etc, bringing in the European view. the loans required for the infrastructure brought in a huge dependence on the west in terms of money(though, it's funny, Iran managed to do it without lonas...*ponders*), then, when they declared their bankruptcy, the europeans moved in full-force, creating institutions of control within the ottoman and egyptian governments that controlled(for i think half a centruy, maybe longer) what money was spent where, if they didn't like what the muslims were doing, they'd veto it and say "this needs to be spent to pay off your debt."

anyway, after world war 1, where the ottomans actually fought brilliantly against the Russians, the egyptian english, the indian english, the aussie and new zealander troops, AND the regular ol' english armies, and manged to maintain much of their land(a bit more than what turkey has now actually, they controlled about half of syria still, a majority of Iraq, etc.), the armistice gave control of all this to the french and the british(the russians opted out). the reason turkey's there right now is because of a Turkish nationalist movement that started in 1919(i think), lasted through 1923, eventually kicking out the British in Istanbul, and creating their own republic.

the sad part is, thoguh, that when the brits and the french divided up all the empire, they eliminated the government that held all the different nationalitis together, the ottomans were an empire for all muslims, not j ust turks, they were NOT turkey. when they disappeared, THEN the nationalist movements appeared in protest to the british and french occupations.

...anyway, thanks for helping me study, i have a test on this on monday :-P

[Drychnath]

Don't forget about how Attaturk actualy consolidated his power - after the conclusion of WWII the Greeks invaded Turkey with an army, which he proceeded to boot clean back across the Aegean.

This is a similar sort of line to that Israel uses - though having been the recipient of a half-dozen military invasions, they've been more than fair in a real-politik sense of the term.

The cause, however, is more or less irrelevant. What the people who support these fundamentalist causes need to realise is that their nations and cultures are weak. Only their faith is strong, and even in the holy books the chosen of God get killed. Though I must say, insurgency is a terribly efficient means of cycling your faithful through their motal coil. What they need is good old-fashioned grandiose and ruthles ambition. Know who was a great Muslim? Saladin.

Also, it is worthwhile pointing out that we did just get doe destroying the only conceivable unifier of the Middle Eastern Muslim World. The group with serious imperial ambitions in the Middle East with a power base good enough to accomplish it was the Baath party - in Iraq. There's a sort of insidious undertone to all of this "populr sovereignty" business. I note that no nation since France that's had a democratic revolution has become a prodigious world power.

And while I'm on the topic of new states - no ethinicity should ever, under any conditions, be granted their own state as a separation from the whole. One, it's racist to even consider. Two, all these peoples really want is a chance to brutally oppress someone else as the majority for once. Besides, who's top dog? We are. Who doesn't have individual ethnic states? We don't. Who has forged from all peoples a singular nation? We have. It is empirically obvious that ethnic purity is the surest route to being prevented from irrefutable power on the world stage. Net conclusion - Iraqi Kurds aren't very bright.

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

heh, well, 'not very bright' is bound to be an inevitable effect of being gassed by saddam :-P

i'd like to start a discussion off of this one, along similar lines...kind of.

Do you think, judging by china's history, one can make the claim that, as they have never attempted building an empire beyond the reaches of china proper, that they will not, even with their quickly growing clout among nations of today, try to attempt to expand their power beyond that of economic power outside of China? Or, will they attempt to do something they've never done before: use their military in foriegn affairs to further increase their influece?