Replies

"You might want to look at the way Muslims were treated in europe in the middle ages."

True. On the other hand, Islam attacked Christianity from its inception, Christianity did not attack Islam.

"From the point of view of Islam this is the worst of time, and has been for the last couple of hundred years."

True. Thanks to our modern weaponry, Muslims are frustrated at their inability to continue raping, plundering, pillaging, and oppressing unbelievers, except perhaps in Nigeria, southern Sudan, etc.

"At that time the Islamic world had a much higher state of civilization than Christendom (but as the old saying goes That was then this is now)"

Again, true. But Islam's greatest contribution to civization was transferring the knowledge of the Ancients to western Europe, not originating much themselves. Besides, if you read an old book by a Frenchman, no less, Henri Prienne, called "Mohammad and Charlemagne", Prienne postulates that the "Dark Ages" in Europe were mainly brought about by Islamic control of the sea routes of the Mediterranean through their use of corsair pirates and the Islamic seizure of Mediterranean islands like Sicily. This effectively cut western Europe off from a true source of the knowledge of the ancients - Byzantium, which the Muslims proceeded to destroy incrementally.

"As IMO the world is just getting to small for such a large portion of the worlds population to remain mired in the 14th century."

I agree with you, but my last great hope was Turkey, and when the chips were down, the Turks demonstrated that:
a) Islamic ties come first; and,
b) that old spirit of the wastes of central Asia is still alive and well in Turkey, and, as they did with the Armenians, the Turks would very much prefer to exterminate Kurds rather than reach a living accomodation with them, even if it means screwing their infidel friends the Americans.

Oh No was we all know Muslims are forbidden to attack other Muslims!
< /sarcam>

Did you ever read that among the Ottoman Turks there was no rule of succession. Consequently, when the Sultan died, there was a battle to see which of his many sons (the horney devils had many wives and concubines)would succeed the dead leader. Competitors were strangled to death with a bowstring because it was not right for a Muslim to shed the blood of another Muslim. Great folks the Turks. Ask the Kurds, Armenians and Greeks.

True. Thanks to our modern weaponry,

The problem is (for the Islamic world) how do we(the west) do this, how do we keep coming up with these new and better machines and ways of doing things. Victor Davis Hanson touches on this in his book Carnage and Culture. In which he asks the question why the west has been so dominate militarily over the non-west, his answer is one word FREEDOM, that free men make better killers than slaves do. This is something that we don't see in the Islamic world and until they do grasp it they will not be able to match the west.

Prienne postulates that the "Dark Ages" in Europe were mainly brought about by Islamic control of the sea routes of the Mediterranean through their use of corsair pirates and the Islamic seizure of Mediterranean islands like Sicily.

This is a new one for me. If you have a link I'd be intrested in looking at it as I've begun to look at this period for a while now.

I agree with you, but my last great hope was Turkey, and when the chips were down, the Turks demonstrated that:
a) Islamic ties come first; and,
b) that old spirit of the wastes of central Asia is still alive and well in Turkey, and, as they did with the Armenians, the Turks would very much prefer to exterminate Kurds rather than reach a living accomodation with them, even if it means screwing their infidel friends the Americans.

While I was/am disappointed that Turkey made the choices they did, I am willing to take a wait and see attitude toward them. The problem with democracies (and Turkey can not be caled a strong democracy) is they sometimes do what we don't want them to. And yes they do have a lot to answer for in their treatment of the minorities. BUT it's my opinion that what the President and his team hope for is an axis of freedom in the middle east composed of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Weather this is possible I reserve judgement.

Consequently, when the Sultan died, there was a battle to see which of his many sons (the horney devils had many wives and concubines)would succeed the dead leader. Competitors were strangled to death with a bowstring because it was not right for a Muslim to shed the blood of another Muslim.

The idea of killing competators for the throne is really nothing new in the ancient/medival world particularly in the near east but Richard the III also comes to mind.