So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West?

I'd say that where you go from here depends on whether Faith can support her assertion. What's next?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

1. I would say that the Islamic world would not be the Islamic world if the Arabs and Muhammed had not invaded Persia and other nations in the first place to expand and grow Islam.2. I wouldn't call Russia the West. Before the 1907 treaty, Russia and Britian both had Persia under their rule, Russia to the north and Britian to the south. Have I got that right?3. Persia was ruled by Rome, The Mongols, themselves (Iran), Arabs, Russia, Britain and Iran again at different times in their AD history as far as I can assertain.4. As far as nations annoying the Mid East nations, they have historically been annoyed and oppressed by their neighboring nations far more than the West ever annoyed and oppressed them. Iranians enjoyed more freedom under Western backed Shah Palavi (spelling?) than the Arabs and others who annoyed them in previous centuries. Edited by buzsaw, : Edit to update title.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I suppose that was the good and wise thing for the Brits to do for the whole world in a world war situation. I believe history has shown that to be the case.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Historically nearly every despotic hierarchial tyrannical ideology that has come down the pike since the founding of our republic has been annoyed by the free West and particularly the US. Why?1. Freedom threatens the hold which oppressive ideologies impose on people under their power.2. The effective preaching of the Biblical gospel enlightenment in any oppressive regime or ideology, be it religious or secular, thwarts these regimes and idologies and reduces their constituency. That's why the popes and bishops of the Vatican suppressed the reading of the Bible by the laity and severly persecuted Biblical fundamentalists during the inquisitions of the Dark Ages. Biblical fundies are most prevalent in the free West. Go figure why Islam; like the Dark Age inquisitionist; like Hitler: like the Communist block; like fundie Hindus, et al are annoyed by the free West.3. Most Middle East Muslim nations want Israel eliminated. Were it not for the powerful free West, Israel would have no support. This irritates the heck out of these nations. So why wouldn't the West irritate the Islamic world?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

You're copping out of a ligitimate on topic contribution to the thread Jar. I'm showing how and why it's the oppressiveness of the Islamic world that causes it to be annoyed by the West. In order to do that effectively, I needed to show that all oppressive ideologies are annoyed by the free West, so why not Islam.The annoyance is caused, not by the West perse, but by the oppression vs freedom conflict.Also that Israel support by the West is a very significant factor in this annoyance is spot on topic.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Oops, I hit the back button and forgot that I had posted rather than reviewed, so disregard this post. Edited by buzsaw, : To explain error

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Jar, from the gitgo of this thread, you've been policing topic pretty stringently. both administratively and otherwise. Imo, some of it is nothing but a means of eliminating effective material which goes against your thinking on this debatable subject.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

It appears you were quite right on page one, Faith, when you could see where this was going. Jar's trying to spin the annoyee/annoyer problem so as to bedevil the annoyer West and legitimize the annoyee Islamic world.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Hi AdminAsgara. I posted before I saw your admin action. My comments pertained to the topic title, which I understood to be applicable to the whole train of thought throughout the progression of the topic. I figured the topic title could be applicable anywhere in the thread. Do you think we need to discuss this in the private or public moderation forums?

I just reread most of the thread. The motive issue came up on page one where Jar fingered the West's motives as agressive which seemed to initiate more discussion of motives, et al rather than what Jar wants, being the historical and political aspects et al.I will back off and see where Jar takes us from here, but since religion is in the title, likely ideoligical problems will need to be incuded somewhere along the line sooner or later. That Jar's topic title appears to be more religious than political in nature seems to be the problem here. "Islamic world" implicates ideology more than political and historical, especially since the Islamic world is becoming quite global.I'll be away from my computer until Sat PM, so Jar, this fly in the ointment won't be here to bug your thread for a spell.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I've been doing some research on my own and see that Modulous has it about as my research shows so far as he went into the Empire.What neither of you have alluded to is:1. The fact that the reason those centuries of Ottoman occupation of the nations around them produced a peaceful empire is that the empire (Turkey and all of Turkey's conquered lands, including other Muslim nations) was a very tightly run Muslim dictatorship, so tightly run in the first two centuries or so that even the Sultan' (dictator's) own brothers and their sons had to be executed in order to insure the peace and the dictatorial absolute rule of the Sultan.2. All conquered nations became the property of the Sultans who annexed all conquered nations into the empire.3. The goal of most of the Sultans, including the most powerful and prestigious one, Suleyman (named after the Biblical Solomon) aspired to conquer all of Europe and eventually the whole world for the empire. Suleyman believed the blessings and assurance of divinity inspired and supported his aspirations.4. So before you go at Europe and the West for aggression of the Mid East, you need to recognize who started this aggression in the first place. It was the Islamic Ottomans and when they began to falter, a power grab by European nations ensued in order to, (1)contain the advance of the Ottomans who had already conquered European nations and (2) for each nation to protect itself from becoming overrun by any one among themselves which might swallow up the entire crumbling Ottoman empire. Russia, for example became the most dangerous threat, yearning to move in and overtake the trade routes, including the very strategic Constanople (Istanbul).5. Had the Europeans and Britain not all scrambled and squabbled so as to insure the balance of power, which included defeat and control of the pieces of the Ottoman Empire, Islam's ambitious aspirations might have succeed in conquering Europe and eventually the planet. This was, of course the aspirations of Mohammed himself For Islam and his god, Allah.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I don't think so. The expansionist aspirations of Suleyman and other notable Ottoman dictators seemed to be inspired by Mohammed and his successors whose ambitions and motivations were to (1) grow Islam into the global religion and (2) totally secure the strategic and lucrative trade routes connecting the east with the west. The Roman Empire perse had little to do with the rise of Islam as I understand the history. Islam appeared to originate from the inspirations of one relatively nobody man who married into wealth, got a vision and via the trade routes and the sword, et al eliminated all political, commercial and religious competition to begin and grow the Islamic block in the region. Like Jar, you're sweeping under the rug, the fact that it was the expansionist ambitions of Saleyman and other notable Ottoman dictarors who began to invade and conquer Europe that first required defensive involvement by Europe with the aggressive Ottomans. Say what?? Europe gets invaded and you question justification of annoyance/action?? The anger of many of these Islamic nations likely began when the Ottomans by the sword annexed them into the Ottoman empire, subjecting them to the Turk absolute dictators. Then when the expansionism of the Ottomans into Europe failed, they were further angered by the necessity of the West to intervene in order to save themselves from one another via intervention in the region of the original aggressors who initiated all the annoyance and unrest.This, my friends, is not all as simple as you are trying to make it. You need to get over your dogged bias against the West and your seeming need to coddle aggressive Islam as so many of you people appear to do so consistently here at EvC. Both have their faults, but, come on, does Islam always have to be the good guys with white hats for you?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

1. Well then why are we getting these history lectures on way back when by Jar and folks getting off topic warnings about present day stuff, et al?2. The Turks, Shehites and Sunnis are all annoyed by one another today. Doesn't that relate any to Ottoman history, the nature of Islam and why they're annoyed by the West? The bottom line is that Muslim factions seem to be annoyed about just about everyone, including themselves. They don't mind blowing one another to pieces over their annoyances.3. The black slaves in America are long since dead also. So are the Native Americans of the early days. But not all's hunkydory over historical stuff.4. I know the thread's about annoyance with the West, but I think it's important to show that ME Muslims are at odds/annoyed with about everyone, including themselves.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

OK Jar. Enough said. I'm outa here. It was you who began with the Ottomans and I responded. You can just keep on lecturing your version of what's important to the question and keep on ignoring the factual answers I've given. You're impossible to work with! Why don't you do the Forum Guidelines thing and refute my stuff rather than your personal demeaning comments and false allegations that my response provided no evidence? If Buzsaw has provided no evidence, prove that to be the case. And btw, you never proveded linked evidence to much of the history you gave either.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Modulous, I'm ashamed to copy you and think it is especially shameful for you, a moderator to post this profanity. Having said that, I need to answer your off topic absurd, meanspirited and false allegation.The fundamentals of the NT do not allow for killing anyone This action is in none of the NT fundamentals. One or two professing Christians killed one or two doctors whereas thousands of fundamentalist Muslims are killers of millions as per fundamentals in the Quran. Edited by buzsaw, : Edited out a phraseEdited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW