|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Now there is another thread for the purpose Quetzal. I think it's the early period that needs to be understood. I see NO provocation for Muslim aggression in the early period. Excuse me, but Arabs do have a reputation for making up a romantic history to suit themselves too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 2193 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
How you doing sis? Haven't had much time to dwell on your posts as I've gotten myself involved in some pylons of late. You hangin in there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just saw your suspension Iano. Perhaps the place is getting to you lately? Not a day goes by but that I vacillate between such total disgust with EvC that I think I'm never coming back, and getting caught up in some interesting discussion.
But this thread is already heavy with off-topicking so enough said. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : thought better of a not so nice remark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Modulous writes: I fucking hate fundamentalist religious types of all religions. Particularly the Abrahamic ones because I have had to deal with them more regularly. That includes fucking idiot Muslims who want to kill innocent people and fucking stupid Christians that think murdering doctors is OK. I hate the fucking lot of them. 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.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. AdminPD Edited by buzsaw, : Edited out a phrase Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 4180 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
No. The Holy Roman Empire continued into the 17th Century. sorry. the holy roman empire was neither holy nor roman. it was constructed of german peoples from the central block of europe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The area that today is called the United Arab Emirates was at the time we are discussing called Trucial Oman. It had never been a single unified nation but rather a coastal area where various sheiks held some limited local sway and had been held under some conrol and influence by the Portugese, the Omanis (the next nation we will discuss) and the Persians. The two tribes or families that exerted the most local control were the Qawasimis who were primalily a coastal sea-faring family and the Al-Busaids who were an interior bedouin tribe.
Around the 1790 the French were beginning to show some interest in the area and the British, to prevent the French from gaining a foothold in what Britain considered its dominite position on the Indian sub-continent, signed a treat with the Al-Busaids. This put Great Britian in direct opposition with the Qawasimis, the sea faring peoples, who then saw all British shipping as fair game. Needless to say, Great Britain did not see things that way, and they dispatched a fleet from Bombay capturing and destroying every Qawasimi vessel, city, town, fort and port, including the Qawasimi holdings and hideouts in Persia itself. Just before the turn of the century, around 1890 or so, Great Britain concluded individual treaties with most of the sheiks in the area where they agreed to have no dealings with any foriegn power other than Great Britain. In return, Great Britain agreed to protect them from foriegn incursion. That became crucial during the period of the rise of Al-Saud, as he bypassed this area totally rather than bring down the ire of the British. The area of Trucial Oman remaind virtually unchanged, no single government, no nation, throughout the period of WWI, WWII and all the way into the 1950s. That is how things remained until Great Britain finally called the Trucial States Council in 1951 meeting in the port city of Dubai and under the chairmanship of the local British political representative. Finally, in 1971 six of the individual "states" met and merged to form the UAE and in 1972 a seventh "state" joined. The importance of Trucial Oman during the period in question was simply that Great Britain added to that area of the coastline that might effect its major concern, shipping and communications between India and England. The secondary and equally important point is that Great Britain also served as a check on the territorial ambitions of Al-Saud which will be discussed later. Aslan is not a Tame Lion |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 6125 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Egypt has historically been a crossroads of sorts between East and West. It has also been a continuous pawn in the geopolitics of the Great Powers (whoever that may have been at the time). This post will cover a mere 106 years of that history - from the invasion of Napoleon during the War of the Second Coalition, to the Entente Cordial at the beginning of the 20th Century. These are the “formative” years that shaped the future of the Middle East.
Setting the stage The year is 1798. In Europe, England, France and just about anybody else you’d care to name have been at war for 9 years - ever since the Revolution. Although the first Coalition War ended in a muddled draw, a new war - the War of the Second Coalition - has begun. The Directory, under Napoleon’s urging and for reasons that remain obscure, decides the best strategy is to threaten British trade to India by invading Egypt and Syria. France had had significant commercial and trade interests in Egypt throughout the 18th Century. It was time to make it a permanent relationship. In the Ottoman Empire, weakened by internal revolt, an inept semi-feudal military government, loss of their trade-route monopoly, and two brutal but inconclusive wars with Russia in Central Asia, control over their theoretical vassal state of Egypt is weak. Egyptian governors, appointed by the Sublime Porte, are changed as often as one changes socks - the average tenure during the past century is less than one year. The real power in Egypt lies with the Mameluke amirs. The Mamelukes are neither Egyptian nor Arab, but rather the descendants of military slaves from Georgia, Armenia, and Circassia. Only the fact that they remain generally (albeit idiosyncratically) loyal to the Ottomans, and fiercely antagonistic towards each other, has prevented them from throwing out the Turks and proclaiming an independent Mameluke kingdom. Nonetheless, Egypt has never been stable under the Ottomans almost from the time (1517) the Turks seized the area from the Byzantines. Revolts, uprisings, and even a major civil war have characterized the past 280 years. Egypt gets noticed On May 19th, 1798, 400 vessels carrying 55,000 men, 1000 canon and 700 horses set out from Toulon, Genoa, and Civitta Veccia. Among this war material were 150 civilians - engineers, artists, scholars, scientists and technicians. These latter were to prove to produce the most important and long-lasting effects of the campaign. On the night of 30 July, Napoleon’s forces landed at Alexandria, and marched against the city seizing it easily. He then marched his troops overland and assaulted the combined Mameluke armies on July 21 near Shuibrah Khit. Although the Mamelukes were defeated and Napoleon entered Cairo, their armies were not destroyed. The Turkish governor fled to Syria, while the Mameluke general amir Murad Bey fled up the Nile. Napoleon’s troubles weren’t over by a long shot. On August 1, Admiral Lord Nelson led the British Mediterranean Fleet in a surprise attack against the remaining French men-of-war anchored at Abu Qir and annihilated them. After a failed attempt to take Syria, and learning of disastrous defeats in Europe, Napoleon returned to France in August 1799, abandoning the bulk of his army in Egypt. The remnants surrendered to a combined Anglo-Ottoman force in 1801 - neither the first nor the last time Moslem and Christian armies joined together against a common Christian foe. The most important result of Napoleon’s abortive invasion of the Levant was to bring Egypt once again to the attention of the West. In addition, the publication of the fruits of all those civilians, the now-famous Descriptions de l’Egypte, and the discovery of the Rosetta Stone fired the imaginations of European explorers and adventurers. Moreover, Britain quickly realized the strategic importance of Egypt - long an embarkation/debarkation point for British goods to and from India. From outpost to Empire . and back The first British attempt to maintain control of Egypt failed when their forces were defeated by a young Albanian officer - Mohammed Ali - in 1807. Although the Ottomans recognized Ali Pasha as their viceroy in Egypt, the Sublime Porte retained little actual control. One of Ali’s first moves was to modernize the Egyptian Army. His second move was to utterly destroy forever the power of the Mameluke amirs by the simple expedient of having them all murdered and their troops massacred. In 1831 he broke completely with the Sultan, sending his son Ibrahim at the head of the Egyptian Army to invade Syria. Winning where the French had failed, Ibrahim quickly overran Syria and seemed poised to move on Istanbul itself. After the defeat of an Ottoman army at the Battle of Konja in Turkish Anatolia, the Sultan turned to Russia for help. A short-lived treaty brokered by the Russians granted Ali partial control of Syria, all of the Hejaz, and the Island of Crete. In 1839, Ali again proclaimed his rule over Greater Syria. Once again, the modernized Egyptian Army defeated the Ottoman forces sent against him (at the Battle of Nizib). Once again, he seemed poised to move against Istanbul. This time, however, the Europeans intervened more directly. Britain and Austria (and Prussia, with France protesting), in order to forestall any Russian involvement (Austria has always had an uneasy position near to the Russian European borders, and the Great Game in Asia was in full swing) sent a combined British, Austrian and Ottoman land and naval force to crush Ali. The fleet blockaded Alexandria, and the land armies swept over Syria, seizing Acre (again!) and threatening Cairo. In this case, Christian and Moslem armies allied to defeat another Moslem army. The end result was the defeat of Ali. As part of the peace, he gave up Crete and agreed to withdraw from Greater Syria. The critical difference, however, was that as a result of the peace treaty, the Europeans guaranteed Ali’s successors hereditary control over Egypt. Think about it - for the first time in Ottoman history, an “Ottoman” governor was able to establish a dynasty in an “Ottoman” state, mostly free from Turkish intervention. Creeping imperialism The next page in Egyptian history turns against the backdrop of the European great-power rivalry. British explorers and French and German merchants rushed to exploit the new-found opportunities in the Egyptian desert. One of the first things the British accomplished, with the acquiescence of the pro-British Khedive (Ottoman viceroy) Abbas (Ali’s grandson), was the completion of a land route between Alexandria and the Gulf of Suez, including a railroad and telegraph, greatly facilitating communication - although not bulk cargo transfer - between India and the Mediterranean. This railroad was critical to British efforts to quell the Indian Mutiny (1857). One very significant non-Egyptian event also occurred during this time that was to have great effect on both Egypt and the Middle East in general: the Crimean War. Nicholas I of Russia, frustrated in his territorial ambitions in Central Asia, looked southwest into the crumbling Ottoman empire. A dispute between France and Russia over the protection of Christian holy places in Palestine erupted into war with the Ottomans when the sultan ruled in favor of France. It was a calculated gamble on the part of the Russians. After all, the seizure of a “few” Ottoman provinces (much of what is now Romania with a bit of Ukraine) was thought by the Tsar to be relatively harmless. Russia had already by treaty been granted the protectorship of the Orthodox Christians in that area for over a hundred years. No big deal. Using the excuse that the Ottomans were unable to protect his fellow co-religionists (protect against whom is an interesting question), Nicholas I moved troops into the region. He didn’t expect the British to complain, and even if they did he expected his old friends in Austria to support him. Wrong again. France, Britain, Sardinia (?!) and the Ottomans all jumped him. Austria, instead of supporting him, threatened to join the alliance against him. Moslem and Christian armies fighting against Christians supposedly over the protection of other Christians. Russia was defeated. Unfortunately for the Ottomans, the war provided the pretext for the Europeans to assume much broader economic and military powers over the Empire - under the guise of insuring Ottoman sovereignty against external threat! The big losers, once again, were the Ottomans - the Russians suffered only a temporary setback. The most significant result of the war, however, was that the Ottomans, for the first time in their history, borrowed money from French and British banks in order to buy weapons to fight the Russians. This was to prove a never-ending economic death spiral. With interest rates as high as 50%, within twenty years the Ottoman Empire was completely bankrupt - and owned lock, stock and barrel by the French and British. Meanwhile back in Egypt, Khedive Abbas continued his grandfather’s efforts to modernize the country. Although this put him at cross-purposes to a number of prominent Egyptian factions, he manfully carried on with the support of the British. He coldly spurned several attempts by the French to gain influence, spearheaded by French diplomat and visionary Ferdinand Maria, Viscount de Lesseps. Upon his death and the accession of the pro-French Khedive Said, de Lesseps vision - a trans-Suez canal - was swiftly approved. The British, only moderately alarmed (another one of the great British diplomatic mistakes that were to re-occur repeatedly in the 19th Century), derided the idea as “Lesseps’ Folly”. Financed primarily by French bankers, with the British being only a minority shareholder, the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez was granted a 99 year-lease to operate the canal once opened. Construction began in 1858. Once completed, the canal revolutionized world trade - especially the key British dominated trade route from India. The British quickly realized their mistake, but by then it was relatively too late. Fortunately (for the British), the costs of modernization, the collapse of the cotton market (bolstered by British purchases during the blockade of the Southern Confederacy during the US Civil War), and the collapse of the Ottoman economy had placed the new Khedive (Ismael) in tremendous debt. Seizing the opportunity, the British offered to buy out the Khedive’s shares in the canal. Desperate, the Khedive sold them. The French, much to their chagrin, literally woke up one morning to find that the British had gone from an insignificant minority to majority shareholder overnight. The French had had the canal sold out from under them. However, all was not lost - Ismael requested European “advisors” be provided to help his moribund economy. By 1878, the two main Egyptian creditors, France and Britain, were in complete control of Egypt’s economy. The British became Controller of Revenue, while the French became Controller of Expenditures - in effect the two most powerful figures in the Egyptian government. Total control Unfortunately for Ismael, although some success was made in reducing Egypt’s foreign debt (which, after all, was the Europeans’ only interest), the arrangement did nothing for Egypt’s internal economy. With European intervention in their country already being viewed with more than a little suspicion, a rising tide of nationalist sentiment began to appear. When Ismael’s government failed to page its soldiers, the first stirrings of mutiny arose. In April 1878, the Khedive decided to take matters into his own (rather inept) hands. Dismissing both the French and British ministers, Ismael gambled in being able to restore his own sovereignty. He failed. In June 1879, at the behest of European bankers, the Sultan sacked Ismael. Their chosen successor, Ismael’s son Tewfik was to prove an ill choice all around. “Dual Control” was re-established. Everyone (i.e., everyone who counted: the European creditors), was happy. Everyone forgot the “curious incident” of the abortive mutiny back in February 1878, and especially the dynamic fellahin-turned-officer, Colonel Ahmad Arabi who was one of the leaders. This was a costly mistake. In 1881, Arabi led an officers’ revolt against Tewfik under the pretext of throwing out “Christian and Turkish foreigners”. Tewfik attempted to buy him off with a succession of ministerial and cabinet posts, but was ultimately unsuccessful. The incredibly stupid Joint Note, where France and Britain pledged to “support the Khedive against all disturbance”, following closely on the heels of the French invasion of Tunis, inflamed the nationalists - who took it as a declaration of war. In 1882, that’s literally what it became. Anti-European riots erupted in Cairo and Alexandria. In the latter city, over 50 Europeans were killed by the mob. The British - left to “go it alone” when both the Ottoman sultan and the other European powers refused to intervene - bombarded Alexandria. A British expeditionary force was landed in the canal zone, and at the Battle of Tal-al-Qabr met and destroyed Arabi’s army. Although Prime Minister Gladstone declared he wished to withdraw British forces now that the nationalist threat was extinguished, there was simply no government left to control the country. Worse yet, the British invasion had ignited another war far up the Nile: Mohammed Ahmad, a self-proclaimed mahdi, or reincarnation of Mohammed, inflamed the Sudanese tribes and led them against the Egyptian garrisons. The British general, Charles George Gordon, hero of the China Wars, and Egyptian-appointed Governor of Equatoriana (i.e., Sudan), was besieged in Khartoum and ultimately fell to the mahdi’s forces. “Remember Gordon” became a rallying cry for British imperialists just as “Remember the Alamo” became a rallying cry for Americans. Permanent British occupation of Egypt was assured.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 6125 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It was pointed out to me that there may be one or two references in the above post that might require some clarification.
Greater Syria This does not, and never has, referred to an actual country. It is a geographical region that roughly extends from Turkish Anatolia to the borders of Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula. It includes much of what is now Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and Jordan. The Great Game This is a term referring to the intense rivalry between Britain and Russia for control of Central Asia. The "official" game extended from around 1813 to 1907 (Anglo-Russian Accord). Mostly, it revolved around Imperial Russian attempts to expand their control of the Trans-caucasus, and British attempts to forestall Russian threats to India. It was a series of small proxy wars, tribal uprisings incited by agents of both sides, and covert intelligence operations. The area of confrontation mainly centered around modern Afghanistan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There have been a few members that have expressed the idea that this thread was designed to "whitewash the Ottomans" or demonize the West. That can not be further from the actual intent of this thread.
The purpose I entended for this thread was and remains, to simply look at the history of the area, to find out why there is a nation of Iraq or Syria or Lebanon or Jordan. How did these nations come into existence? What were the driving forces in their creation? I hope that we have, and that we can continue to, point folk towards the actual history of the area. The picture that develops as anyone looks at the area though, is that religion played almost no part in the creation of these nations and infact, particularly in the case of Iraq, the actual religious and political relationships of the people living in the area was ignored even though it was pointed out at the time that that act would cause future instability. Instead, the needs of outside Great Powers, whether real of fancied, is the apparent force in their creation. Throughout the period what is found is that alliance between the the Islaic peoples of the area with one or more of the Christain Western Great Powers were formed, usually in opposition to another alliance between the Islamic people of an area with one of the other Christian western Great Powers. The story of the Middle East and North Africa as we know them today, as well as the Indian Sub-Continent, is the story of competition between France, Germany, Great Britain and Russia; and then later, of the rise of nationalism withing the Nations that were created by those Great Powers. I believe it is a fascinating story, and that it is important, perhaps essential, for us to understand the world we live in, and to make wise decisions about our own actions in the future. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As we continue around the Southern shore of the Persian Gulf we come to the area that forms the gateway to the Gulf. Oman borders the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean and was an important port and landing area for the Potuguese in their Indian Spice trade. The local sheiks looked for outside help to reduce their dependency on Portugal, they turned to the British. the British were glad to help if it reduced the Portugese influence in the Indian Sub-Continent and by the mid 1600's Imam Sultan Bin Saif had driven the Portugese out and commercial relations were pretty much through the British east India Company.
Things remained pretty much at that level until the French moved into Egypt as was discussed earlier. You need to understand that at this time there were three main trade, communication and transportation routes from India to England. The first was the long sail all the way down the coast of Africa, around the Cape of Good Hope and back up the coast of Africa to England. It was long, slow, hazardous and you also faced the threats involved in trying to run the straight of Madagascar, or detour far out around the island. A second route was down to the Red Sea, inland as far as possible, then tranship across the Suez Penninsula to Egypt. In Egypt you could catch sail again across the Mediterranean and either overland back to England or out into the Atlantic and home. The third route was up the Persian Gulf to Basra or Kuwait, then overland to the Med, or cross country through Turkey. BUT... ... there is a major bottleneck in the route up the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormus. If you look at the map of the area you can see that the narrow straits between the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf is dominated by whoever controls Musandam Penninsula. Like the thumb of Qatar, that piece of land became essential. None of this was a major issue until France made their entry into Egypt but when that happened, Oman like Qatar, Bahrain, Basra, Kuwait, Egypt itself took on a whole new imporatance. the treaties established with the Omanis was that they were more a real relationship. Oman unlike most of the others retained internal and external control. Oman actually was somewhat of a colonial power itself with colonies from Pakistan south as far an Zanzibar. There was one constant though, and that was the Royal Navy. They were there to support the Omani leaders, as they did in 1913 when Sultan Faisal Bin Turki died without designating an heir. Other families tried to claim leadership and it was only the intervention of the British and the might of the Royal Navy that prevented the regime from being overthrown. Aslan is not a Tame Lion |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Aden, today known as Yemen, is an old peoples, likely the fabled home of Sheba in the Bible. It sits on the lower southeast corner of the Arabian Penninsula and dominated the eastern entrance to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. It had long been a transport and commercial hub, particularly between the interior of Arabia and the nations to the south such as Somalia and Djibouti which sit just across the narrow straits.
In 1852 the Sultan Tadjoura sold the port city of Obock, Djoubti and all the surrounding lands to France. Shortly thereafter, Djibouti became a French Territory. This put France in a position to dominate both ends of the Read Sea passage, potentially giving the French the capability of closing it to British naval access. As we saw earlier in the message about Egypt and the Suez Canal, this was totally unacceptable to the British who saw maintaining access to all three of the transportation routes, up through the Persian Gulf, through the Red Sea and down around the Cape of Good Hope as essential to maintaining control and commerce throughout the Empire. To counter that percieved threat, Aden, on the northern side of the eastern entrance to the Red Sea became essential. In 1837 a British ship had wrecked off the coast of Aden. It's crew and passengers had been mistreated by the local Arabs, and the British Government had demanded amends be made. The local Sultan agreed to make compensation, and as part, to sell his port and town to the British, however when captain Haines of the Indian Navy arrived the Sultan's son refused to honor the agreement. In response, a naval fleet as well as land forces were dispatch and Aden was captured and annexed to British India in 1839. That gave Great Britain a base on the north shore of the entrance of to the Red Sea and Aden became a major stopover, a recoaling center and a communications hub for the submarine phone and telegraph lines to India, Australia and Africa. Aden remained as part of India until 1936 when it became a separate colony of Great Britain and in 1967 became independant as the Nation of Yemen. AbE: adding a link to the map of the area from the CIA Factbook. Notice how narrow the entrance to the Red Sea is, and that from French Djibouti land based artillery would be able to dominate the passage.
Map of area Also a Map of the Middle east as it was seen in the mid 1800's. The key point to note on it is that none of the nations we think of are shown on the map. Instead what you see are general areas and then a bunch of smaller places ruled by local powers.
Edited by jar, : add map of area Edited by jar, : No reason given. Edited by jar, : Fix link to map of area Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: The purpose I entended for this thread was and remains, to simply look at the history of the area, to find out why there is a nation of Iraq or Syria or Lebanon or Jordan. How did these nations come into existence? What were the driving forces in their creation? Your thread title also proposes a question which implicates the West as the sole aggressor, as repeated several times in some early pages by you. All do not agree with your view here and want to tell the folks why you are incorrect. You don't want to hear this and falsly charge that this information is off topic. It was you who set the stage for this debate and now you're copping out on supporting your anti-West, Pro-Islam world position.
Jar writes: The picture that develops as anyone looks at the area though, is that religion played almost no part in the creation of these nations....... Some beg to differ, but again, you insist on airing your exclusive opinion (abe: relative to religion ), dissalowing any opposing viewpoints as off topic. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So far we have discussed some of the history of the area. Key points have been
That brings us to looking at the state of things on the eve of the Great War and shortly thereafter. Look at the map found here. Notice the ring of Red States. What we have not talked about yet is that great empty area in middle of the Arabian Penninsula, which is where we look next, the other areas that were under direct or indirect French control such as Lebanon and Syria, as well as the area that became known as Palestine. Edited by jar, : fix spalling and add the Kurd reference Aslan is not a Tame Lion |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 5158 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
(jar wrote)
The picture that develops as anyone looks at the area though, is that religion played almost no part in the creation of these nations....... There was a great article that i read called "Oil and Democracy don't mix" that i read in the washington (?) which said that since there was never a division between church and state in the middle east, the government uses the church to control minorities. Specifically, since the economy does not need to specialize from the wealth that oil brings in, the country only needs a dictatorship. all of the minority idea groups therefor flock to the church, which is directly supported by the government. As a result, the Middle east hit an era of stagnency where nothing will happen either scientifically, economically, or socially because the "church" has the nation under control. Conveluted, i know, but ill try to find the article later. -I believe in God, I just call it Nature -One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion. -People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men. -Religion is the opiate of the masses
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
got off topic and so deleted
Edited by lfen, : realized I had slipped off topic
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024