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

So far as I can see the thread title does not even suggest that the West is "sole aggressor". Rather, this thread seems intended to issue a corrective to the view that the West is blameless and the Muslims are the "sole aggressors", by going into the history of the region.It seem to me that the problem in this thread is that certain people insist that simply revealing these facts is "anti-West" and "pro-Islamic" as if truth and understanding were Islamic values rejected by the West.

But it is absolutely true that the West is blameless in relation to the MOTIVATIONS for Muslim aggression, becasue that comes straight out of their own ideology and has absolutely nothing to do with history. This is what everybody refuses to see. There is no need to claim that the West has always acted rightly, in order to claim taht nevertheless it doesn't matter what the historical situation is, none of it amounts to a motivation for terrorism.Edit: The usual explanations of aggression in terms of historical provocation simply do not apply when it comes to Islam. They also do not apply to Communism and did not apply to Nazism. Sometimes there is an ideology that is the cause of the aggression and that is the case with Islam. If you look for the explanation in history you are only pulling the wool over your eyes, no matter what you find there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are you really suggesting that the belief of Muslims that they have been mistreated by the Western Powers has nothing to do with terrorism ? Don't you see that at the very least it is likely to be a contributing factor ?I would suggest that you are particularly wrong in the case of the Nazis. WHile the ideology may have justified conquest on its own it is also a fact that a large part of the appeal of the Nazi party was anger over Germany's mistreatement after WWI and in the Great Depression. I do not beleive that motives can so easily be untangled when several run in similar directions.IEdited by PaulK, : Faith's edito

Well who or what is to blame for the motivations of England's and France's invasions and manipulations in that region?As to terrorism, what is the motivation for the IRA's use of terrorism in Ireland and England? Or the use of terrorism in the US by the KKK in the south? Or the use of terrorism by George Washington against native American tribes?To keep this on topic my point is that terrorism is not Islam specific.lfen

Do not let people pull this thread further Off Topic. It is not about Islam, not about terrorism, not about who was at fault, not about nazis or communists.It is a history of the area.If you can contribute to the actual history of the area, please contribute. I am always looking to learn more.But let's stop the off topic discussions.Please.Thank you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Annoyer by implication = aggressor
Annoyee by implication = aggressed party......especially when confirmed by author of title in subsequent posts. This is a debate, not just a history lesson/lecture to be skewed to the author's perspective by it's opening author.

quote:

---

PaulK writes:

​

So far as I can see the thread title does not even suggest that the West is "sole aggressor".

​

Annoyer by implication = aggressor
Annoyee by implication = aggressed party

---

Even if I were to assume that annoyance is solely a resposne to aggression as you do, simply saying that the West has committed acts of aggression against Islamic states or peoples does not establish that the West is sole aggressor as you yourself agree here

quote:

---

Mind you, I'm not saying there was no aggression atol by the West. I'm saying it was not solely from the West.

---

~

Please Paul, do not let folk draw this thread Off Topic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1. What is the term "annoyed" here really suppossed to convey? Seems a little inappropiate to describe the current conflict, but maybe you can clarify. France is probably "annoyed" with the US. Sometimes southerners are "annoyted" with Yankees, and adults can be annoyed with children, but here we have full-blown hatred spilling out to war and terrorism.2. Frankly, I am not that convinced it has to do with geopolitical machinations of the "Great Powers" since we see often "terrorism" against near defenseless civilians in the perimeter of Islamic rule in places like the Sudan and Nigeria. Certainly, the Sudanese in the south so violently attacked with a campaign of forced Islamication and genocide resulting in 2 million killed and 4-5 million people displaced cannot be blamed on white Europeans, can it?Islam is an expansionist religion that has historically primarily advanced via the jihad, religious war against the infidels. I am quite sure most Muslims are not interested in the current "jihad," but sufficient numbers of actual people are so interested to make the jihad a reality.Regardless of what we did, do, or say in the West, short of converting to an extreme form of Islam like Wahhabism,we are going to "annoy" the jihadis by our very existence, right? If we are going to look at the history of the area, it seems to me the history of Islam and it's theology and current theological winds is more critical to understanding current events than the politics and power plays of the West. The major move in Islam in the past 30 years has been to establish Islamic states, whatever that may be. This marriage of religion with political means is a recipe for violence no matter what a region's past includes.Edited by randman, : add sentence on history

Good to see you Randman, and nice to see you get what the problem is with this thread right off like that too.

The purposes of the thread were laid out in the first few posts and again in Message 144.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe you should have picked a different thread title then?If the discussion is actually on how the current nation-states came into existence, fine, but that's different than exploring why the Islamic world is annoyed with the West. It may be a contributing factor, the way the West dominated the Middle East, but if the purpose of the thread is to not to talk about why the Islamic world is upset with the West but rather to only talk of this one area of how the Middle East governments and nation-states came about, then imo, you ought to have considered a different title.By throwing that title out there, you are making a statement, but then not allowing any discussion of that statement, but rather only discussing the way the Middle Eastern nations came about.Think of it this way. Let's suppose I started a thread titled:"Why creationists are don't believe in evolution?"Or "Why preachers and religious people are annoyed with evolutionists?"And then discussed Piltdown man and other hoaxes and errors in the OP, and you tried to bring up belief in the Bible as a motive for not accepting ToE or being annoyed. But I respond, hey, this thread is not about that. It's ONLY about how evolutionists have accepted and advanced many hoaxes and errors at times.I would expect you'd insist the thread title should really be something along the lines of "Evolutionist Errors", and that just making the statement opens the door for discussing other areas....But hey, if this is just a history thread, so be it...

Thanks, Faith. Hope you are doing well......I am back for a little while at least....but hope to not spend as much time posting as in the past.

If you've already posted in violation of this warning, go back and edit your post immediately before I see it.From now on in this thread I expect to see a historical discussion. If you're not saying things like, "The Sykes-Picot agreement gave formal recognition to many local groups, appeasing local frustrations," then you're off-topic.If you're arguing about the definition of "annoyed" then you're off-topic.If you're arguing that the thread's title is poorly chosen, then you're off-topic.If you're arguing that the thread's originator has a hidden agenda, ulterior motives and a commie flag up in his garage, then you're off-topic.Those who post off-topic to this thread will lose their permissions in the [forum=-14] forum.So if you already posted off-topic before seeing this message, go back and fix it now.PS -- Of course, off-topic messages posted before this warning need not be fixed.Edited by Admin, : Add PS.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

... brutal!back on topic...
Why the islamic world might be annoyed...
An iffy theory: (historical) Strife in africa, former strife in Asia, and the US and UN's tendencies to go on long vacations there with a few carrier groups. I think the oil is a huge reason (for the long vacations) along with the array of dictatorships giving a reason to camp out. I wouldn't argue from a simply religious POV. Simply a bunch of little things adding up to "break the camel's back".Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

---

-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