How can we give them democracy if they insist on voting?

[LarzMachine]

Your point is that the middle east is mired in the 12th centruy.

Very good!

Number one, narrow your point to something with creedence. What 12th centruy socicety does it mirror? 12th centruy Japan is far different societally from 12th century Mezzo-america. !2th centruy europe is far diferent from 12th century sub-sharan Africa. So prove you have a grasp first and fore most to copmpare anyting to the 12th century.

Try Europe. You know, the society ours was spawned from.

Numer two, prove you have a grasp of any middle eastern society from which to draw your opinion.

Well, I DO know how to read. And yes, I read actual history books from the library.

Just out of curiosity, does Somalia count as Middle Eastern or African? Someone claimed Egypt as Middle Eastern, which is why I ask. I worked extensively with recent Somali immigrants, so I have a pretty good grasp of just what they think passes for civilized behavior in that neck of the woods. Of course, now that I mention hands-on experience with a specific tribe of Middle Eaterners, they'll be declared Arican...

They aren't all the same. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are kingdoms, you also have emerites, and parlimentary forms of government as well as dictatorships masqurading as islamic states (syria) and true islamic states like Iran.

They all believe in the same ridiculous religion to enough of an extent they'll blow themselves up for it. That's a pretty big similarity. They also have truly disturbing human rights records -- which I've mentioned previously. Go ahead and look it up and you'll find the Middle East right at the top of the list of violators.

Numer three, once you have proven you have a grasp on some societal aspect of the 12th centruy and some societal aspect of a modern middle eastern country do the comparitive analyisis that you believe supports your claim.

In other words, I'm supposed to write the equivalent of a thesis just so you can claim I'm wrong.

Compare the behaviors in Middle Eastern countries (beheading people for adultery, beating your wife bloody because she wasn't well-enough behaved, the homicidal religious fanaticism, believing the Earth is flat, etc) with behaviors in the modern world. Most modern societies haven't behaved like that in centuries.

And then I will debunk it.

With endless propaganda, no doubt.

you are just running your mouth, using childish attempts at sophistry and circular logic to mask the fact that you have bull puckeys between your ears.

And look! More ad hominem stupidity! Kinda' proves you don't actually have a real point that'll stand up in the real world, doesn't it. What's wrong, did I shatter your comfortable little illusion that your worthless propaganda actually means you matter?

 

[minsue]

Are you actually illiterate, or are you just incapable of accepting reality?

No, but I'm repetitive. Go back and find the myriad facts that you have posted and quote them for me.

When all the countries believe in the same ridiculous religion to the point they'll blow themselves up for it, then proof for one is proof for all.

Again, is this about Iraq, the Middle East, or Islam? They are not one and the same. Of the estimated 1 billion muslims in the world, how many are terrorists? How many blow themselves up? How many actually live in the region you are speaking of? (whichever that is, I'm guessing the middle east in it's entirety)

You said it, not me...

Ooh. Got me there. Two points for your rapier wit.

 

[minsue]

This isn't for me, but I can't help myself.

Very good!



Try Europe. You know, the society ours was spawned from.



Well, I DO know how to read. And yes, I read actual history books from the library.

Just out of curiosity, does Somalia count as Middle Eastern or African? Someone claimed Egypt as Middle Eastern, which is why I ask. I worked extensively with recent Somali immigrants, so I have a pretty good grasp of just what they think passes for civilized behavior in that neck of the woods. Of course, now that I mention hands-on experience with a specific tribe of Middle Eaterners, they'll be declared Arican...

What's that got to do with anything? Honestly, I don't follow.

They all believe in the same ridiculous religion to enough of an extent they'll blow themselves up for it. That's a pretty big similarity. They also have truly disturbing human rights records -- which I've mentioned previously. Go ahead and look it up and you'll find the Middle East right at the top of the list of violators.

Wow. You do have an amazing way of lumping people into 'them', don't you?

In other words, I'm supposed to write the equivalent of a thesis just so you can claim I'm wrong.

Compare the behaviors in Middle Eastern countries (beheading people for adultery, beating your wife bloody because she wasn't well-enough behaved, the homicidal religious fanaticism, believing the Earth is flat, etc) with behaviors in the modern world. Most modern societies haven't behaved like that in centuries.

Watch the news? Wives get beaten to a bloody pulp all over the world every day. That's a man thing, not a geographical thing. I'm sure husbands all over the world get beaten to a bloody pulp, too.

With endless propaganda, no doubt.

WHAT PROPOGANDA? Where are you seeing this?

And look! More ad hominem stupidity! Kinda' proves you don't actually have a real point that'll stand up in the real world, doesn't it. What's wrong, did I shatter your comfortable little illusion that your worthless propaganda actually means you matter?

The only illusion is yours. You confuse ranting with facts and raving with evidence. I honestly don't understand how so I don't know what anyone can do to help you.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Very good!



Try Europe. You know, the society ours was spawned from.

I know all about it. Yet just refering to it doesn't mean you have a clue. I can reffer you to an astro physiscist. That dosen't mean I can explain the Chandasker limit to you.




Well, I DO know how to read. And yes, I read actual history books from the library.

Just out of curiosity, does Somalia count as Middle Eastern or African? Someone claimed Egypt as Middle Eastern, which is why I ask. I worked extensively with recent Somali immigrants, so I have a pretty good grasp of just what they think passes for civilized behavior in that neck of the woods. Of course, now that I mention hands-on experience with a specific tribe of Middle Eaterners, they'll be declared Arican...

Reading is nice. I read too. But we aren't interested in your extra cirricular activities, nor am I concerned with irrelevant questions of what constitutes the middle east. You posed the question, whichever middle easter society you are reffering to will suffice.




They all believe in the same ridiculous religion to enough of an extent they'll blow themselves up for it. That's a pretty big similarity. They also have truly disturbing human rights records -- which I've mentioned previously. Go ahead and look it up and you'll find the Middle East right at the top of the list of violators.

Yes. Their human rights record is awful. Useful information. Irreleveant to the question at hand. Focus please.




In other words, I'm supposed to write the equivalent of a thesis just so you can claim I'm wrong.

Compare the behaviors in Middle Eastern countries (beheading people for adultery, beating your wife bloody because she wasn't well-enough behaved, the homicidal religious fanaticism, believing the Earth is flat, etc) with behaviors in the modern world. Most modern societies haven't behaved like that in centuries.

Terrible justice system. Very controversial stuff. Irreleveant to proving you have a clue. Stick to the proofs please.




With endless propaganda, no doubt.

Loaded words. Very good. Except I am familiar with this ploy too. Back to the question at hand. Proofs please?



And look! More ad hominem stupidity! Kinda' proves you don't actually have a real point that'll stand up in the real world, doesn't it. What's wrong, did I shatter your comfortable little illusion that your worthless propaganda actually means you matter?

Yes dear. You have proven you are capable of using the sophistic tactic of attacking the questioner. We all aplaude you for your adroitness. Can we have some proof now please?

-Colly

 

[LarzMachine]

-Colly

Oh look. Rather than actually addressing the evidence, you mindlessly declare it all irrelevant. How exactly is the official sanction of domestic violence (which I mistakenly thought you were intelligent enough to know about), human rights violations, and everything else NOT show that these people are living in the 12th century, when that sort of thing was accepted? The civilized world doesn't do that stuff anymore. The Middle East does.

Nice utter refusal to debunk my proof as you claimed you would. I take it this is an admission of defeat on your part?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It would seem no proof is forth coming which I am sure is a surprise to no one here. I will have to bid you all good night, as I have taken my meds and they are begining to really work.

Should I find any proofs here tomorrow I will be glad to continue. Should I find more attempts at subtrafuge and sophistry I will be glad to point them out.

Should I find nothing I will be more than happy to take that as evidence of Larsmachine having decided his proclimation of victory was perhaps premature.

In any case I will be back tomorrow.

NN lucky & Min

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Oh look. Rather than actually addressing the evidence, you mindlessly declare it all irrelevant. How exactly is the official sanction of domestic violence (which I mistakenly thought you were intelligent enough to know about), human rights violations, and everything else NOT show that these people are living in the 12th century, when that sort of thing was accepted? The civilized world doesn't do that stuff anymore. The Middle East does.

Nice utter refusal to debunk my proof as you claimed you would. I take it this is an admission of defeat on your part?

You've offered no proof to debunk. Domestic violence is prevalent world wide, sadly, and you didn't actually prove that. Not that I'm saying it is incorrect, just that you've still not offered anything in the form of proof.

Good night Colly. Sleep well.

Try again, Larz.

- Mindy

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Oh look. Rather than actually addressing the evidence, you mindlessly declare it all irrelevant. How exactly is the official sanction of domestic violence (which I mistakenly thought you were intelligent enough to know about), human rights violations, and everything else NOT show that these people are living in the 12th century, when that sort of thing was accepted? The civilized world doesn't do that stuff anymore. The Middle East does.

Nice utter refusal to debunk my proof as you claimed you would. I take it this is an admission of defeat on your part?

Caught me right before bed.

Here ya go.

I declared nothing irrelevant as proof, beacuse you have still failed to provide any proof. YOU made a naked assertion. And as long as you don't support it it can not be proven false. Thats the beauty of a naked assertion.

I asked for proof. As a debater I have that right.

Bringing up the controversial, the emotionally shocking, or the utterly absurd constitutes no proof. It is subtrafuge, a deliberate attempt on your part to steer the conversation anywhere but where you can't have it go. To you presenting proof.

Further attacking my person is another dodge to try to distract me from demanding proof.

Finally making other assertions that have no relevance to the question at hand is another attempt to steer the conversation from asking you to back up your claim. Thus far your finest example there has been skyscrapers. The pyramid to Keops is over 450 ft high. Thats over 40 stories and would therefore constitute a sky scraper. The pyramid to the sun at Maccu Piccu is over 600 by some measurements. Beautiful buildings, but not modern societies. Yet you got every one off chasing big buildings with it for a while.

So get this, learn it, memorize it. You wanna play with the big dawgs then you better be be able to run with me. And if you think personal attacks, irrelevant crap, emotional appeals, inane comments about using nuclear weapons or anything else is going to deter me from making you run out your pop fly you are dead wrong.

You haven't proven you have the least grasp of what society was like in 12th century anywhere. You haven't proven you have the least concept of societal norms, mores of customs in ANY middle eastern country, much less the whole of the middle east. And you haven't provided one empirical bit of analytical data between the two that support your claim.

You are standing on your naked assertion, baying at the moon. And everyone on this thread is watching you make an utter fool of yourself as it becomes more and more obvious you can't support anything you say because my original contention is spot on. It's a naked assertion and if you provide anything to try and prove it I am going to rip you a new one. So you can keep up the attacks, rants, cry baby appeals and snide comments. Until you present some evidence it just sounds more and more like a baby calling for her bottle. Getting louder and more strident a she gets hungier, but not communicating anything new.

I haven't claimed victory, I don't have to. With each post where you fail to step up to the plate and present some proof, even to take a swing you are handing me the laureles.

As I said it's bed time and the sad ting is I am on heavy pain killers and you still haven't been even a marginal challenge.

-Colly

 

[BigAndTall]

Before I get into this I would like to ask, when we are talking that they (middle east) is stuck in the 12th century, I would not mind trying to explore that, but I need to know if it means, politically, economically, socially. There is just to many areas of culture to make a blanket statement such as that without focusing it a little.

I would not say I believe one way or the other, but would be willing to look for an answer somewhere on this.

 

[minsue]

Before I get into this I would like to ask, when we are talking that they (middle east) is stuck in the 12th century, I would not mind trying to explore that, but I need to know if it means, politically, economically, socially. There is just to many areas of culture to make a blanket statement such as that without focusing it a little.

I would not say I believe one way or the other, but would be willing to look for an answer somewhere on this.

We're not entirely sure. If we ever find out, I'll let you know.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

LarzMachine: Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

Listed here is every word you have written since your first post on this thread. This particular quote by you, sparked a question from Minsue, included directly beneath it. Everything thereafter is your so called proof. According to you, we are all too stupid to pick it out. So be a dear and point these three ass-stompin' stoopid wimmin in the right direction.

quote: Originally posted by LarzMachine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any case, how does this change the fact that the present-day Middle East is a shithole stuck several centuries in the past -- except Iraq, which is only a couple of centuries behind the times?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question asked by Minsue is this:

The sad part is, Iraq is actually the most up-to-date country in the whole Middle East, and they're MAYBE in the 18th century socially. The others are lucky if they're in the 12th or so. I say distribute enough explosives so they can all blow themseves up -- since that seems to be the most popular way of addressing one's grievances over there.

So they started things off several thousand years ago. Big deal. Why should that excuse their present behavior? That's an awful lot like holding modern Russians responsible for Stalin or modern England responsible for the colonial era.

And really, just how "urban" is the Middle East? How many skyscrapers do you see? I live in a small town that's more urban than Baghdad -- and nobody here blows themselves up either.

I wish I knew who said it first, but the current situation in the Middle East is a bunch of cavemen flying airliners they could never invent into buildings they could never build in order to preserve a ridiculous culture that should have died centuries ago.

Incidentally, writing was independently invented in several places, including Babylon, the Indus Valley, and Central America. All those places came up with urbanized societies as well. Iraq is an insult to their Babylonian and Sumerian predecessors. At least their ancestors were moving into the future.

Originally posted by LarzMachine Who said anything about population? I'm talking about actual urbanization -- as in buildings more developed than variants on mud huts. And really, Cairo is hardly a shining example of the glories of Middle Eastern urbanization. Sure they have a lot of people, but the vast majority of them live in slums -- or worse, "normal" neighborhoods that would be classified as slums and land a bunch of landlords in prison if they were here in the States.

So what? Are you going to try to claim the Chinese and Mesoamericans stole writing from the Sumerians or Babylonians?

In any case, how does this change the fact that the present-day Middle East is a shithole stuck several centuries in the past -- except Iraq, which is only a couple of centuries behind the times?

Originally posted by LarzMachine Ooh. You've been to a third-world country. Did Cairo even come close to say, Minneapolis in terms of real urbanization and standard of living, or will you claim that just because a bunch of desperately poor people live together in squalor they qualify as having a city?

Yeah, the Chinese stole the concept from the Sumerians, nevermind the fact that the two writing systems are completely different linguistically...

Nope, I just know quite a few people who were stationed there. I also watch the news and read actual references, not flaming leftist propaganda.

If the colonial powers were really to blame and had so much influence, why are they still so far behind the times? One would think they would have advanced to a relatively normal level of societal development after a century of influence by those evil Eurpoeans. Of course, before the Europeans showed up and made them start at least pretending to behave themselves, they were a bunch of desert raiders, so maybe the Europeans DID have an effect.

Nuclear weapons.

Either that or get biodiesel (you know, turkey guts into fuel) technology going properly and render the entire Middle East irrelevant overnight. Hell, getting the Iraqi oilfields running and selling the oil for $5 a barrel would have much the same effect -- the others would have to slash their prices just to stay in the game, increased demand because of the obscenely low price would deplete the Middle Eastern oil reserves pretty quiclky, and they'd lose their sole industry.

They're still worshipping imaginary gods who urge them to fly airliners into buildings because We evil Americans actually treat women and other religions like human beings. There ain't no cure for that except mass executions. They want to behave like 12th century barbarians, let 'em -- without the piles of imported money and technology that lets them inflict their stupidity on the rest of the world.

I really am sorry you've allowed yourself to buy into the whole "poor, poor savages" propaganda. Your debate skills would be better used serving an argument that actually holds up in the real world.

Originally posted by LarzMachine The fact that they're still worshipping a glorified tribal chieftain (namely Allah -- or even the Judeo-Christian god) who tells them to treat their wives like slaves, people who don't worship their ridiculous god as targets, and to fly airliners into buildings because some people actually want to live in the present. Does any of that qualify? One of their own leaders sums up their refusal to join the modern world quite well:

"The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished." [Muslim religious edict, 1993, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, Supreme religious authority, Saudi Arabia]

It don't get much more clear-cut than that.

Originally posted by LarzMachine So you aren't retarded. Big deal.

ANY theocracy (or even really powerful religion) is a danger. I say nuke Jerusalem, Mecca and the Vatican as examples of how truly worthless their idiocy is.

But Communism never failed! ESPECIALLY in the Soviet Union! What failed was a completely different system that CLAIMED to be Communism, but wasn't actually it! I had a short-term girlfriend last summer who actually said this (paraphrased, of course, since her version went on for hours and hours...). She later dumped Me for an actual Nazi.

And socialism should give anyone with a triple-digit IQ the creeps.

So what? How does this change the fact that the modern Middle East is a shithole several centuries behind the times?

I'll pay real money if anyone can produce proof the US isn't the most benevolent nation in history.

History books. Outside the "cities" the Middle East was run by wandering desert raiders.

How exactly can one "defame" a religion by practicing exactly what it preaches?

Yeah, civilized achievments several thousand years ago. Again, should We hold modern Russians responsible for Stalin? Modern Germans Hitler (and fuck the ridiculous "Monarda law." It's a cop-out for imbeciles)? Modern England the colonial era?

Dictatorships they supported and now stage retaliatory strikes on behalf of. If they're really so interested in solving their problems, why are they trying to put exactly the same ridiculous religion right back in power?

Or nuke them. I'm perfectly OK with either one. Nuclear weapons also take out (or at least damage) the theocracy in everything but name known as Irael too, so I lean more toward nukes.

Better than a LOT of idiots I've "debated" online. One of these putzes has taken the position that since Bush was off about WMDs, Saddam Hussein shouldn't have been removed from power, and when the fact Hussein was a world-class turd is presented, he resorts to calling me "Gandalf" because one of my hobbies involves games.

Originally posted by LarzMachine Imaginary gods have no place in modern society. They were pretty well written off as pure BS centuries ago once people figured out disease and lightning weren't the act of POed spirits.

This is one of the most obtuse examples of nitpicking I've ever read. What's next? Since they use the radio or TV to spread their dark ages idiocy, they must be modern?

So now Iraq isn't part of the Middle East and therefore part of their idiocy? Do you watch the news? Right now Iraq is trying to install a theocracy based on their ridiculous dark ages thinking. Their sole concession to the modern world is that they'll at least pretend to give democracy a shot.

It explains quite well how the entire Middle East is several centuries behind the times. Iraq is the most advanced of the lot, and they're still behind the times as evidenced by their dark ages mentality.

Originally posted by LarzMachine Yeah, he was dumb enough to think hobbits shouldn't be exterminated out of hand. That and I'm a better dresser.

Originally posted by LarzMachine Direct quotes aren't facts? Examples of how they treat theor people aren't facts? Oh, I forgot, to be considered factual, it has to agree with whatever bizarre agenda the far left is spouting this week.

So prove me wrong. Show how their ridiculous mindest is even remotely modern.

In other words, perfectly sane and believable.

Again, if I'm so wrong, let's see some evidence to the contrary.

You've offended every intelligent person with your gleeful ignorance and defense of barbarians.

True, you've become used to debating fellow flaming liberals. Kinda' like fighting a war against the French, no?

Originally posted by LarzMachine No, I gave a quote by a Saudi Arabian to illustrate why the whole Middle East is backwards. Last time I checked, Iraq was part of the Middle East. They're more advanced -- last time I checked they aren't beheading people for looking at someone else's wife anymore.

If you don't think I'm wrong about Iraq, why would you advocate the opposite side? Either you're playing Billy Jeff "What is the definition of is" games, or you're on drugs. So do you agree that the Middle East is several centuries behind the times (even when they steal someone else's airliners), or am I absolutely right about your erroneous beliefs?

When you outright dismiss facts that don't defend your beloved barbarians, yep, you're defending barbarians.

In other words, I was right and now you're dodging.

Originally posted by LarzMachine Ad hominem, abusive. Nice admission you have nothing to say.

In other words, you're going to cry because I didn't immediately surrender and say you're right in the absence of ANYTHING to contradict my position. In the real world, an argument DOES have a winner and a loser. Otherwise it's just pansies having tea.

Like in some fantasy world where everyone is supposed to play nice like retarded children? Sorry, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

I DID back up my statements. The only one refusing to back up their statements is you.

Originally posted by LarzMachine I've already provided factual proof. Your (and others') refusal to accept that it could even be considered proof or factual only proves your desperation in clinging to this ridiculous far-left idea that the US must be evil and that the Middle East is somehow being preyed upon. Come out of your fantasy world, take off the rose glasses and see how the real world works.

And really, if you're so good at attacking facts and proof (as you imply), why haven't you attacked a single fact or piece of evidence I've provided? I provided plenty, yet the best you can do is the equivalent of a child plugging their ears and screaming "is NOT!" and spraying really sad ad hominem attacks.

And really, I LOVE the sad little attempt to claim victory. It shows your true colors pretty blatantly.

Originally posted by LarzMachine Of which you're a perfect example. Don't let anyone tell you you're not perfect in any way!

Lucky sidenote: Cocksucker

Originally posted by LarzMachine The guy she attacked personally. What's wrong, it isn't considered fair play to treat people exactly as they've treated me?

Oh no! A hissyfit!

Originally posted by LarzMachine Are you actually illiterate, or are you just incapable of accepting reality?

When all the countries believe in the same ridiculous religion to the point they'll blow themselves up for it, then proof for one is proof for all.

You said it, not me...

Originally posted by LarzMachine Very good!

Try Europe. You know, the society ours was spawned from.

Well, I DO know how to read. And yes, I read actual history books from the library.

Just out of curiosity, does Somalia count as Middle Eastern or African? Someone claimed Egypt as Middle Eastern, which is why I ask. I worked extensively with recent Somali immigrants, so I have a pretty good grasp of just what they think passes for civilized behavior in that neck of the woods. Of course, now that I mention hands-on experience with a specific tribe of Middle Eaterners, they'll be declared Arican...

They all believe in the same ridiculous religion to enough of an extent they'll blow themselves up for it. That's a pretty big similarity. They also have truly disturbing human rights records -- which I've mentioned previously. Go ahead and look it up and you'll find the Middle East right at the top of the list of violators.

In other words, I'm supposed to write the equivalent of a thesis just so you can claim I'm wrong.

Compare the behaviors in Middle Eastern countries (beheading people for adultery, beating your wife bloody because she wasn't well-enough behaved, the homicidal religious fanaticism, believing the Earth is flat, etc) with behaviors in the modern world. Most modern societies haven't behaved like that in centuries.

With endless propaganda, no doubt.

And look! More ad hominem stupidity! Kinda' proves you don't actually have a real point that'll stand up in the real world, doesn't it. What's wrong, did I shatter your comfortable little illusion that your worthless propaganda actually means you matter?

Originally posted by LarzMachine Oh look. Rather than actually addressing the evidence, you mindlessly declare it all irrelevant. How exactly is the official sanction of domestic violence (which I mistakenly thought you were intelligent enough to know about), human rights violations, and everything else NOT show that these people are living in the 12th century, when that sort of thing was accepted? The civilized world doesn't do that stuff anymore. The Middle East does.

Nice utter refusal to debunk my proof as you claimed you would. I take it this is an admission of defeat on your part?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine
The sad part is, Iraq is actually the most up-to-date country in the whole Middle East, and they're MAYBE in the 18th century socially. The others are lucky if they're in the 12th or so.
[This is the original Naked assertion]


I say distribute enough explosives so they can all blow themseves up -- since that seems to be the most popular way of addressing one's grievances over there.
[This is the first dogde an inflammatory stateament designed to create some conflict in further posts to draw attention away from the naked assertion]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine
So they started things off several thousand years ago. Big deal. Why should that excuse their present behavior? That's an awful lot like holding modern Russians responsible for Stalin or modern England responsible for the colonial era. [This introduces complex issues that are still emotionally loaded in an attempt to keep the debate away from naked assertion1 ]

And really, just how "urban" is the Middle East? How many skyscrapers do you see? I live in a small town that's more urban than Baghdad -- and nobody here blows themselves up either.
[This is false logic. A second naked assertion that introduces the false premise that tall buildings make modern society. And it is another dodge to divert attention from naked assertion 1]



I wish I knew who said it first, but the current situation in the Middle East is a bunch of cavemen flying airliners they could never invent into buildings they could never build in order to preserve a ridiculous culture that should have died centuries ago.
[An interesting quote. This dodge would have leant more creedence to your appreance of having a clue if you would have bothered to attribute it to someone.]


Incidentally, writing was independently invented in several places, including Babylon, the Indus Valley, and Central America. All those places came up with urbanized societies as well. Iraq is an insult to their Babylonian and Sumerian predecessors. At least their ancestors were moving into the future.
[The Babalonians and Sumerians were both agressive, war like peoples. Stating that Iraq is a disgrace to their predecessors is your third naked assertion. And like our second is made as a subtrafuge to encourage debate on it and the origin of writing. This is a debate you can keep going for a while as no one knows exactly when or where writing developed]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine Who said anything about population? I'm talking about actual urbanization -- as in buildings more developed than variants on mud huts. And really, Cairo is hardly a shining example of the glories of Middle Eastern urbanization. Sure they have a lot of people, but the vast majority of them live in slums -- or worse, "normal" neighborhoods that would be classified as slums and land a bunch of landlords in prison if they were here in the States.

[Naked assertion 2 has been challenged here. I personally would have picked Kuwait City or Ryiad, but it hardly matters. The point is challenge was presented and rather than prove that your orginal assertion, there are no sky scrapers is true you are willing to give here and admit there are some, which you then point out means absolutely nothing. You simply modify the assertion here to minimize evidence presented against it. This encourages more debate on skyscrapers and leaves your original assertion still safe behind the smoke screen of debate on an irrelevant assertion.]

So what? Are you going to try to claim the Chinese and Mesoamericans stole writing from the Sumerians or Babylonians?
[Keeping assertion three in people's minds. This is actually pretty well done, no need to over do it, you are still doing well with your skyscraper fallacy.]



In any case, how does this change the fact that the present-day Middle East is a shithole stuck several centuries in the past -- except Iraq, which is only a couple of centuries behind the times?
[And of course, we must reassert the original naked assertion. As if sticking it on the end of these other statements somehow lends it weight as being factual]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine Ooh. You've been to a third-world country. Did Cairo even come close to say, Minneapolis in terms of real urbanization and standard of living, or will you claim that just because a bunch of desperately poor people live together in squalor they qualify as having a city?
[Danagerous territory for you here, someone with first hand knowledge. Best to assume a smug tone and make a quick irrelevant comparrission of Cairo to a U.S. city and throw in some disparaging remarks about Cairo you don't intend to try and support, but which should get an emotional response]



Yeah, the Chinese stole the concept from the Sumerians, nevermind the fact that the two writing systems are completely different linguistically...
[Falling back to Assertion three. Personally for a good sophist I think this retreat was a bit early, your irrelevant skyscraper discussion still had legs still had some legs. But then again I already stated I didn't think you were a good sophist.]



Nope, I just know quite a few people who were stationed there. I also watch the news and read actual references, not flaming leftist propaganda.
[And we jump to another little bit of inflamatorry rhetoric and yet another assertion, that you watch real news while the rest of us don't. This one remains naked only as long as you don't reveal what your source of real news is, but considering the raging debate currently going on over the news it is possibly a good lead in to steer the conversation towards that debate and away from your still unsupported naked assertion.]


If the colonial powers were really to blame and had so much influence, why are they still so far behind the times? One would think they would have advanced to a relatively normal level of societal development after a century of influence by those evil Eurpoeans. Of course, before the Europeans showed up and made them start at least pretending to behave themselves, they were a bunch of desert raiders, so maybe the Europeans DID have an effect.
[This is a decent dodge. Obviously you don't want to discuss the extremely complicated role colonial powers have played in the mideast. A quick oversimplification was probably your best move here short of ignoring the point alltogether. Actual historical discussion of the middle east would be perilously close to making your support part of your assertion and prove you had some credible knowledge of what society islike in the mid east.]


Nuclear weapons.
[Lets trhow out something inane and totally controversial which is sure to stir a row and further detract attention from your assertion, not to mention from the complicated question you wish to avoid. Emotional appeals work as do loaded terms.]

Either that or get biodiesel (you know, turkey guts into fuel) technology going properly and render the entire Middle East irrelevant overnight. Hell, getting the Iraqi oilfields running and selling the oil for $5 a barrel would have much the same effect -- the others would have to slash their prices just to stay in the game, increased demand because of the obscenely low price would deplete the Middle Eastern oil reserves pretty quiclky, and they'd lose their sole industry.
[Let's bring up another controversial issue with an assertion. Obviously you have given up on the skyscraper line by now and apparently no one is taking your attempt to stir the origin of writing controversy. Best have a back up plan.]

They're still worshipping imaginary gods who urge them to fly airliners into buildings because We evil Americans actually treat women and other religions like human beings. There ain't no cure for that except mass executions. They want to behave like 12th century barbarians, let 'em -- without the piles of imported money and technology that lets them inflict their stupidity on the rest of the world.
[How bout we pick one of the most contoverial things, religion. And lest make a sweeping generality about islam that can no more be supported than you naked assertion, which you state here again, but throw in the word barbarians for effect. Again linking your assertion to dispartite conversations which have no bearing on it.]


I really am sorry you've allowed yourself to buy into the whole "poor, poor savages" propaganda. Your debate skills would be better used serving an argument that actually holds up in the real world.
[A quick snipe at the intelligence of your opponent never hurts when playing the subtrafuge game either. Even if they waste one post defending themselves that's one more where no one is asking you for proof.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine The fact that they're still worshipping a glorified tribal chieftain (namely Allah -- or even the Judeo-Christian god) who tells them to treat their wives like slaves, people who don't worship their ridiculous god as targets, and to fly airliners into buildings because some people actually want to live in the present. Does any of that qualify? One of their own leaders sums up their refusal to join the modern world quite well:

"The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished." [Muslim religious edict, 1993, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, Supreme religious authority, Saudi Arabia]

It don't get much more clear-cut than that.

[Another set of sweeping generalizations about Islam rooted in no fact at all, but sure to provoke an angered response from any one who dosen't like to see bigotry. One quote, from one man, and thats the first bit of evidence you have provided that isn't just your opinion. Unfortuenatly your quote is just his opinion. Islmaic holy men do not have a popelike figure, their statements do not carry the weight of a papal bull. They are often contradictory to one another and so one man's quote proves nothing except that particular man may be a nutter.

"You cannot be president of the United States of you don't have faith. Remember Lincoln, going to his knees in times of trial and the Civil War and all that stuff."

Apparently this man thinks the U.S. is a thocracy as well. Thats G.H. Bush by the way. Amazing how one quote taken out of context can make someone look like an extremeist isn't it? But it proves nothing.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine So you aren't retarded. Big deal.

ANY theocracy (or even really powerful religion) is a danger. I say nuke Jerusalem, Mecca and the Vatican as examples of how truly worthless their idiocy is.
[Very nice, diving into the religious subtrafuge again. Good plan. Lets piss off Catholics, Jews and Muslims, certainly someone in the crowd will be offended and you might get a day or two of argument that has nothing to do with asking for proof of your naked asertion.]

But Communism never failed! ESPECIALLY in the Soviet Union! What failed was a completely different system that CLAIMED to be Communism, but wasn't actually it! I had a short-term girlfriend last summer who actually said this (paraphrased, of course, since her version went on for hours and hours...). She later dumped Me for an actual Nazi.
[Totally irrelevant personal aside. But nice intro for sparking a possible debate on the merits of communisim which might further deflect scrutiny from your assertion]

And socialism should give anyone with a triple-digit IQ the creeps.

So what? How does this change the fact that the modern Middle East is a shithole several centuries behind the times?
[And we must assert the assertion yet again, least people forget in all these side arguments you start what your original assertion was.]

I'll pay real money if anyone can produce proof the US isn't the most benevolent nation in history.
[Another inane challegne, supposedly to start debate in the direction of benevolent countries?]

History books. Outside the "cities" the Middle East was run by wandering desert raiders.

How exactly can one "defame" a religion by practicing exactly what it preaches?

Yeah, civilized achievments several thousand years ago. Again, should We hold modern Russians responsible for Stalin? Modern Germans Hitler (and fuck the ridiculous "Monarda law." It's a cop-out for imbeciles)? Modern England the colonial era?
[Back to challenging you opponents to prove a point that's irrelevant to the conversation. But at least it puts the onus on them to disprove your statements rather than allowing them to challenge you to prove yours. Still, it's a tactical withdrawl. Heat getting to much for you?]


Dictatorships they supported and now stage retaliatory strikes on behalf of. If they're really so interested in solving their problems, why are they trying to put exactly the same ridiculous religion right back in power?

Or nuke them. I'm perfectly OK with either one. Nuclear weapons also take out (or at least damage) the theocracy in everything but name known as Irael too, so I lean more toward nukes.
[Back to nuclear weapons and a statement so utterly rediculous and inflamatory it has to get some response.]



Better than a LOT of idiots I've "debated" online. One of these putzes has taken the position that since Bush was off about WMDs, Saddam Hussein shouldn't have been removed from power, and when the fact Hussein was a world-class turd is presented, he resorts to calling me "Gandalf" because one of my hobbies involves games.
[Considering your style of "debate" I hardly think you have room to call anyone an idiot]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine Imaginary gods have no place in modern society. They were pretty well written off as pure BS centuries ago once people figured out disease and lightning weren't the act of POed spirits.
[Well now. We had better get you in touch with the president and the far religious right. It seems they're barking up the wrong tree. Was that response you were expecting? A nice long religious debate to detract from the now glaring fact you can't support your position? Surprised no one took the bait? You shouldn't be. Your tecnique lacks subtlety and while it worked with sky scrapers, your continued presentation of side arguments in such an in your face way is tipping people that you want to argue somewhere away from your main assertion.]


This is one of the most obtuse examples of nitpicking I've ever read. What's next? Since they use the radio or TV to spread their dark ages idiocy, they must be modern?
[Tactical blunder! And you were doing so well. I can't think of a 12th century culture that had radio or television. Luckily not a disaster as your assertion is about the societal likeness, but that was a close one. Another sophist would have hammered you on this mistake. ]



So now Iraq isn't part of the Middle East and therefore part of their idiocy? Do you watch the news? Right now Iraq is trying to install a theocracy based on their ridiculous dark ages thinking. Their sole concession to the modern world is that they'll at least pretend to give democracy a shot.
[Another assertion and some more vitriol. ]


It explains quite well how the entire Middle East is several centuries behind the times. Iraq is the most advanced of the lot, and they're still behind the times as evidenced by their dark ages mentality.
[Now lets tie a whole bunch of non related and irrelevant discussion to the core precept, claiming you have supported your view while you still haven't presented a shred of proof of any kind. But you made sure to present it as an accomplished fact and not something open to further debate. Another sophistic tactic. Upon reflection perhaps I misjudged you, there might be a little sophist in there after all. ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine Yeah, he was dumb enough to think hobbits shouldn't be exterminated out of hand. That and I'm a better dresser.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine Direct quotes aren't facts? Examples of how they treat theor people aren't facts? Oh, I forgot, to be considered factual, it has to agree with whatever bizarre agenda the far left is spouting this week.
[The moon rotates around the earth.
At the begining of World War two the United states rounded up people of japanese ancestory and put them in concentration camps.
"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than—I say more Muslims—a lot of Muslims have died—I don't know the exact count—at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004

A fact, an example and a direct quote. As unrelated to the core of your asertion as your examples have been. If yours prove your point then these disprove it. Provideing facts does not an argument make, they must be proven to have bearing upon the argument and some analytical work must be done to assertain their relation to the core argument. In this case your core assertion is still unspported and your facts and quotes are deliberatly not tieable to that core, thus disproving them is a waste of time. As isproving them. But it can provide more diversion, which is what your presentation of them is about.]


So prove me wrong. Show how their ridiculous mindest is even remotely modern.
[Lovely here. You know your assertion is still naked. It can't even be assialed, much less proven wrong. But you earlier presented it as proven by stateing it again at a post full of irrelevant minutae. Now you are challengine your opponents to prove the negative.]

In other words, perfectly sane and believable.

Again, if I'm so wrong, let's see some evidence to the contrary.
[Another challenge. Why work at proving something when you can set them to work trying to disprove the unassailable?]

You've offended every intelligent person with your gleeful ignorance and defense of barbarians.
[Another snide personal jab. Always good to keep them defending themselves and not asking for proof]

True, you've become used to debating fellow flaming liberals. Kinda' like fighting a war against the French, no?
[Liberals tend to rely on emotional appeals. Much like you have so far. Perhaps you aren't as far from a flaming liberal as you would like to believe?]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine No, I gave a quote by a Saudi Arabian to illustrate why the whole Middle East is backwards. Last time I checked, Iraq was part of the Middle East. They're more advanced -- last time I checked they aren't beheading people for looking at someone else's wife anymore.
[An irrelevant quote as it isn't placed in context nor have you shown that this one man's quote has any bearing on the SOCIETY as a whole. Which is where your core assertion lies. Another nice touch here, adding a real and releveant fact in the middle of some opinion. Even though the fact is independant of the opinions. Another sound sophist tactic.]


If you don't think I'm wrong about Iraq, why would you advocate the opposite side? Either you're playing Billy Jeff "What is the definition of is" games, or you're on drugs. So do you agree that the Middle East is several centuries behind the times (even when they steal someone else's airliners), or am I absolutely right about your erroneous beliefs?
[Another personal attack, this time couched in an either or format. Haven't seen that one yet out of you.]

When you outright dismiss facts that don't defend your beloved barbarians, yep, you're defending barbarians.
[No facts provided to dismiss that have any bearing on the argument. See the first para. Obviously there is a fact there, if you dismiss it then you are stupid. But accepting the fact does not translate into acepting the tripe caked around it.]

In other words, I was right and now you're dodging.
[Ahhh, the vicotry claim. They are getting close aren't they? Time to call it a victory and sit back and have a cigar. No one has proven you wrong, so obviously you have won.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine Ad hominem, abusive. Nice admission you have nothing to say.

In other words, you're going to cry because I didn't immediately surrender and say you're right in the absence of ANYTHING to contradict my position. In the real world, an argument DOES have a winner and a loser. Otherwise it's just pansies having tea.
[No argument has a winner or looser. If you still think that then you are significantly more childish than you appear. Attempting to paint your detractors as insane is however a good move. So I haven't lost hope for you yet.]


Like in some fantasy world where everyone is supposed to play nice like retarded children? Sorry, it doesn't work that way in the real world.
[More inflamatory rhetoric.]

I DID back up my statements. The only one refusing to back up their statements is you.
[A naked assertion. This time asserting you did back up your statements when in fact my commentary on all you have said shows you most certainly have not. However a nice lead-in to a kind of circular logic battle where your naked assertion, that you already backed up your naked assertion should make you practically unassailable.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine I've already provided factual proof. Your (and others') refusal to accept that it could even be considered proof or factual only proves your desperation in clinging to this ridiculous far-left idea that the US must be evil and that the Middle East is somehow being preyed upon. Come out of your fantasy world, take off the rose glasses and see how the real world works.
[More accusations, more inflamatory rhetoric, more accusations that your detractors aren't sane and a new tie in, that anyone who argues with you is accusing the U.S. of being evil.]


And really, if you're so good at attacking facts and proof (as you imply), why haven't you attacked a single fact or piece of evidence I've provided? I provided plenty, yet the best you can do is the equivalent of a child plugging their ears and screaming "is NOT!" and spraying really sad ad hominem attacks.
[Um. No. You haven't provided any. But you knew that and so did I.]


And really, I LOVE the sad little attempt to claim victory. It shows your true colors pretty blatantly.
[I don't need to claim victory. The only victory possible here is to show what a boob you are and illustrate how you are trying to use sophistry to support an unsupportable point. How tough is that? I will consider it a far more substantial victory when I get the seams on my stockings to line up just right the first time I pull them on. Now that would be a victory worth crowing about.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine Of which you're a perfect example. Don't let anyone tell you you're not perfect in any way!

[Strangley, I don't get many people telling me about my inperfections. Is this a problem you have?]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lucky sidenote: Cocksucker


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine The guy she attacked personally. What's wrong, it isn't considered fair play to treat people exactly as they've treated me?

Oh no! A hissyfit!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LarzMachine Are you actually illiterate, or are you just incapable of accepting reality?
[More personal attacks. Still no proof of any kind. By now you have to know it's getting old. You should have pulled out with your victory declaration and been happy. Cause now you can't. Like the U.S. in Vietnam you are in a quagmire. To pull out is to admit defeat. To stay is to continue to show how incompetant you are. The good spohist understands a couple of things that you don't. So I am going to give you some advice for the next time you enter a "debate".

First and foremost a sophist knows when to quit. Dissembling, misdirection, attacking the questioner and subtrafuge will work only for so long before they begin to become transparant. The trick is to get out while you are still hiding behind that smoke screen and not standing there in no clothes with only your naked assertion as protection.

Secondly, a good sophist knows when they have met their better and you better believe you have. I'm an old school conservative and I have been arguing with looney left liberals a long long time. I know every tactic you have, I have used most of them with a degree of subtlely you don't posses yet and I know the appropriate counter. I have argued the conservative side of issues with loonely left poli-sci professors who make mindy and lucky look like Ann Coulter they were so far left and come away with my shirt.

Third, a good sophist knows when they have lost and you have. You haven't lost the argument, because no one can win an argument. But you have lost in that you can't win and you are now backed into a corner. And I am not going to let you out with any dignity. Not beacuse I dislike you, but because I appreciate good sphistry and you have some potential, but if I let you walk with your dignity you won't learn to improve.

So there you have it. Your options are down to three.

1. Pony up some proof and some analytical and empirical data to support your claim. In which case I'll debate it with you like civilized people.

2. Just walk away. Save it for another day and take some lessons with you.

3. Never say die. Come back with more inane crap, inflamatory rhetoric, irrelevant facts, and peronal attacks. In that case you will be able to claim the most childish type of victory in a debate, the I got the last word in victory, because I'll flip you to ignore and let you rant. I have already spent more time this morning in posting here than I should have, and my muse is calling, so I am off to write some.]

-Colly

 

[BigAndTall]

We're not entirely sure. If we ever find out, I'll let you know.

Well I mean I think he has a point. But its not so easy to just say they are 12th century. Somethings have clearly changed (like no longer having a Caliphe and only one is really a theocracy), but other parts have not changed (this area is still very very politcally fragmented, and ruled more by santraps just we call them presidents or dictators.)

I'd really love to dig into this, but I don't really have a starting point in which to go on from. I personally think that the mid east started really having problems with the west after it was regulated to a less important trade area with western european countries no longer needed land based trade routes. This did lead to a decrease in revenue and took the previous innovations in thinking that came out of the area and shifted them west to the newer trade hubs (London, Seville, Lisbon, Anterp , etc.) and the countries that controlled them.

Also, the Ottoman Empire didn't help itself when it kicked out the Italian traders that before had a lock on this area. So in affect the Ottoman Empire really cut itself off and became an isolated state.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well I mean I think he has a point. But its not so easy to just say they are 12th century. Somethings have clearly changed (like no longer having a Caliphe and only one is really a theocracy), but other parts have not changed (this area is still very very politcally fragmented, and ruled more by santraps just we call them presidents or dictators.)

I'd really love to dig into this, but I don't really have a starting point in which to go on from. I personally think that the mid east started really having problems with the west after it was regulated to a less important trade area with western european countries no longer needed land based trade routes. This did lead to a decrease in revenue and took the previous innovations in thinking that came out of the area and shifted them west to the newer trade hubs (London, Seville, Lisbon, Anterp , etc.) and the countries that controlled them.

Also, the Ottoman Empire didn't help itself when it kicked out the Italian traders that before had a lock on this area. So in affect the Ottoman Empire really cut itself off and became an isolated state.

The decline in trade certainly hurt, but I feel the real culprit was water. Until the advent of huge De-sal plants any city was tied to a river and dependant on the vargancies of that river. Without a sure supply of potable water building a civilization into the industrial age would have been nightmareishly difficult.

I feel the true beginings of problems with the west came with World War I and World War II, but culminated in the intense hatred they feel now after the first isreali war. The simple truth is that no arab country can field an army that is a match for a western army. They are militarily impotent and as a result are keenly aware of the fact that they now exist based on diplomacy and international law.

If the west (or even just the United States) decided to redraw the map and start over again in the mid east they could do it. That has to be humiliating to a proud people. They have been humiliated time and again this centruy by the isralis and more recently by us. They consider thier humiliating defeats at the ahnds of the israelis to be all our fault since we gave them the superior technological edge.

These are by and large backwards nations who haven't progressed at anything near the rate of the world around them. They are in a sense out of place and time.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

And look! More ad hominem stupidity! Kinda' proves you don't actually have a real point that'll stand up in the real world, doesn't it. What's wrong, did I shatter your comfortable little illusion that your worthless propaganda actually means you matter? [/B]

Welcome back, realguyusa. Was Vienna really that bad?

Ah, it's good to be home.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Welcome back, realguyusa. Was Vienna really that bad?

Ah, it's good to be home.

WOO HOO!!!

Sher,

So glad you're back! You've got a lot of catching up to do.

~lucky

 

[shereads]

Catching up?

Honey, you have no idea!

Speaking of being stuck in another era, I've just returned from the 1930's Deep South. Even the Super Walmart seemed out of place.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Catching up?

Honey, you have no idea!

Speaking of being stuck in another era, I've just returned from the 1930's Deep South. Even the Super Walmart seemed out of place.

Well there's plenty going on here to make you feel good and modern...or good and irritated. Either way, I'm glad you're back. Hope all is well in the buckle and that home's still standing.

~lucky

 

[shereads]

Trouble with the Middle East?

Three words: too much sand.

 

[KarenAM]

Wow. Colly, I am impressed. Of course you've impressed me before, but now you've done it again.

Now that we seem to have returned to a discussion I have to toss in a thought: I wonder if a large part of the Middle East's trouble is that the region's move into modernity has been adversely impacted by all that oil. This has made it disproportionally important on the current world stage, and has exaserbated social problems like the wide gap between rich and poor that have always plagued the region. This is made even worse by the fact that the most oil-rich areas are those which have the most tribal and historically least urban societies, leading to immense wealth and a sudden exposure to the outside world for which they were and in many cases still are unprepared.

Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, for example, are highly urban and cosmopolitan, but of those four nations, only Iraq has huge oil reserves (though more is being discovered in Syria). On the other side, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have massive oil reserves but little history of multiculturalism or urbanism. The result is an odd case where these countries have massive wealth (also due in part to their lower populations than Iraq, Syria, Jordan and especially Egypt) but a social system that is still rooted in old tribal traditions.

Saudi Arabia is in particular trouble because so many of its wealthy have also embraced Wahhabism, which is an extremely fundamentalist version of Islam. This, combined with petrodollars, has allowed Saudi citizens and the Saudi government to export their religious extremism, the most notable example being the madrassas in Pakistan where the Taliban emerged, and with them much of the ideology of al-Qaeda. Wahhabism is not widely held in more cosmpolitan Muslim countries, and is regarded by many Muslims as being too extreme. This religious and social conflict within the Arab and broader Islamic world gets little press in the West but is of major concern throughout the Middle East. To return to my thesis, it is the fact that Saudi Arabia has so much oil wealth that has allowed its tribal and fundamentalist society so much influence in the Arab world, influence that has historically been found in places like what is today Iraq (Baghdad), Syria (Damascus) and Egypt (Cairo), which have long histories of urbanism, cosmopolitanism and contact with the outside world.

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Free Pictures]

Re: IN regards to 'appointing a domacracy'

They (Iraq) are not the US. they do not need the same kind of democracy (if any) as the US. They are loyal to tribes- not to country. There way of life is completely different. They CAN'T have democracy or representational government unless they want it and they set it up themselves.

I disagree about the living in caves part. They are not all living in caves - they are not all idiots. they are not children. We really need to stop treating them like they are a third grade class whom we need to show them, "Ok, this is how you set up a domocracy (the only Godly form of Government on the face of the earth.)"

After we get done telling them how to govern themselves correctly, are we also going to show them the proper way to worship?

If we are going to force them to do things the way *we* do them, we might as well just annex them and keep them as pets. At least that would be honest.

A government "of the people for the people and by the people" must come *from* the people.

Spot on and all true.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Wow. Colly, I am impressed. Of course you've impressed me before, but now you've done it again.

Now that we seem to have returned to a discussion I have to toss in a thought: I wonder if a large part of the Middle East's trouble is that the region's move into modernity has been adversely impacted by all that oil. This has made it disproportionally important on the current world stage, and has exaserbated social problems like the wide gap between rich and poor that have always plagued the region. This is made even worse by the fact that the most oil-rich areas are those which have the most tribal and historically least urban societies, leading to immense wealth and a sudden exposure to the outside world for which they were and in many cases still are unprepared.

Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, for example, are highly urban and cosmopolitan, but of those four nations, only Iraq has huge oil reserves (though more is being discovered in Syria). On the other side, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have massive oil reserves but little history of multiculturalism or urbanism. The result is an odd case where these countries have massive wealth (also due in part to their lower populations than Iraq, Syria, Jordan and especially Egypt) but a social system that is still rooted in old tribal traditions.

Saudi Arabia is in particular trouble because so many of its wealthy have also embraced Wahhabism, which is an extremely fundamentalist version of Islam. This, combined with petrodollars, has allowed Saudi citizens and the Saudi government to export their religious extremism, the most notable example being the madrassas in Pakistan where the Taliban emerged, and with them much of the ideology of al-Qaeda. Wahhabism is not widely held in more cosmpolitan Muslim countries, and is regarded by many Muslims as being too extreme. This religious and social conflict within the Arab and broader Islamic world gets little press in the West but is of major concern throughout the Middle East. To return to my thesis, it is the fact that Saudi Arabia has so much oil wealth that has allowed its tribal and fundamentalist society so much influence in the Arab world, influence that has historically been found in places like what is today Iraq (Baghdad), Syria (Damascus) and Egypt (Cairo), which have long histories of urbanism, cosmopolitanism and contact with the outside world.

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts on the matter.

Thats a very good point. With more money than you can spend you are in a position to exercise a lot of influence on your neighbors, especially if they are cash or resource poor by comparrison.

I still think at the root though, it comes back to potable water. When the rest of the world entered the industrial age, when we forcibly opened China and Japan to "modern" thinking, when even Mother russia, always a bastion of tradition embraced mechanization it didn't happen in the mid east.

I would make the comparrison to the desert tribes of American indians, particularly those living in the moajve dessert. These bands were always small and ranged over a great area for so few people, but they had to, the land was so arid it would support only a few people with their requirement for water. Industrialization required a large workforce. In the mid east the only places you could gather a large pool of manpower was on the banks of the great rivers. And up until the building of the Aswan High Dam, even the mighty Nile could fail and leave people in peril of famine.

Until the advent of masive desalination plants and mighty public works like the Aswan dam, industiralization was infeasible through most of the mid east. The land simply wouldn't support the numbers of workers needed with any sureity and without that surity of water and thus food the populations tended not to congregate together except in the large old pop centers (all on rivers). Think of the U.S. and the flood of immigrants who came over and found work in new industries. An influx on that scale to almost anywhere in the mideast would strain the land past capacity.

In a real sense the region missed the industrial revolution and in missing it they also missed out on the innovation and change of perspective that that revolution produced. In a real sense they went to bed before the revolution began and didn't wake back up until th technological advances of that revolution arrived. Sadly they usually arrived as the van guard of an occupying power.

They still have limited production capacity. Even now that production is far less man power intensive they lack the educated and skilled population base, in part because they lack educated and skilled teachers and in part because they refuse to embrace much of the modern unless it can be molded to fit religious precepts. The mid east is something of a Rip Van Winkle. They went to sleep one evening and when they woke up they found that the wrold had changed and everything was new and different.

When faced with incomprehinsible things the human animal often times falls back on religion. I don't think it's a huge jump to see the people in the mid east, realizing the world had passed them by, began falling back on the solid ground of Islam, which hadn't changed in years.

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

Very good points, Colly. I hadn't thought about the water issue that way. I read not long ago that it is likely that potable water will be the major point of contention in the Middle East in the coming years, not oil, since the population there keeps growing and all those new people need to drink.

I've heard it said that one Iraq's major assets is its highly educated population, which was one reason that the Bush administration argued that the country would be easier to rebuild after Saddam was out than Afghanistan, which is both resource and education poor, especially after the Taliban wrecked everthing. I don't know if Iraq is working out as hoped (I fear not), but one of the problems seems to be not that Arabs are uneducated, but that they lack quality jobs, since the region has yet to develop an industrial base, as you noted. In Saudi Arabia, according to the National Geographic article I read, the problem is, again, all that oil wealth, which has produced a generation of young men with degrees in things like Isalmic Theology but not skills in engineering, computers, etc., which means the kingdom has to import skilled labor to keep functioning even as the profits go to a class of young men with nothing to do but sit around (we've seen in our own cities that idle young men can be a social problem). Add to this the kingdom's restrictions on women, and you have what looks like a state on the verge of not being able to function.

What's interesting about the retreat into Islam is that this fundamentalism is really such a modern concept, much as it is in the West with Christian and Jewish fundamentalism. They claim that they are going back ot the greatness of the "original" Islam, but their vision is nothing like it. At its height (was it in the 10th-12th century or so? I'm not certain, not being a scholar) the Muslim world was the most progressive, tolerant, and cosmopolitan culture on Earth. So I wonder if what we are seeing is Islam itself changing, and adapting, painfully, to a modernity that it is quite capable of embracing, but only after the growing pains that Christianity underwent and is still itself undergoing.

We live in interesting times.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Iraq has educated people, Saudi arabia does too, but they are educated in the wrong things. I think of it as if the entire population of a town sent their kids to college and they all got degrees and returned home. If you assume no immigration or emmigration what would you have when the old folks all died off?

Well, you would have a highly educated population, but no mechanic to fix your car. They would all be familiar with Chaucer, but none of them could fix the fridge if it broke down. I view most of the middle eastern countries like this. Those who can afford to send their children abroad do, but so few of them come back with the skills their countries so desperatly need, like engineering, computer and other technical skills. I have a bachelors in history, but I'm also a qualified telephone linesman.

My history education would be useless in Sadui Arabia, but if I were a man, my telecom skill would be highly prized. That is the kind of skill they need, and the kind of skill they should be trying to get their best and brightest to learn, but as you noted it isn't the way they do things.


-Colly

 

[shereads]

I haven't claimed victory, I don't have to. With each post where you fail to step up to the plate and present some proof, even to take a swing you are handing me the laureles.

As I said it's bed time and the sad ting is I am on heavy pain killers and you still haven't been even a marginal challenge.

-Colly

I don't even know what this argument is about - and I'm having too much fun coming in at the middle to bother with the back story - but I think I'll be on your side this time where it's safe.