"You aint no muslim, bruv"

[Teeth]

Have a look at the history of Christianity. It could be a hard line Christian state and be just as messed up. Their effigy is literally a guy getting tortured on a cross. The difference is the west is further ahead with education, economy, stability, democracy etc. As we move forward the world will get less and less compatible with religions. Might not happen at the same pace as the west, but it will happen eventually

You still believe that development will turn the Middle-East into democratic, tolerant and secular societies? Syria looked promising, but has been torn apart by its sectarian divide anyway. Despite continuing economic growth Turkey's political direction would make Atatürk do somersaults in his grave. The Gulf States despite rolling in currency remain firmly Islamist and reforms are not easy to envision.

[Butan]

You still believe that development will turn the Middle-East into democratic, tolerant and secular societies? Syria looked promising, but has been torn apart by its sectarian divide anyway. Despite continuing economic growth Turkey's political direction would make Atatürk do somersaults in his grave. The Gulf States despite rolling in currency remain firmly Islamist and reforms are not easy to envision.

Some of that have to do with western intervention
For Middle-East to have a chance, it needs to be supported by realpolitik and historical events. Like Ukraine.

In the curent situation, Middle-East has to roll a double d20 to succeed

[Molly]

Some of that have to do with western intervention
For Middle-East to have a chance, it needs to be supported by realpolitik and historical events. Like Ukraine.

In the curent situation, Middle-East has to roll a double d20 to succeed

You actually believe that ME would be further ahead in - what we call - development if the 'West' never had intervened in anything?
That is very doubtful imo.

[Butan]

I think that overall the west has been negatively impacting the Middle-East; I didnt say development-wise. Development is only a facet.

Development would have been slower without western intervention, and passive education/technology transfer certainly positively affected the Middle-East in the last centuries.

[Tibe]

I think that overall the west has been negatively impacting the Middle-East; I didnt say development-wise. Development is only a facet.

Development would have been slower without western intervention, and passive education/technology transfer certainly positively affected the Middle-East in the last centuries.

I think that it mainly hasnt impacted anything. Again, pretty much the Empirates are always an excellent example of what the rest of the Middle-East could be without any threatful intervention and owning massive wealth. And its still shitty and inhumane, which weakpoints and holes are just covered up with pure money.

[Molly]

I think that overall the west has been negatively impacting the Middle-East; I didnt say development-wise. Development is only a facet.

Development would have been slower without western intervention, and passive education/technology transfer certainly positively affected the Middle-East in the last centuries.

I ment development as an overall term. Including jurisdiction, policing and religion.

[Grumbs]

Some of that have to do with western intervention

Their main complaint has always been western imperialism. Iraq war was an outright failure. Sadam might not have been a nice guy dictator, but he had his various factions under control

Not saying the west has done nothing but have a negative impact, but they have made some incredibly huge blunders. Not really sure what the solution is, but I think stable governments are the place to start without western interference. All we do is give their propaganda machine fuel so they can recruit more muslims who interpret the islamic code literally and radicalise their general population. Every one who dies for their cause gets to go to heaven with 100 virgins or whatever. 9/11 was just a massive bait to get the US creating more martys and to hurt their economy. Any perceived attacks on their religion will make them more hardline and fanatical.

[Xant]

I'll take a destabilized Middle East any day over a stable, united and technologically modern Middle East that decides it's time to start adhering to the Quran more literally again.

[The_Bloody_Nine]

I'll take a destabilized Middle East any day over a stable, united and technologically modern Middle East that decides it's time to start adhering to the Quran more literally again.

united? What you mean, Iran and all shiites annihilated or what?

[Molly]

I'll take a destabilized Middle East any day over a stable, united and technologically modern Middle East that decides it's time to start adhering to the Quran more literally again.

One could argue that destabilization and the hand-in-hand lack of perspective for a 'good, properous' life leads directly to a more literal adhering of the Quran due to the lack of other structures to reach out to or live for.
Not necessarily my personal opinion but I can't deny that I believe there is a pinch of truth to it - at least for most of the terrorists.

[Xant]

One could argue that destabilization and the hand-in-hand lack of perspective for a 'good, properous' life leads directly to a more literal adhering of the Quran due to the lack of other structures to reach out to or live for.
Not necessarily my personal opinion but I can't deny that I believe there is a pinch of truth to it - at least for most of the terrorists.

Not true at all. Most of the worst terrorists have been wealthy and well educated. And the foot soldiers don't even matter. You can always get the peasants to do what you want. As long as you have the top believing in something, the majority are meaningless -- and even right now the leadership of the orgs are extremely well off.

[Butan]

Not true at all. Most of the worst terrorists have been wealthy and well educated.

Yes, under a prospere and stable country, all inhabitants turns into the worst mastermind terrorists imaginable.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Xant]

Yes, under a prospere and stable country, all inhabitants turns into the worst mastermind terrorists imaginable.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

http://www.k5learning.com/reading-comprehension-worksheets

[Molly]

Not true at all. Most of the worst terrorists have been wealthy and well educated. And the foot soldiers don't even matter. You can always get the peasants to do what you want. As long as you have the top believing in something, the majority are meaningless -- and even right now the leadership of the orgs are extremely well off.

I ment the foot soldiers tho.
I might be wrong but I think that the majority of the low ranks is in for the structure, perspective (how weird and fucked up that perspective is tho), food and home.
Ofc, those who lead mostly do it out of less basic interests about which I don't wanna speculate.

There might be a similarity to the 3rd Reich. One huge reason for the NSDAP being so successful in recruiting was the dire situation of the populace. No work, no food, no structure. Along comes Adolf, offering exactly those basic needs being satisfied. Not to mention a common enemy, someone to blame. Doesn't matter if it's reasonable or not.

[Xant]

I ment the foot soldiers tho.
I might be wrong but I think that the majority of the low ranks is in for the structure, perspective (how weird and fucked up that perspective is tho), food and home.
Ofc, those who lead mostly do it out of less basic interests about which I don't wanna speculate.

There might be a similarity to the 3rd Reich. One huge reason for the NSDAP being so successful in recruiting was the dire situation of the populace. No work, no food, no structure. Along comes Adolf, offering exactly those basic needs being satisfied. Not to mention a common enemy, someone to blame. Doesn't matter if it's reasonable or not.

The foot soldiers firing AKs in Syria don't really matter, and aren't a threat to anyone.

We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth.html

The "actual terrorists", i.e. the ones committing the attacks in the west, are usually educated and well off. They can live the good life, and they can see it. All they have to do is not blow themselves up. Yet they choose to do it anyway.

If you want to wage a large scale war, that's even easier -- false flag attacks, propaganda, religion, inbuilt in-group/out-group mechanisms of humans... it's not hard to motivate dumb young men to kill other young men, and do it with a burning sense of being in the right.

Getting a modern western nation to not just accept, but demand a war with a couple of Middle Eastern countries was as easy as killing 0.0009% of that nation's population in a single attack. I'm talking of the US and 9/11, of course. I'm not suggesting 9/11 was a false flag attack, but what if it had been? What if Bush was evil (for the lack of a better word) and wanted to attack the ME? All it would have taken was a one staged attack, and the whole nation was roused. That's why the general well being of the population &c doesn't matter.