And copy and paste, apparently.
Hey I had to find it, didn't I?
And copy and paste, apparently.
I disagree, the thread is about ruling the world. My money is on the guy from the street, the one who crawls from the gutter will always survive. Plus he is usually smarter...where it really counts.
Dont change the subject...SAM.
When the Christians of Europe suffered the Dark Ages, the people under the Islamic empire contributed innumerable advances in ample branches of science and mathematics at the exact same time.
The problem isn't Islam, because people back then were more devoted and religious to Islam than any of us will be today. The problem is politics and how you choose to interpret your religion. The same goes for Christianity, Judaism, etc.
Don't worry, still talking about ruling the world, only in terms of reality rather than bogeymen.
That guy is not real? And what is there to rule unless you are a dictator?
What would these passive takeover schemes rule? the money? they have that already, the resources...get serious. the people...hmmmmm.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too SAMYup, thats the way. Anything but actually read what its about.
......pipedream. Put them to sleep SAMcorporate globalism
I wasn't sleeping. ......pipedream. Put them to sleep SAM
Go back to sleep Johnny.
Lets fantasize about what Ahmedinejad says (since he has invaded, occupied and bombed so many people) and ignore what is currently happening in real time in the world TODAY.
You know people have been saying this same line since the time of the Pharaohs in Egypt. Roman Senators often compared how things used be much better when people worshipped the Gods appropriately. Then they usually went about killing people for their troublesome cults.The problem isn't Islam, because people back then were more devoted and religious to Islam than any of us will be today. The problem is politics and how you choose to interpret your religion. The same goes for Christianity, Judaism, etc.
The problem with the assertion you are making is you are also making an assumption there was great advantage to ME being Islamic.
There wasn't great advancement. I think an argument can be made that advancement was in actuality hindered. Firstly, you can simply read what happened to the Byzantine under Christendom - as I posted above. Then read what happened to those societies post-Muslim invasion. Now stop and think that people in the ME have always made some advancements. So it should not be any different under an "Islamic" empire - people did progress.
But there are two other things to consider
1) They did so very bloody slowly and
2) in some areas of expertise they never equal achievements of thier polytheistic/atheistic Romans and Greeks ancestors.
What was the best peace of Islamic maths? Did it equal the concept of mathematical proofs or Archimedes's near-advent of calculus? What about medicine? What of Civil rights and democracy? Where are the sculptures of human form? Bronzes? Mechanical devices?
Yes there were achievement's in some areas but considering that they had the knowledge of the Greeks they certainly didn't get very far. That's just a fact of history.
Virtually all of those deaths occur in Third World countries with despotic governments, not in western industrial nations. I fail to see how those deaths facilitate our lifestyles. This has nothing to do with our capitalist influence; capitalists want consumers to buy their products and there are no consumers in destitute countries. To the extent that there may still be some unreformed robber-barons running American corporations (e.g. Halliburton Corp.), exploiting the Third World for resources, those corporations will be outcompeted by more englightened corporations who recognize the economic reality that prosperous consumers generate more profits than cheap resources.If we can ignore tens of thousands of innocent babies dying daily to facilitate our lifestyles, we can certainly ignore the far far less incidence of executed rape victims, who have no impact on our profit margins either way.
So how exactly is capitalism in western countries starving a lot of children in say, Africa? Today?
If anything western countries try to help them creating a lot of non-profit organizations that go there and help. Capitalism makes use of the cheap labor there, how exactly does that lead to starving babies? If anything, it helps parents feed their babies...
There are things like diamonds and other natural resources that keep part of Africa corrupt and stagnated but those issues can be eliminated.
Very interesting read.
http://www.youthlinks.org/article.do?articleID=983&sl=e
In conclusion, the rich prosper at the tremendous expense of the poor.
That is absolutely correct. Not everyone can be wealthy, you must understand.
Picture a scale, if you will. In order for one arm to rise (become rich), the other arm must lower (live in poverty). Capitalism doesn't allow for the arms of the scale to be even, because it is either hit (rich) or miss (below average/poverty) in such a system. For the most part, the rich build a monopoly, making them richer. Meanwhile, the average/poor people continue to sink economically.