The independent states of America

[Mandalore]

You should ask your ancestors how the raping the Ottomans gave them for four centuries felt like, during most of which they effectively were both constantly fighting the entirety of europe (Minus France) and Persia to the east. The Islamic world has traditionally been far more homogenous in its political make up and far more stable than Europe, following an almost dynastic system similar to China's for quite a few centuries, with a relaxation of that in the 1100-1400s until the emergence of the Ottomans at the expense of the collapsing Timurid Empire

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

The Islamic world has been in a down turn for the last three centuries, Europe has been on the upswing, the Far East is just now recovering (and aiming to take its usual place at the head of humanity). Caucasians run the world for a few centuries and all of a sudden they feel like swinging their cocks around talking down to others. Truthfully, the Europeans and Arabs have roughly the same basis in their Abrahamic religions. It was only with the adoption of more secular policies and culture shift that we "progressed" beyond the Islamic world. To judge a region during one of their more unstable periods when seated aloft on the most stable Europe/America that has ever existed seems a bit biased however.

They've always been unstable lol...not just recently...

Like during the Rashidun, Ummayad, and Golden Age of the Abbasids when they ruled from Spain to India for 4 consecutive centuries?

[kjeopardy]

The Islamic world has been in a down turn for the last three centuries, Europe has been on the upswing, the Far East is just now recovering (and aiming to take its usual place at the head of humanity). Caucasians run the world for a few centuries and all of a sudden they feel like swinging their cocks around talking down to others. Truthfully, the Europeans and Arabs have roughly the same basis in their Abrahamic religions. It was only with the adoption of more secular policies and culture shift that we "progressed" beyond the Islamic world. To judge a region during one of their more unstable periods when seated aloft on the most stable Europe/America that has ever existed seems a bit biased however.

They've always been unstable lol...not just recently...

Like during the Rashidun, Ummayad, and Golden Age of the Abbasids when they ruled from Spain to India for 4 consecutive centuries?

Reigned with brutality; killed everyone who disagreed with them—and you are incorrect...during this time there were many insurrections and rebellions, but fine—I'll give you that there was some stability.

Even still—this is kinda irrelevant to the er at hand. Even if I concede to you that Arabs did contribute a lot at one point—of what relevance is that now?

TBH, I don't really see the danger in Arabs as much as I do in the religion of Islam—without their religion, I would have no problem with them, so it's not racism or anything.

I take exception to a religion which urges you to try to conquer the world, is not capable of adapting to fit the times, and spells out brutal consequences for anyone who dissents.

[Hobo]

Actually under Islamic rule in Spain, it was the Muslims that revived the towns, were tolerant of other religions, and caused art and literature to flourish in Spain. Around the 8th century the Arabs were far more advanced than the Europeans. When Christians retook Spain they instituted stricter policies on religion.

[THEWULFMAN]

For people who really don't understand this, let's get all facty up in this [female dog].

The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt.

Only 15% of PBS's funding comes from the government on the whole, but some stations it is 50-60% of their funding. Meaning that while it costs the government very little, the funds are very important.

--


Also, using nukes. Look up nuclear fallout. When you nuke one place, you harm a lot more than just the blast zone. You nuke all of the middle east, you kill off a lot more than just people living there. We're talking about the largest genocide of the human race ever, and of more people than you want dead. YOU DON'T BECOME THE TERRORIST DUMBASS. Even thinking about wiping them all out is horrible, the fact that any of you have it going through your heads in the slightest. It doesn't er if they are barbarians. You don't become who you are fighting.

[Yanoda]

[WD-40]

Exactly my point. You could. And the reasons we give in response are the same ones we should give when questioning the value of, say, the Arab world.

Answer this Crater, would you want to live in a pure Christian world, or a pure Arab world? Don't dodge the question. Those are your only two choices. So which one?

[kjeopardy]

Actually under Islamic rule in Spain, it was the Muslims that revived the towns, were tolerant of other religions, and caused art and literature to flourish in Spain. Around the 8th century the Arabs were far more advanced than the Europeans. When Christians retook Spain they instituted stricter policies on religion.

Not completely true; by I do concede that during the Dark Ages the Arab world was light years ahead of the Christian world. The only thing is—Christianity and Judaism are capable of adapting to a different time, whereas Islam is not.


@WD-40: At least you get it!!!

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

[[m'kay]]

Exactly my point. You could. And the reasons we give in response are the same ones we should give when questioning the value of, say, the Arab world.

Answer this Crater, would you want to live in a pure Christian world, or a pure Arab world? Don't dodge the question. Those are your only two choices. So which one?

They'd both be largely the same, actually. If there were no other religions other than one of those two, there wouldn't be any strife, so all the instability that's been cited wouldn't be nearly as prevalent. In fact, the mere existence of one of those two as the one sole religion would change it dramatically. Both would invite a lot more corruption, due to the most radical proponents of both wanting control more than anything else. I'm not saying they would be exactly the same, but they'd both be pretty terrible. A theocracy is a theocracy, after all - and if the world only followed one religion, that's what every government would be. Not trying to start anything here, just found it an interesting thing to think about.