Because all the inventions or discoveries (or natural resources found on territories that are currently occupied by the muslims), would have mostly been still invented, discovered and of course existed in all hypotheses:
- whether there would be no Arab, (and therefore no Mohamed, and no islam). The discoveries and natural resources would still have occured, only more easily and earlier, by the same (non Arab) people, with even more intelligent scientists in those people, since now they wouldn't have been oppressed by islam.
- whether there would just be no muslim (because islam would not have exited). Then, assuming Arabs wouldn't have had such a deleterious role, invading, pillaging, enslaving, raping and killing everybody everywhere they go (but have limited themselves to a role of commerce, transport and exchange), then even more so, those discoveries and natural resources would still have occured, more easily and earlier, by the same (non Arab) people, with even more intelligent scientists in those people, since now they wouldn't have been oppressed by Arabs.
To be fair, while I do understand the point of the article, it does focus on stuff that isn't really accurate (eg. shampoo, soap, etc). It seems a regurgitation of some documentaries about how society advanced with muslims, while in fact most - if not all - achievements where done before the rise of islam. Muslims aren't an ethnicity, they are practicioners of a specific religion. I'd argue that the fall of the persian empire (for which muslim fanatics contributed to) caused more damage to every aspect of society than all 1500 years of "muslim innovations" combined.
To be fair, while I do understand the point of the article, it does focus on stuff that isn't really accurate (eg. shampoo, soap, etc). It seems a regurgitation of some documentaries about how society advanced with muslims, while in fact most - if not all - achievements where done before the rise of islam. Muslims aren't an ethnicity, they are practicioners of a specific religion. I'd argue that the fall of the persian empire (for which muslim fanatics contributed to) caused more damage to every aspect of society than all 1500 years of "muslim innovations" combined.
Most of the recent problems in the Middle East can be directly linked to the Iraq War.
Osama Bin Laden can be directly linked to CIA's action in Afghanistan trying to defeat the Soviet and propping up the most repressive regime in the middle east ( Saudi Arabia ).
There has also being many instance of terrorist activity from sympathizer of the Palestine cause ( how would america like it if 8 million Muslims moved into Manhattan and resulting the displacement of most of New York's population ?)
I can go on ..
(overthrowing Iran's democratically elected leader )
(Selling weapons to Saddam in exchange for Oil, rather than help Iraq develop)
(Putting minority paranoid dictators in power so that they can be controlled)
I would perhaps argue that it has a whole lot to do with Sykes-Picot still too. While obviously the Iraq war is massively significant in terms of specific recent events, it is possible that we are biased to overestimate the effect our generations have on the overall trajectory of the region.
Even if you want place blame more firmly in modern time it is perhaps more useful to attribute much of it to neo-conservative foreign policy as a whole rather than "the Iraq war" which is only one negative outcome of the former.
8 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 28.1 ms ] threadTL;DR: Two tumlbs-users at two extremes spouting generalizations at each-other
Because all the inventions or discoveries (or natural resources found on territories that are currently occupied by the muslims), would have mostly been still invented, discovered and of course existed in all hypotheses:
- whether there would be no Arab, (and therefore no Mohamed, and no islam). The discoveries and natural resources would still have occured, only more easily and earlier, by the same (non Arab) people, with even more intelligent scientists in those people, since now they wouldn't have been oppressed by islam.
- whether there would just be no muslim (because islam would not have exited). Then, assuming Arabs wouldn't have had such a deleterious role, invading, pillaging, enslaving, raping and killing everybody everywhere they go (but have limited themselves to a role of commerce, transport and exchange), then even more so, those discoveries and natural resources would still have occured, more easily and earlier, by the same (non Arab) people, with even more intelligent scientists in those people, since now they wouldn't have been oppressed by Arabs.
Osama Bin Laden can be directly linked to CIA's action in Afghanistan trying to defeat the Soviet and propping up the most repressive regime in the middle east ( Saudi Arabia ).
There has also being many instance of terrorist activity from sympathizer of the Palestine cause ( how would america like it if 8 million Muslims moved into Manhattan and resulting the displacement of most of New York's population ?)
I can go on ..
(overthrowing Iran's democratically elected leader )
(Selling weapons to Saddam in exchange for Oil, rather than help Iraq develop)
(Putting minority paranoid dictators in power so that they can be controlled)
(drone warfare in yemen, somalia)
......
......
......
......
Even if you want place blame more firmly in modern time it is perhaps more useful to attribute much of it to neo-conservative foreign policy as a whole rather than "the Iraq war" which is only one negative outcome of the former.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html