The lebanese demands

[Fishman]

So you are denying there were any wars in the Islamic world before European colonialism? Boy I have seen some efforts at blaming the West, but this one takes the cake. Colonialism came late to most of the Middle East. It stopped fairly soon after. It was mainly in a very mild form. It was over 50 years ago. Stop blaming us for their problems.

I agree that the conflicts in Ireland and Korea have little to do with Islam or Muslims, but it is very noticeable that most of the world's conflicts take place in countries with large numbers of Muslims. Indeed if the world did not have any Marxists or any Muslim radicals, it would essentially have no terrorism as they are the only two groups out there killing civilians in large numbers today. The exceptions (the LRA in Uganda for instance) are tiny.

I'm not denying that there have been no wars in the Islamic world. But if Muslim countries had not been carved up between Britain and France, then there would be considerably less violence.

And a short period of colonialism is enough to break up once-united countries. Once a country is broke into two, two very different governments can get into place. These two opposing governments will then start fighting with each other. And then the millitias start, and terrorist attacks begin to occur to the opposite side. And when the West tries to intervene, it usually angers the local population, and terrorists begin to attack the west too. This incites more attacks by the west, which in turn causes terrorist attacks. It goes on and on until somebody gives up.

 

[Silver]

Well after the kana attacks PM Seniora said that there would be no ngociations until a cease-fire is established and he has the support of all the lebanese people now,not just the majority.

 

[HeiGou]

I'm not denying that there have been no wars in the Islamic world. But if Muslim countries had not been carved up between Britain and France, then there would be considerably less violence.

Why do you think that? Are you saying there was less violence before European colonialism - because I think you would have a great deal of trouble supporting that view. One thing European colonialism did lead to everywhere was massive growth in Muslim populations. Presumably one reason was the suppression of inter-tribal violence which acted a fairly effective limit on population. Look at Indonesia where there weren't even any tribes.

And a short period of colonialism is enough to break up once-united countries. Once a country is broke into two, two very different governments can get into place. These two opposing governments will then start fighting with each other. And then the millitias start, and terrorist attacks begin to occur to the opposite side. And when the West tries to intervene, it usually angers the local population, and terrorists begin to attack the west too. This incites more attacks by the west, which in turn causes terrorist attacks. It goes on and on until somebody gives up.

It is true that it can happen like this, but it does not mean it has to. India was created by the British and has remained united ever since apart from the demands of the Muslims for independence. In most places Europe did not break countries in two, but united them. Moreover if the locals want to unite there is nothing stopping them - Yemen has. They only do not do so because they do not want to do so. I don't think you can blame the West for that. None of these factors seem to apply outside the Muslim world. It so happens that terrorism seems to be a tactic common in the Muslim world, but not elsewhere - apart from a lot of Marxists. Why do you think that is? It is also old within the region. Nasir incited terror against the British in the Canal Zone for instance.

Others have got over colonialism. I would suggest the Muslim world has too, it just likes to blame me for their problems.