What do you think of the Taliban?
- Thread starter mahdisoldier19
- Start date
- Replies 50
- Views 9K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
- Status
IbnAbdulHakim
IB Addict
- Messages
- 16,476
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
how bout u go and meet with them and let me kno what u think?
mahdisoldier19
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 783
- Reaction score
- 47
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Lol Abd Majid there are alot of taliban in the new Govt there are even Taliban in america that are cleared by the FBI. You have to understand there are taliban that are liked by the USA not all taliban are evil to the USA.
And i think I know them lol
And i think I know them lol
mahdisoldier19
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 783
- Reaction score
- 47
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Well you live in a country that murdered over 30k civilians in Iraq? So who are you kidding? Even if the taliban did kill people innocent for arguement sake, no where close to the United States? So shhhh friend.
IbnAbdulHakim
IB Addict
- Messages
- 16,476
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
u neva met them n u call them such things? thats not right!
Ibn Abi Ahmed
IB Legend
- Messages
- 7,915
- Reaction score
- 2,837
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Theaters - Most of the Western movies are not complete without a some type of sexual theme. If not that far, romance between 2 unmarried non-mahrams. This is Zina which Allah has told us not to even come near.
Music- Is haram.
Flying a kite - I dont know if they have done this, or why they have doe it if it is indeed true.
Chess- Ruling on playing chess
- Q&A
Library- Islam Q&A
Football- Again, i dont know if they have done this or their reasons if they have.
Islam makes it clear that anything that leads to sin is a sin and is forbidden. Therefore many of what they have banned is based upon the Quran and the Sunnah and they are right to do that.
Surah Baqarah:
191: ...And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing....
217: ...and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing..
Last edited:
aamirsaab
On vacation.
- Messages
- 4,459
- Reaction score
- 1,229
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
America is actually in debt to itself because it keeps spending ridiculous amounts of money each year for whatever reason.
Also, here's a definition on terrorism from my great pal Dictionary.com
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. (coughs, Iraq war, coughs)
[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act].
Last edited:
cool_jannah
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 233
- Reaction score
- 23
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
yeeeeeaaa!
Taliban were awesome!
They should take over the USA and make these people civilized !!!
Taliban were awesome!
They should take over the USA and make these people civilized !!!
aamirsaab
On vacation.
- Messages
- 4,459
- Reaction score
- 1,229
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Try saying that in the USA. The phrase: "Get yo ass smoked" comes to mind for some bizzare reason.
It's not the Taliban you want, it's sharia law.
Well unlike you I am in no position to ask him where his money comes from. But it has been discussed at some length in the media. Here's an example.
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
Cole Fire
Yale is set to ditch Taliban Man and may hire a notorious anti-Israel professor.
Monday, April 24, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi's luck is running out. Eight weeks ago the Taliban diplomat turned special Yale student made a media splash on the cover of the New York Times magazine in which he proclaimed: "In some ways I'm the luckiest person in the world, I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale."
But the continued outrage over the news that an unrepentant former official of a criminal regime whose remnants are still killing U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan is part of the Ivy League is catching up with him. Yale is about to establish tougher standards for the program under which he is applying to become a degree-status sophomore next fall, and the consensus is that Mr. Hashemi won't measure up.
Taliban Man's days as a Bulldog look to be numbered. But Yale may be about to stir up new controversy as it appears to be on the verge of offering a notorious anti-Israel academic a faculty position.
For now give Mr. Hashemi and his financial backers at the Wyoming-based International Education Foundation (The International Education Foundation) credit for persistence. Ignoring hints that he should "study abroad" next year, Mr. Hashemi and the foundation are forcing Yale officials to rule on whether or not their former prize "diversity" catch still belongs at the university. "He's doing all he can to come back," Mike Hoover, the CBS producer/cameraman who is one of the founders of the IEF, told the Yale Daily News last week. "For him to be a real shaker, it would be great [for him] to have graduated with a degree."
Yale's Special Student Program consists of two parts. The first, under which Mr. Hashemi was admitted last year, allows "nontraditional" students to attend classes for credit they can use at other colleges, but it doesn't lead to a Yale degree. The second, named after Yale alumnus and cotton-gin inventor Eli Whitney, serves older students who are seeking a Yale degree. Mr. Hashemi has applied for admission in the fall under the Whitney program.
Now Yale is rethinking the standards for both parts of the program--standards they once described as difficult to meet. A Feb. 24 article in the Yale Herald announcing Mr. Hashemi's presence as a special student reported that "the bar for admission is set high so that potential part-time Yalies must be as qualified as their full-schedule counterparts." Yale College dean Peter Salovey told the Herald that "The [special students programs] are very selective."
That was back in February. Last week, Yale's president, Richard Levin, issued a statement saying that a review he had ordered "raised questions whether the admissions practices of the non-degree Special Student Program have been consistent with the published criteria, let alone the standard that should prevail." He noted that "in recent years, while fewer than 10% of the applicants to the regular undergraduate program have received offers of admission, more than 75% of the applicants to the non-degree program have been admitted."
Mr. Levin's conclusion was that both the nondegree and Whitney special programs "suffer from lack of clarity about mission, purpose, and standards." He ordered they undergo a full review to define "admissions criteria consistent with the high standards and moral purposes of a leading institution of higher learning." The Yale Daily News reported that in an interview Mr. Levin made clear that Mr. Hashemi's pending application in the Whitney program will be held to the same standard as that of a regular applicant.
Clinton Taylor and Debbie Bookstaber, two young Yale grads who became so frustrated at their alma mater's refusal to answer questions about its Taliban Man that they launched a protest called NailYale, say they are encouraged. "The notion that there are 'moral purposes' to an institution of higher learning is a refutation of the culture of nihilism that led Yale to welcome Hashemi in the first place," Mr. Taylor told me. "Without admitting or confronting the full error of its decision, I think Yale is laying the groundwork to reject him, without looking like they were pressured into it." Ms. Bookstaber agrees, and notes that if Yale now admits Mr. Hashemi as a full-degree seeking student it will be inviting a fresh firestorm of outrage from the 19,300 students who applied to Yale's 2010 undergraduate class but were rejected last month.
Meanwhile, Yale faces a new challenge. In the next few days the university may hire Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, to fill a new spot as a professor of contemporary Middle East studies.
Mr. Cole's appointment would be problematic on several fronts. First, his scholarship is largely on the 19th-century Middle East, not on contemporary issues. "He has since abandoned scholarship in favor of blog commentary," says Michael Rubin, a Yale graduate and editor of the Middle East Quarterly. Mr. Cole's postings at his blog, Informed Comment, appear to be a far cry from scholarship. They feature highly polemical writing and dubious conspiracy theories.
In justifying all the time he spends on his blog, Mr. Cole told the Yale Herald that "when you become a public intellectual, it has the effect of dragging you into a lot of mud." Mr. Cole has done his share of splattering. He calls Israel "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East." That ties in with his recurring theme that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee effectively controls Congress and much of U.S. foreign policy. In an article titled "Dual Loyalties," he wrote, "I simply think that we deserve to have American public servants who are centrally commited [sic] to the interests of the United States, rather than to the interests of a foreign political party," namely Israel's right-wing Likud, which was the ruling party until Ariel Sharon formed the centrist Kadima Party. Mr. Cole claims that "pro-Likud intellectuals" routinely "use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv."
Last January, Mr. Cole participated in a "teach-in" at Yale that could have been an audition for his possible hiring. According to the Yale Daily News, he told students that U.S. efforts "in helping create a constitution for the 'new Iraq' have increased factionalism." He concluded that "this is a recipe for continued social turmoil and continued global war."
Mr. Cole says that he is often unfairly attacked for being anti-Semitic, when in reality he claims he is only critical of Israeli policy. But Michael Oren, a visiting fellow at Yale, notes that in February 2003 Mr. Cole wrote on his blog that "Apparently [President Bush] has fallen for a line from the neo-cons in his administration that they can deliver the Jewish vote to him in 2004 if only he kisses Sharon's ass." Mr. Oren says "clearly that's anti-Semitism; that's not a criticism of Israeli policy." (Exit polls showed that 74% of the Jewish vote went to John Kerry.)
Mr. Cole appears to be the only prominent academic in America to have embraced "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a highly controversial paper by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard. Mr. Cole told the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday that the paper argues the "virtually axiomatic" point held by the rest of the world that a "powerful pro-Israel lobby exists." The result is that "U.S. policy toward the Middle East has been dangerously skewed."
But the paper has been roundly attacked for sloppy generalizations. The two authors claim that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel." Even Noam Chomsky, a far-left critic of Israel, wrote that we "have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion." But Mr. Cole praises the two professors for seeking "to end the taboo [on discussions of the "Israel lobby"], enforced by knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism."
Mr. Cole wants to enforce his own taboos on free expression. In February, he told the Detroit Metro Times that the federal government should close the leading cable news channel. "I think it is outrageous that Fox Cable News is allowed to run that operation the way it runs it," he said in summarizing his view that Fox "is polluting the information environment." He went on to claim that "in the 1960s the FCC would have closed it down. It's an index of how corrupt our governmental institutions have become, that the FCC lets this go on."
Appointing someone as hotheaded and intolerant as Mr. Cole to a prestigious appointment at Yale wouldn't seem to make any sense. The drive to hire him can be explained in part by the same impulses that prompted Yale to admit Mr. Hashemi. "Perhaps the folks who still want to let Taliban Man into the degree program are also thinking Cole would make a great faculty advisor for him," jokes Mr. Taylor, the alumnus leading the NailYale protest.
But that might not be a joke. Many Yale faculty members are deadly serious about wanting Mr. Cole to become their newest colleague, and their views hold great sway. Unlike at Harvard, the university president at Yale has no power to veto the faculty's hiring choice. So even if the admissions department rejects Mr. Hashemi's application for the fall semester, Yale may jump out of the Taliban frying pan and into the Cole fire.
Clarification
Prof. Cole says that the statement that he "calls Israel 'the most dangerous regime in the Middle East' " is libelous because what he really wrote was, "The most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East is that of Ariel Sharon."
Cole Fire
Yale is set to ditch Taliban Man and may hire a notorious anti-Israel professor.
Monday, April 24, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi's luck is running out. Eight weeks ago the Taliban diplomat turned special Yale student made a media splash on the cover of the New York Times magazine in which he proclaimed: "In some ways I'm the luckiest person in the world, I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale."
But the continued outrage over the news that an unrepentant former official of a criminal regime whose remnants are still killing U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan is part of the Ivy League is catching up with him. Yale is about to establish tougher standards for the program under which he is applying to become a degree-status sophomore next fall, and the consensus is that Mr. Hashemi won't measure up.
Taliban Man's days as a Bulldog look to be numbered. But Yale may be about to stir up new controversy as it appears to be on the verge of offering a notorious anti-Israel academic a faculty position.
For now give Mr. Hashemi and his financial backers at the Wyoming-based International Education Foundation (The International Education Foundation) credit for persistence. Ignoring hints that he should "study abroad" next year, Mr. Hashemi and the foundation are forcing Yale officials to rule on whether or not their former prize "diversity" catch still belongs at the university. "He's doing all he can to come back," Mike Hoover, the CBS producer/cameraman who is one of the founders of the IEF, told the Yale Daily News last week. "For him to be a real shaker, it would be great [for him] to have graduated with a degree."
Yale's Special Student Program consists of two parts. The first, under which Mr. Hashemi was admitted last year, allows "nontraditional" students to attend classes for credit they can use at other colleges, but it doesn't lead to a Yale degree. The second, named after Yale alumnus and cotton-gin inventor Eli Whitney, serves older students who are seeking a Yale degree. Mr. Hashemi has applied for admission in the fall under the Whitney program.
Now Yale is rethinking the standards for both parts of the program--standards they once described as difficult to meet. A Feb. 24 article in the Yale Herald announcing Mr. Hashemi's presence as a special student reported that "the bar for admission is set high so that potential part-time Yalies must be as qualified as their full-schedule counterparts." Yale College dean Peter Salovey told the Herald that "The [special students programs] are very selective."
That was back in February. Last week, Yale's president, Richard Levin, issued a statement saying that a review he had ordered "raised questions whether the admissions practices of the non-degree Special Student Program have been consistent with the published criteria, let alone the standard that should prevail." He noted that "in recent years, while fewer than 10% of the applicants to the regular undergraduate program have received offers of admission, more than 75% of the applicants to the non-degree program have been admitted."
Mr. Levin's conclusion was that both the nondegree and Whitney special programs "suffer from lack of clarity about mission, purpose, and standards." He ordered they undergo a full review to define "admissions criteria consistent with the high standards and moral purposes of a leading institution of higher learning." The Yale Daily News reported that in an interview Mr. Levin made clear that Mr. Hashemi's pending application in the Whitney program will be held to the same standard as that of a regular applicant.
Clinton Taylor and Debbie Bookstaber, two young Yale grads who became so frustrated at their alma mater's refusal to answer questions about its Taliban Man that they launched a protest called NailYale, say they are encouraged. "The notion that there are 'moral purposes' to an institution of higher learning is a refutation of the culture of nihilism that led Yale to welcome Hashemi in the first place," Mr. Taylor told me. "Without admitting or confronting the full error of its decision, I think Yale is laying the groundwork to reject him, without looking like they were pressured into it." Ms. Bookstaber agrees, and notes that if Yale now admits Mr. Hashemi as a full-degree seeking student it will be inviting a fresh firestorm of outrage from the 19,300 students who applied to Yale's 2010 undergraduate class but were rejected last month.
Meanwhile, Yale faces a new challenge. In the next few days the university may hire Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, to fill a new spot as a professor of contemporary Middle East studies.
Mr. Cole's appointment would be problematic on several fronts. First, his scholarship is largely on the 19th-century Middle East, not on contemporary issues. "He has since abandoned scholarship in favor of blog commentary," says Michael Rubin, a Yale graduate and editor of the Middle East Quarterly. Mr. Cole's postings at his blog, Informed Comment, appear to be a far cry from scholarship. They feature highly polemical writing and dubious conspiracy theories.
In justifying all the time he spends on his blog, Mr. Cole told the Yale Herald that "when you become a public intellectual, it has the effect of dragging you into a lot of mud." Mr. Cole has done his share of splattering. He calls Israel "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East." That ties in with his recurring theme that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee effectively controls Congress and much of U.S. foreign policy. In an article titled "Dual Loyalties," he wrote, "I simply think that we deserve to have American public servants who are centrally commited [sic] to the interests of the United States, rather than to the interests of a foreign political party," namely Israel's right-wing Likud, which was the ruling party until Ariel Sharon formed the centrist Kadima Party. Mr. Cole claims that "pro-Likud intellectuals" routinely "use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv."
Last January, Mr. Cole participated in a "teach-in" at Yale that could have been an audition for his possible hiring. According to the Yale Daily News, he told students that U.S. efforts "in helping create a constitution for the 'new Iraq' have increased factionalism." He concluded that "this is a recipe for continued social turmoil and continued global war."
Mr. Cole says that he is often unfairly attacked for being anti-Semitic, when in reality he claims he is only critical of Israeli policy. But Michael Oren, a visiting fellow at Yale, notes that in February 2003 Mr. Cole wrote on his blog that "Apparently [President Bush] has fallen for a line from the neo-cons in his administration that they can deliver the Jewish vote to him in 2004 if only he kisses Sharon's ass." Mr. Oren says "clearly that's anti-Semitism; that's not a criticism of Israeli policy." (Exit polls showed that 74% of the Jewish vote went to John Kerry.)
Mr. Cole appears to be the only prominent academic in America to have embraced "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a highly controversial paper by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard. Mr. Cole told the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday that the paper argues the "virtually axiomatic" point held by the rest of the world that a "powerful pro-Israel lobby exists." The result is that "U.S. policy toward the Middle East has been dangerously skewed."
But the paper has been roundly attacked for sloppy generalizations. The two authors claim that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel." Even Noam Chomsky, a far-left critic of Israel, wrote that we "have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion." But Mr. Cole praises the two professors for seeking "to end the taboo [on discussions of the "Israel lobby"], enforced by knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism."
Mr. Cole wants to enforce his own taboos on free expression. In February, he told the Detroit Metro Times that the federal government should close the leading cable news channel. "I think it is outrageous that Fox Cable News is allowed to run that operation the way it runs it," he said in summarizing his view that Fox "is polluting the information environment." He went on to claim that "in the 1960s the FCC would have closed it down. It's an index of how corrupt our governmental institutions have become, that the FCC lets this go on."
Appointing someone as hotheaded and intolerant as Mr. Cole to a prestigious appointment at Yale wouldn't seem to make any sense. The drive to hire him can be explained in part by the same impulses that prompted Yale to admit Mr. Hashemi. "Perhaps the folks who still want to let Taliban Man into the degree program are also thinking Cole would make a great faculty advisor for him," jokes Mr. Taylor, the alumnus leading the NailYale protest.
But that might not be a joke. Many Yale faculty members are deadly serious about wanting Mr. Cole to become their newest colleague, and their views hold great sway. Unlike at Harvard, the university president at Yale has no power to veto the faculty's hiring choice. So even if the admissions department rejects Mr. Hashemi's application for the fall semester, Yale may jump out of the Taliban frying pan and into the Cole fire.
Clarification
Prof. Cole says that the statement that he "calls Israel 'the most dangerous regime in the Middle East' " is libelous because what he really wrote was, "The most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East is that of Ariel Sharon."
Hmmm, but wouldn't that mean that the signs of Yamul Qiyamma have been going on since, oh, the death of Ali?
Re: The Taliban
I am happy to provide some level of amusement, but the cheap shot would be to ask whether you have ever thought about the oddity of God providing so much for kafirs and so little for Muslims. But I won't. I'll ask the more theologically interesting - in the West God is widely said to help those who help themselves. I believe Muslims says something similar to the effect that God does not change anyone's circumstance until they make an effort. Do you think that relying on God alone is enough or if you have to make an effort to provide for a real economy, what are the first steps in doing that?
Which of course still does not change the fact that billions of people are alive today because America has created so much wealth in the world.
I am happy to provide some level of amusement, but the cheap shot would be to ask whether you have ever thought about the oddity of God providing so much for kafirs and so little for Muslims. But I won't. I'll ask the more theologically interesting - in the West God is widely said to help those who help themselves. I believe Muslims says something similar to the effect that God does not change anyone's circumstance until they make an effort. Do you think that relying on God alone is enough or if you have to make an effort to provide for a real economy, what are the first steps in doing that?
Which of course still does not change the fact that billions of people are alive today because America has created so much wealth in the world.
cool_jannah
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 233
- Reaction score
- 23
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Re: The Taliban
Why? Don't you wanna know why the kuffar have been gieven so much?
Since this world is like a paradise for the kuffar, they are allowed to live their lives to the fullest, whatever they can enjoy, all their good deeds are paid off right in this world. Once they die in the state of disbelief, thats it, eternal burning, which is a lot of burning. Yet, the kuffar are so arrogant and full of themselves that they refuse to accept the Oneness of their Lord who created and them and provided them with all of what they needed. I see the kuffar as the biggest losers who will soon realize what they have put themselves into.
.
The first steps are that the Muslims come back to the Shari'a of Islam.
Nonsense. What America has done is the opposite. They have killed more people (by making weapons of mass destruction) than they have saved. People forget easily all those atrocities that America has done.
I did not expect something so absurd to come from you heiguo. Here is a link. Perhaps this might enlighten you with some of the favors of America on the world in general
Chronology of American State Terrorism
Why? Don't you wanna know why the kuffar have been gieven so much?
Since this world is like a paradise for the kuffar, they are allowed to live their lives to the fullest, whatever they can enjoy, all their good deeds are paid off right in this world. Once they die in the state of disbelief, thats it, eternal burning, which is a lot of burning. Yet, the kuffar are so arrogant and full of themselves that they refuse to accept the Oneness of their Lord who created and them and provided them with all of what they needed. I see the kuffar as the biggest losers who will soon realize what they have put themselves into.
Absolutely ture. You make sense Heigu once in a while
.The first steps are that the Muslims come back to the Shari'a of Islam.
Nonsense. What America has done is the opposite. They have killed more people (by making weapons of mass destruction) than they have saved. People forget easily all those atrocities that America has done.
I did not expect something so absurd to come from you heiguo. Here is a link. Perhaps this might enlighten you with some of the favors of America on the world in general
Chronology of American State Terrorism
Re: The Taliban
Well I would but I doubt that the discussion would get very far or be particularly productive.
So we are being actively rewarded for our disbelief? Wow. That's an odd concept.
Reasonable enough I suppose although it is worth pointing out the Afghan economy collapsed and was in free fall.
Of course you expected something so absurd from me - I am a kafir remember!
But the claim they have killed more with WMD (when in fact America has killed very few people) than they have saved (how do you calculate how many people Hitler or Communism might have killed if not for the Americans?) is wrong. Besides it does not include the benefits of economic and scientific progress.
So about two thirds of the world's population are alive today because of American economic and scientific leadership. The period of American domination has been a period of enormous economic and hence population growth.
Well I would but I doubt that the discussion would get very far or be particularly productive.
So we are being actively rewarded for our disbelief? Wow. That's an odd concept.
Absolutely ture. You make sense Heigu once in a while
The first steps are that the Muslims come back to the Shari'a of Islam.
Reasonable enough I suppose although it is worth pointing out the Afghan economy collapsed and was in free fall.
Of course you expected something so absurd from me - I am a kafir remember!
But the claim they have killed more with WMD (when in fact America has killed very few people) than they have saved (how do you calculate how many people Hitler or Communism might have killed if not for the Americans?) is wrong. Besides it does not include the benefits of economic and scientific progress.
The last 70 years of the 20th century saw the biggest increase in the world's population in human history. The following table shows when each billion milestone was met:
* 1 billion was reached in 1802.
* 2 billion was reached 125 years later in 1927.
* 3 billion was reached 34 years later in 1961.
* 4 billion was reached 13 years later in 1974.
* 5 billion was reached 13 years later in 1987.
* 6 billion was reached 12 years later in 1999.
From the figures above, the world's population has tripled in 72 years, and doubled in 38 years up to the year of 1999.
Including a few more estimates (beginning with 250 million around AD 950 and ending with 8 billion in 2027), the world population was doubled by the following years (doubling times in parentheses):
* AD 950 (650) 1600 (202) 1802 (125) 1927 (47) 1974 (50) 2027,
or (beginning with 375 million around year 1420):
* 1420 (300) 1720 (155) 1875 (86) 1961 (38) 1999.
* 1 billion was reached in 1802.
* 2 billion was reached 125 years later in 1927.
* 3 billion was reached 34 years later in 1961.
* 4 billion was reached 13 years later in 1974.
* 5 billion was reached 13 years later in 1987.
* 6 billion was reached 12 years later in 1999.
From the figures above, the world's population has tripled in 72 years, and doubled in 38 years up to the year of 1999.
Including a few more estimates (beginning with 250 million around AD 950 and ending with 8 billion in 2027), the world population was doubled by the following years (doubling times in parentheses):
* AD 950 (650) 1600 (202) 1802 (125) 1927 (47) 1974 (50) 2027,
or (beginning with 375 million around year 1420):
* 1420 (300) 1720 (155) 1875 (86) 1961 (38) 1999.
So about two thirds of the world's population are alive today because of American economic and scientific leadership. The period of American domination has been a period of enormous economic and hence population growth.
mahdisoldier19
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 783
- Reaction score
- 47
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
So , some people dont care about economy.
You see the problem with america is that your Economy comes First then your idiology. Why? because if a man has alot of money he can get away with anything in america with many lawyers.
However in Afghanistan under taliban theyre idiology came first safety of the people then economy. You seem to misunderstand everything under the taliban heigou. They had to first secure the country. Not any govt in this world did it but the taliban did. Let them secure the country first then economy comes in. Thats a MASS misconception about the taliban. Theyre economy. Let them secure the country first which they never got a complete chance to do however they did accomplish what others have failed and that is take over 95 percent of hte land.
You see the problem with america is that your Economy comes First then your idiology. Why? because if a man has alot of money he can get away with anything in america with many lawyers.
However in Afghanistan under taliban theyre idiology came first safety of the people then economy. You seem to misunderstand everything under the taliban heigou. They had to first secure the country. Not any govt in this world did it but the taliban did. Let them secure the country first then economy comes in. Thats a MASS misconception about the taliban. Theyre economy. Let them secure the country first which they never got a complete chance to do however they did accomplish what others have failed and that is take over 95 percent of hte land.
Well, these people expect the Taliban or any other Muslim leadership to become 'enlightened' somehow and start blooming in all fields. They need to understand that the Taliban were only making order out of the chaos left behind after the cold war. Afghanistan was a country that was played with. They isolated the Taliban because they followed Shari'a! Not because of any other reason.
- Status