We constantly hear from Islamist apologists, that if the west had not interfered in the middle east, then Islam would be all peace and love.

Now, that the western powers did use their power injudiciously, is pretty well accepted, poor decisions made in different times, led to much confrontation between middle eastern and western countries.

Self interested politicians did, and some still do, support pretty terrible regimes, and this is used as the justification for all the Islamist hatred of the west.

What I cannot help but wonder, is if the Islamic people had been left to their own devices, would we still be seeing this animosity between cultures?

Some think that the Islamic ambition of seeing the world converted into a single caliphate under Islamic rule, is an intrinsic part of their beliefs, and with the money accrued from their oil reserves, they would have developed expansionist policies to further that aim, with or without the justification of retribution for western interference.

It boils down to understanding what the religious/political, identity of Islam is, and whether, if we allow them the freedom to pursue all their goals, they will develop a mutually respectful relationship with the west, or if their aims for the Islamisation of the globe would remain?

Well I don't necessarily agree Jordan, I think the radicals have gotten far too much credibility, and their extremism has crept into the mindset of more muslims who seek to defend their beliefs, without really wanting any more than to be free to pursue their religion peacefully.

I even think that the western muslims would be happy to adjust their needs to be more conforming to western standards, if the radicals were recognised for the loonies that they are, and the Islamic leaders would identify the messages from their religion that are really important.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 10:15am:


Either way, their global importance will recede to their previous relative obscurity:

McCain: “In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."  (25/06/2008)

Obama: "And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East." (28/8/08)


When the rest of the developed world follows suit, it will be "goodnight from me and goodnight from him". If the west then extends its alternative technologies to the likes of China and India, the Middle East will sink back to where it was a hundred years ago.

gaybriel - maybe I should have put "islamics" instead of "they"

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 12:39pm:


or muslims seeing as islamics isn't actually a term

regardless- you are still referring to a 'they'

I think Gaybriel's referring to usage of 'they' as a collective and generalised other, rather than just as a pronoun of the third person plural...

Wouldn't expect you to be familiar with that usage though.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 7:42pm:


nope sorry- it's as abu said

if you don't understand the concept that's something different. my point remains as it was.

I don't need to confuse people or avoid particular issues- I'm straight up in what I say. however, some things are more complex and not as black and white as others would wish them to be. but if you want to blame me for the complexity of the world. hey- go ahead

Grendel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 1:37pm:


I think on the one hand I don't know enough about the topic to give an intelligent response to his question

and on the other hand I'm not even sure it's an intelligent question. it's quite loaded and there are many assumptions within it that I don't have the energy to analyse right now

if I do later I'll get back to you

oh and for the record- I wasn't trying to clear up points he made- I was pointing out their inherent hypocrisy that he is obviously blind to. it then became a matter of semantics when people were unable to understand my reference to the term 'they'