Hi Doug,

Thanks for the reply mate, it was very informative and appreciated, alot i agree with. I will be replying back to you later, i just had a quick read now, but im on my lunch, so dont have the time. Keep an eye out for the reply.

Ozi

Millions and millions of dead Germans and the survivors eating garbage and grass.
I know. My mother-inlaw is German and she was there.
For many years after that if a group of the young even heard someone spouting old party lines the group would beat the unholy crap out of them.
It effectively turned one generation against the other. That was the break that changed things.

My father was with the 11th Armored Division in WWII. He told me of seeing people eating grass and charcoal. The reasoning on the charcoal being that it was a hydrocarbon and might have some nutrient value. He also showed me pictures of a concentration camp (Mauthausen, I think); there were bodies piled like cordwood between the buildings.

When someone tries to tell me that the Holocaust didn't happen, I remember those pictures.
Doug

We should not forget what allowed Germans to do as they did to begin with. After WWI the demands placed on the country were too harsh. The falling of the banks and the subsequent depression caused money to be worthless, a wheelbarrow full of it could not buy a loaf of bread, so Hitler brought them security in these matters. There is also the historical issue of Germans treating Jews harshly way before WW2. Placing them in ghettos, making them wear yellow stars, and massacres all go back to the medieval times when such things first happened.

Anne Frank says it best:

[quote name='Ozi' date='May 2 2008, 08:13 PM' post='2278260']

The whole purpose of WW1 was to destroy what was left of the islamic empire and bring about the plans for an Isreali state, by occupying and dividing the arabs.







And how pray did you reach that conclusion.



fullywired

At the time England and America were in deep depression, it was just has bad in the UK as Germany,
It starts here with the rise of German nationalism and a collective hatred of jews among these men the Kaiser wanted to be a world power, the German people found defeat very hard to take in affect there was only one world war in Germany WW2 was round 2

double post

I agree generally hetrodoxly that WW2 was round two but nationalism itself was not unique to Germany nor were aspirations of becoming a world power.

[quote name='Doug1o29' date='May 5 2008, 01:28 PM' post='2282808']
I thought I made a mistake, but I was wrong (What? Again?).

I spent yesterday afternoon exchanging emails with afriend of mine in Colorado, a retired professor of economics. We discussed some of the issues brought up on this thread. He is on the editorial board of the on-line magazine "The Quaker Economist" (http://tqe.quaker.org) and has published many books and papers on economics and how that science can be used to solve many of the problems that we have been discussing. He speaks Swahili (I think.) and I have heard him address audiences in both English and Spanish. He has dedicated one decade of his life to the study of each continent and its history, culture and economic circumstances. He has lived on each of the five continents. You would be hard-pressed to find anybody who knows more about the world's people, governments and resources than this man.

According to him, what seems like Islam's unwillingness to negotiate, may be a cultural rather than a religious characteristic. According to him, there are two major characteristics that distinguish wealthy nations from impoversihed ones. These are:

1. War. Wealthy nations have not suffered extensive damage to their infrastructure as a result of war. What about WWII? That was 60 years ago; a lot of repair has been done in that time and the US sent extensive aid (The Marshall Plan) to rebuild Europe and Japan. Since then much of the third world, including many Muslim countries, has been involved in warfare, some of it imposed on them from the outside and some of it self-inflicted. Continuing warfare impedes or destroys their chances for economic development and brings poverty as a result.

2. Merchantilism. Wealthy countries have a history of merchantilism and of small business owners uniting against their rulers to secure legal rights and the underlying legal basis for building wealth. Everyone who has ever run a small business knows he has to make deals. The ability to do this varies with the country and does NOT correlate with religion. The countries' laws must protect these deals (or agreements/contracts). A business owner who has been the victim of fraud or ineptitude MUST be able to seek legal redress in court. Countries that do not have the necessary laws to protect businesses from each other and from their governments, will not be able to amass wealth and will remain poor. Of course it's not quite that simple: the necessary laws must create a banking system and many other components of a business system. And, THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE BOUND BY THOSE SAME LAWS. Much of the Third World is poor because its governments have failed to create the necessary legal systems needed to make them wealthy. The west is wealthy because it has done its homework and has been doing it since the 14th century.

3. Personal Liberty. Most of the wealth of rich countries is the result of invention and innovation. These flourish best where people are free to challenge old assumptions and ways of doing things. The spin-off is ideas that produce new wealth. But the process also produces challenges to power establishments, religion and many other facets of life. For this reason, the power establishments and religious leaders try to control thought and speech. Once this situation induces a climate of fear, innovation dies. As soon as new ideas develop elsewhere, the country's welath moves out, leaving poverty in its wake. Oppressive business owners are detsroying their own businesses when they suppress criticism. Dictators, governments and ayatollahs who do not allow the free flow of ideas, are impoverishing their own people.

These things are not directly the result of religion. They are the result of culture (which includes religion). It is not Islam that makes its people poor, but the things that are associated with religion (not just Islam) that make people poor. Note that there is a considerable difference in wealth among Muslims of southeast Asia, Malaysia and the Philipines and those of the Arab world. Saudi Arabia is incredibly rich due to its petroleum reserves, but if the necessary legal systems and respect for others' opinions aren't in place when the oil runs out, that wealth will quickly vanish.

So we have come full circle: to get along, you must go along. One must be willing to concede something to the other guy in order to get something in return. If the Arab world (or any other world) wants to be rich, it has to be willing to deal. If Islam wants to be part of the 21st Century, it will have to give up somthing from the Seventh Century. Wealth will bring a whole new set of problems, not all of which will be to Islam's liking, but that's the deal. If you want to be rich, you must do the things that are needed to make you rich. Blaming it on America won't help.



Doug,

i am neither an economist or an academician, but this is what i observed from real life situation.

I am from India. My state is Andhra Pradesh. My capital city is Hyderabad. when india gained independence most of the places in my state were under muslim rule, not only hyderabad which was under Nizam's rule but small citys, towns, village clusters were under nawab's rule. Hyderabad and large part of the state which was ruled by Nizam's is a muslim stronghold, so when india attained independence Nizam refused to join india though most of the commoners are hindus who desperately wanted to join india and escape the oppression of Nizam. They called them Razakar's it was truly unbearable. Finally Sardar vallabhai Patel (our first home minister) was brave enough to attach with army and capture hyderabad and liberate people. i am giving this because i just want you to understand what the situation was. India's division itself is based on theology and hyderabad is controlled by muslim elites so inevitably communal clashes happened. They were bad everytime for every reason they used to happen. muslims and hindus hated each other and did not trust. most of these clashes used to happen in old city where predominantly muslims resided with pockets of hindu areas. this area is not where economy was paying a major role. it was religion, they used to call it 'little pakistan'. This is i am talking about in 70's and 80's. my father never allowed us to go to hyderabad (we are from interior part of the stae). he was scared hyderabad is like a bomb waiting to go off. But everything is changed now. you know why it is because people realised the importance of education and opportunities which opened up in the form of BPO's and IT operations. Now hyderabad is so vibrant, it is filled with educational institutes, bright young people filled with dreams. my dad says i wish i bought an apartment in hyderabad. this says all to me. This happened because both muslims and hindus realised in earning good income, getting good education and having a better life. thats what i say to both muslims and hindus. dont wear religion on your sleeves. leave it at home. enjoy life make god personal. your god is not my god and stop preaching. The solution to most problems is economy. Bigotry is nothing but a byproduct of bad economy. i see so much change in india. i know there are many problems but i see so much hope too. India should learn from her past mistakes and prepare for the future. may be i am a dreamer but my dream is for a better world.

Kashmiris are overwhelmingly muslim. If hyderabad joined india. Kashmir should be able to join Pakistan. Dont you think thats fair? and will bring everlasting peace?

Has anybody asked the Kashmiris what they think? Doug

I think thats an excellant solution.

In all fairness, the spreading of Islam "by the sword" was not as common as popularly believed in the west. It was used mostly against those who made the mistake of fighting after having been offered the chance to surrender. If the invaded country/territory surrendered peacefully, the Muslim conquerors were usually quite generous and allowed them to continue their own ways and keep their own religions; although, efforts to persuade them to voluntarily adopt Islam continued.

Many prisoners of war, in order to avoid execution or sale into slavery, became instant Muslims. All they needed to do was say "I believe there is but one God, Allah, and Muhammed is his Prophet." "I believe there is but one God, Allah, and Muhammed is his Prophet." Say it three times and you were a Muslim and, hopefully, would be granted better treatment. As I have already said it twice, if you want to know what I said, go back and read it for yourself. This is likely the source of many "by the sword" accounts.

Were Muslims involved in the slave trade? Arab bedouins kept slaves as late as the 1930s. "Skeletons on the Saqara" is a book about shipwrecked Americans who were kidnapped and sold as slaves in the 19th century. So is "The Tradgedy of the Korosko."

Slave traders didn't always accord a person special treatment just because they were Muslim. Many Muslims were also sold as slaves; usually, these were enemies taken in battle, but sometimes they were prisoners captured on slave raids.
Doug

Just want to say that I have felt the intense religious atmosphere of a mosque here in Bangor and thought it was beautiful. Also just to let you know that I think Islam is a one religion that has lots to offer on the nature of God and reality.

Sunnis make up roughly 90% of all Muslims, and have thoroughly oppressed the much smaller sects. Rashad Khalifa himself was murdered in 1990 while visiting a Mosque in Arizona. Shias are the targets of much violence in Pakistan, and it is actually against the law to be a Shia in Malaysia! Many Islamic Sheikhs speak out against Sufi Islam, and countless Sunni religious leaders openly preach violence against those of the Ahmedi and Qadianni sects. Such oppression is easily accepted by Sunnis, as they believe they are punishing heretics, whom God himself hates. This is especially true of Shias, as many Sunnis believe that Shia Islam was started by the Jews.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/den.../islamhell.html

Sufi Islam is my favourite form of Islam. Jalal-uddin Rumi's works taste of eternity.