Clash of Civilizations-Your Views-Are really in a us versus them scenario?

[rcrmj]

I think after we discovered aliens then we gonna have a good excuse and insentive to be united``until then we are gonna ***** around each other

 

[Bang Galore]

Two comments:

1. Mr. Huntington was smoking some high grade Colombian produce when he came up with this idea.
2. I want some too.

If you find whatever it is that Samuel Huntington was smoking, you should get it & it won't be too soon. Whatever it is that you are smoking now doesn't seem to be working. Huntington's thesis was a brilliant piece of work & the reason that many get personal with their remarks is probably because there is more than a bit of truth in it. To imply that it is all mumbo-jumbo is to be downright silly. There is a clash of civilisations happening & pretty much on the lines advanced by Huntington. One can argue whether it will be the most significant factor or not but to pretend that there is no clash is simply to deny the obvious. The reason that many in the west say that they don't believe in Huntington's theory is more to do with being politically correct than with any real difference in actual opinion. Pakistanis anyway should subscribe to that thesis since it was in the very same foundation that Pakistan was created. Jinnah's famous argument on Hindu & Muslim nations being separate would have been a valid argument to buttress Huntington's thesis.

A clash is certainly happening, whether that would assume as drastic a face assumed by Huntington is the only question remaining.

 

[Hussein]

I think after we discovered aliens then we gonna have a good excuse and insentive to be united``until then we are gonna ***** around each other

like in the movie Independance Day?

 

[roadrunner]

You can see what the clash of civilizations is on this thread alone.

Anyone with an Indian flag agrees that it is real. Anyone without an Indian flag sees it purely as fiction.

If it was real, there would be more non indians saying it is true.

The clash of civilizations is a means by which people (indians etc) HOPE to polarize world opinion.

 

[PakShah]

You can see what the clash of civilizations is on this thread alone.

Anyone with an Indian flag agrees that it is real. Anyone without an Indian flag sees it purely as fiction.

If it was real, there would be more non indians saying it is true.

The clash of civilizations is a means by which people (indians etc) HOPE to polarize world opinion.

Well I believe there is at least some truth to the Clash of Civilizations Theory. Bangalore raised the Partition of the British Raj. Could that be example of a "Clash of Civilizations."

Certainly yes, some Muslims did not want to live in a country where Hindus would be the majority.

And so what if the world is polarized? The world is polarized!

The West doesn't like Muslims.

China-Pakistan relationship could be termed as a alliance between the Islamic civilization and Chinese civilization.

 

[gambit]

The land that you are calling the 'Islamic civilisation' actually encompasses very ancient civilisations. The Egyptian civilisation is more than 4000 years old as is the Mesopotamian and the Persian civilisation. The land on which Pakistan exists today is the one over which the Indus Valley Civilisation flourished 4000 years ago. All these civilisations predate Islam by nearly 2500 years. Does religion imply civilisation? I think not. If that be the foundation of your thesis, then why not paint all of Russia and South America in deep blue and call the whole big blue blob the Christian civilisation?

Religion does not make up a civilisation, it is a very small component of it. Tell me, how can Indonesians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Turks and Bosnian Muslims be part of the same civilisation? Just because they are all Muslims?
Are Russians from Vladivastok, Americans from Boston, Peruvians and Filipinos part of the same civilisation because they are all Christians?

As a Bengali Hindu, I find that I have more in common with Bangladeshis than I have with say, a Malayali from Kerala or someone from Goa. Religion is not an issue here at all.

I disagree with the highlighted. I have said it before and will say it again: We do not live in an intellectual and moral vacuum.

Religious moralities and principles set the foundations of every societies, be they politically unified or divided and this is where the confusion lies: Religious versus ideological/political differences and divisions. Ideological differences and divisions spans across nation-state entities. Political differences and divisions are localized or confined to inside the borders of these nation-state entities. So if a nation-state can have a civil war that is the result of irreconcilable political differences, or if nation-states can war against each other over ideological differences, why is it impossible and/or improbable that blocs of nation-state societies that shares similar if not identical religious moralities and principles can war against each other? Not at all.

 

[gambit]

If you find whatever it is that Samuel Huntington was smoking, you should get it & it won't be too soon. Whatever it is that you are smoking now doesn't seem to be working. Huntington's thesis was a brilliant piece of work & the reason that many get personal with their remarks is probably because there is more than a bit of truth in it.

Very good......It is a truth that is:

- Unrecognized.
- Refused to recognize.
- Not yet matured.
- Suppressed.

Examine one's self and take a selection.

 

[474474]

I don't know how easily people neglect Islamic Civilization which ruled over the World for 1300 years.

Nationalism is forbidden in Islam.

Nationalism is confirmed within the Qur'an Fascism is forbidden by common sense

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------

The land that you are calling the 'Islamic civilisation' actually encompasses very ancient civilisations. The Egyptian civilisation is more than 4000 years old as is the Mesopotamian and the Persian civilisation. The land on which Pakistan exists today is the one over which the Indus Valley Civilisation flourished 4000 years ago. All these civilisations predate Islam by nearly 2500 years. Does religion imply civilisation? I think not. If that be the foundation of your thesis, then why not paint all of Russia and South America in deep blue and call the whole big blue blob the Christian civilisation?

Religion does not make up a civilisation, it is a very small component of it. Tell me, how can Indonesians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Turks and Bosnian Muslims be part of the same civilisation? Just because they are all Muslims?
Are Russians from Vladivastok, Americans from Boston, Peruvians and Filipinos part of the same civilisation because they are all Christians?

As a Bengali Hindu, I find that I have more in common with Bangladeshis than I have with say, a Malayali from Kerala or someone from Goa. Religion is not an issue here at all.

ANy particular reason you mentioned filopinos? Many are just wannabe americans

 

[harpoon]

I think after we discovered aliens then we gonna have a good excuse and insentive to be united``until then we are gonna ***** around each other

What if the aliens are friendly? We will still fight over who will get the 'inter gallatic trade agreement' from them.

 

[roadrunner]

Well I believe there is at least some truth to the Clash of Civilizations Theory. Bangalore raised the Partition of the British Raj. Could that be example of a "Clash of Civilizations."

Certainly yes, some Muslims did not want to live in a country where Hindus would be the majority.

And so what if the world is polarized? The world is polarized!

The West doesn't like Muslims.

China-Pakistan relationship could be termed as a alliance between the Islamic civilization and Chinese civilization.

Muslims could easily live with Hindus in India. This wasn't a problem. Already 250 million Muslims live there, minus the odd genocide like in Gujerat.

Political representation would be the problem. Why should Pakistan which was historically seperate from India be a part of India? There was no reason.

 

[roadrunner]

The clash of civilization is a bogus concept that changes from generation to generation.

Before it was communism and freedom, now it's Islam.. tomorrow it shall be?

 

[gambit]

The clash of civilization is a bogus concept that changes from generation to generation.

Why and how is it a 'bogus' concept? Because it changes? If that is your argument, then before you can make it you need to explain the various intellectual and moral differences and divisions that humanity created.

Before it was communism and freedom, now it's Islam.. tomorrow it shall be?

And before them it was the Christians against the Muslims, the Christians against the pagans, the Romans against the Christians, and so on...

 

[roadrunner]

There isn't any clash of civilization. There's competition between nations to overpower each other and gain resources. That is an eternal source of conflict.

The clash of civilization is a convenient excuse to point out foes based on ideology. For example, none of those grouped civilizations are monocultural. The Islamic ones are not for sure, Eastern Europe, again not, Western Europe hardly. If the clash of civilization were true, it wouldn't be possible for migrants from one group to go to live in the other (because the civilizations clash). This is proven rubbish. There is only a clash of civilization when people make one.

 

[roadrunner]

The timeframe does make it a bogus concept imo.

If in one timeframe the clash is with Pagan, then it switches to Communists, then it switches to Muslims, that shows that something else is causing the clash in civilization other than culture.

 

[fallstuff]

These books are authored for right consumption loaded with red meat .