Denial is a disease. Most of the rich muslim nations invest in US corporations. Buy weapons and basically give countless pay checks to americans. The analogy of bread being baked might be the other way around.
The Arab states get an economic return that they could not generate domestically. They bring nothing to the table except the oil they export which the US chooses not to take by force outright.
The oil embargo in the 70s, if it were to happen again, would you accept it? We all remember how a coup in iran was planned. So lets not go there.
It's funny how all these arguments about Islamists valiantly fighting the West (which is why they all want to live here!) come down to "wouldn't happen again," "planned," "almost," "were going to." It's what Americans call "coulda shoulda woulda."
The fact of the matter is that raw materials are infinitely less important than the capacity to process them. The US has fracking now (for better or worse), and if that weren't an option, electric vehicles and genetically engineered plant-derived synthetics (e.g., corn plastic) are fully viable now.
At the end of the day, the fundamental problem is that the Islamic world has nothing to offer but oil, terrorism and warm bodies. Until that changes, Muslims will continue seeking to emigrate to the West and being blamed for the evils associated with their powerless culture.
It's really that simple, and it's unfortunate, because it doesn't have to be that way. The axiom that European Christians were living in caves while Jews were priests in the Temple of Solomon could just as easily apply to Muslims a few centuries from now. Ultimately, as one Muslim once said, the future belongs to those who prepare for it today. That isn't currently the case.
1. We did not cause the mess in Syria, and aren't involved in it. You however, are involved and partly to blame.
As I said, this is a strange argument. So the victims of a conflict should become citizens of the enemy power? Aggrieved Chinese victims of the Japanese occupation should move to Japan? Homeless Russians should move to Germany, or vice versa?
Can you give me any practical example of this principle?
We are a poor nation, we do not have the resources as it is to cope with refugees. You however, have money enough to bomb the place, and spend billions on that, why not take some of the refugees in?
What is your moral or factual basis for your premise that a wealthy country that has poor people living in it owes anything to poor countries with rich people living in them?
Bangladesh left Pakistan because of a perception that it wasn't getting its fair share of the pie...do you think Pakistan owes Bangladesh anything? Why not demand favors from the KSA or Qatar? After all, they're significantly responsible for this mess. Or is this just bigotry talking?
3. We already have had millions of Afghan refugees in our country since the 80's, even to this day we have millions more than any European nation. We also have internally displaced persons, Pakistanis, resulting from our own war.
Why haven't they been resettled? Your basic premise seems to be that Western countries are inherently more capable of solving problems. Do you think Pakistan should rejoin the British Empire? To be clear, that's a rhetorical question. My point is that all your arguments seem to in some way be premised on a total denial of national responsibility.
This is an odd topic. You're partly right, but take the US for example, if you asked most Christian Americans whether they support the laws of the Bible many would say yes, or simply ask them if they follow the Bible. Does that mean that they would support the punishments of the Bible and judgement systems to be made into law in their country? Nope. There are many laws of the Bible plenty of Christians chose to ignore. No reform came about as such, only liberalism in wider society, democracy and civil liberties, entirely political changes.
Such as?
You don't understand Christianity or the West. You live in the UK because it's better than Pakistan but you don't understand what makes it tick. Western civilization is fundamentally based on Judeo-Christian values - Ten Commandments, Golden Rule, Noahide Law, doctrine of salvation / tikkun olam, etc.
Now if you were to declare that the laws of the Bible ought to be changed or Christianity reformed, no doubt people will call you a heretic and all sorts.
Utterly false. It happens every day. Western civilization is awash in splinters and reforms of Christianity and Judaism. We don't go around screaming heretic at each other.
It's similar with Islam. Only it is worse on our side because of the higher numbers of extremists and literalists. We also aren't nearly as developed as even the US, nor as liberal, the US has had some 200+ years of steady evolution, expansion of civil rights, economic development, education and their own societal enlightenment. We Muslim nations are hardly half a century past Colonial rule, we still suffer from sectarian conflicts as a result of the colonial mess, we've had non-stop war, and hardly any economic development, no enlightenment. My point is, the lack of room for reform of Islam, did not cause the Taliban, hell on earth caused by politics left them vulnerable to this sort of thing, and all it took was a bit of sustained effort by some powers to make use of that situation in radicalising the country. Again, political circumstances we're talking about here, not Islam.
You confuse effect with cause. The entire Third World hit the starting line at the same time the Islamic world did - China, Brazil, Korea, India, on and on. The problems you describe are largely unique to the Islamic world (possible exception being Africa).
In fact, I would be so bold to say that had Christianity have been in place of Islam in Afghanistan in 1979, we would see the Christian taliban today, if all political factors remained unchanged ceteris paribus.
This has been tested and failed in both Israel (Christian Arabs settling down, while Hamas and Fatah become radical Islamic movements) and places like Latin America where there is both poverty and chaos and evangelical Christianity.
So, reforming Islam is not the issue here. Take Afghanistan for example, it was 10 years of occupation, total near 100% brain drain, all politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, cultured intellectuals fled, entire generations grew up without any education or opportunities in a war environment. Then came the radicalisation through various means, some of it foreign and through Pakistan, the US, Saudi Arabia.
So long as Muslims believe this, there is no future for Islam.
Blaming others is never a recipe for success in the life of an individual nor the history of a nation. It's really that simple.
This is a discussion I've not looked into, or considered for that matter. But it is unlikely. The Biblical reforms you are talking about were not the result of the enlightenment era or willing efforts to improve, but rather accidental, unintended consequences of sects, translations, omissions, and also wilful alteration as in the case of Henry VII for personal gain.
This is a core fallacy ubiquitous in the Islamic dialogue, and it is why so many Westerners feel quite comfortable blaming Islam for terrorism. The Islamic belief that success and wealth on the part of infidels are cosmic accidents, and that all that can be done by Muslims is to appropriate said wealth and success.
A fundamental difference in Judeo-Christian versus Islamic belief that runs right to the core of our respective societies is the concept of personal responsibility,
mea culpa, vs
insha'allah. The distinction defines us as individuals, it defines us as cultures, and it defines the outcomes of our entire civilizations.
But truly, every form of Islam that can exist does exist already, there's the ultra liberal extremist that has nothing to do with Islam at all, right down to the literalist, and the extremist on the other end. The question is not to ask whether it is possible... it is possible, and these versions exist already, it is to ask whether it is possible for different versions or interpretations to gain momentum and popularity in the Muslim world.
It seems to me you are self-consciously making an argument at odds with itself. Is Islam organically different from other religions such that it struggles with liberalization or isn't it?
Count me as one of those Americans. Pollard being released from jail was an absolute disgrace in my opinion.
I am Jewish, but I would also agree. Actually I think the release was timed to make Israel look bad. I don't see myself bearing my country's government a grudge. I don't think any substantial number of American Jews will either.