Islam, what the West needs to know

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Alqaeeda disguise themselves and protectors of Islam. The rest are fighting a political rather than a religious battle. Its wrong to group all of them into one becuase they have NO SIMILARITIES. Just because they are religious does not mean they are fighting for religion.

The original text appears in the first post in this thread illustrates this point very well. Islam is political as much as its religious.

Saddam and Iran have never done anything that has caused the life of any American.

Don't say they supported Hezbollah becuase there is no proof. And even if there was, Hezbollah is not a religious movement.

What proof are you lacking? Does Nasarallah not holding very close relations with Khaminai? Isn't the Iranian regime deeply involved in Hizbullah conduct? Who arms Hizbullah? Who trains them? I don't need proofs, it has been stated by the Iranian THEMSELVES.

Saddam was the most secular leader Iraq has had.

Saddam was indeed relatively secular, but his brutal behavior looks in place in this region. I wonder why.

Also according to the US government

is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

What made America's invasion or Israeli agression lawful? Who decides what the law is?

What made the boming in Hiroshima lawful? A nation doesn't obey laws, it does what it needs to survive.

So if the US was a threat to Afghanistan, do you say the 9/11 bombings were justified becuase it was a matter of survival? You are just contradicting yourself becuase you have strong hatred for a people. Im afraid you are brainwashed and there is noway you will see the light. The only solution is to ban you for racial slurs.

When did I say the US was a threat to Afghanistan? You aren't just making things up now, are you?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: jpeyton
And I guess you're going to tell us Born Again Christians are peaceful too?

If Islam was entirely a religion of conflict, we'd have 1.2 billion suicide bombers on our hands. As it stands, we only seem to have problems with bombers in countries that the US or Israel is occupying.

Thousands of terrorists out of 1.2 billion Muslims does not make the religion less peaceful. Should we count the 125,000 soldiers in Iraq against Christianity because they are over there making war?

Yes. Like Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany, Iran... need I go on?

The problem is not the active terrorists, but the support these have in the general population.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand here for you. Like your country has an army and you support it, the Islami population sees the terrorists as its army and supports them.

Now you say the US has problems with Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany?

What do you think is then the solution to this?

Please, jpeyton stated that Bombers only appear in countries under occupation from Israel or US, while the truth is that they are everywhere, with no apparent reason. No one did the British Muslims community any harm and yet they raise terrorists. Why?

The solution for terrorists in the west would be quick and brutal deporation of them and their families, and actively breaking apart closed Muslim communities by spreading their members along the country, thus forcing them to integrate. Those who haven't managed to do so and still hold exteremist values should be deported. Those who adapted to the West should be treated fairly just any other citizen.

So peaceful fundamentalists should be treated the same way that terrorists are?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Alqaeeda disguise themselves and protectors of Islam. The rest are fighting a political rather than a religious battle. Its wrong to group all of them into one becuase they have NO SIMILARITIES. Just because they are religious does not mean they are fighting for religion.

The original text appears in the first post in this thread illustrates this point very well. Islam is political as much as its religious.

Saddam and Iran have never done anything that has caused the life of any American.

Don't say they supported Hezbollah becuase there is no proof. And even if there was, Hezbollah is not a religious movement.

What proof are you lacking? Does Nasarallah not holding very close relations with Khaminai? Isn't the Iranian regime deeply involved in Hizbullah conduct? Who arms Hizbullah? Who trains them? I don't need proofs, it has been stated by the Iranian THEMSELVES.

Saddam was the most secular leader Iraq has had.

Saddam was indeed relatively secular, but his brutal behavior looks in place in this region. I wonder why.

Also according to the US government

is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

What made America's invasion or Israeli agression lawful? Who decides what the law is?

What made the boming in Hiroshima lawful? A nation doesn't obey laws, it does what it needs to survive.

So if the US was a threat to Afghanistan, do you say the 9/11 bombings were justified becuase it was a matter of survival? You are just contradicting yourself becuase you have strong hatred for a people. Im afraid you are brainwashed and there is noway you will see the light. The only solution is to ban you for racial slurs.

When did I say the US was a threat to Afghanistan? You aren't just making things up now, are you?

I say it was as it was proved in the Aghanistan war. Thousands of Afghans were killed.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
A martian my generalize and destroy the Earth becuae he thinks that the Earth in its entirety supports terrorists. Will he me entitled to kill Americans just becuase of an Osama bin Laden which they have been unable to catch?

When did I say Muslims must be killed for being Muslims? My idea is leaving themselves for their own devices, let them sort themselves out as a democracy over the next 100-200 years. But punish - yes, punish - them for any unprovoked aggression towards the West.

 

[The Green Bean]

Why Genralize the total muslim population? 95%+ terrorists are wahabis.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: jpeyton
And I guess you're going to tell us Born Again Christians are peaceful too?

If Islam was entirely a religion of conflict, we'd have 1.2 billion suicide bombers on our hands. As it stands, we only seem to have problems with bombers in countries that the US or Israel is occupying.

Thousands of terrorists out of 1.2 billion Muslims does not make the religion less peaceful. Should we count the 125,000 soldiers in Iraq against Christianity because they are over there making war?

Yes. Like Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany, Iran... need I go on?

The problem is not the active terrorists, but the support these have in the general population.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand here for you. Like your country has an army and you support it, the Islami population sees the terrorists as its army and supports them.

Now you say the US has problems with Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany?

What do you think is then the solution to this?

Please, jpeyton stated that Bombers only appear in countries under occupation from Israel or US, while the truth is that they are everywhere, with no apparent reason. No one did the British Muslims community any harm and yet they raise terrorists. Why?

The solution for terrorists in the west would be quick and brutal deporation of them and their families, and actively breaking apart closed Muslim communities by spreading their members along the country, thus forcing them to integrate. Those who haven't managed to do so and still hold exteremist values should be deported. Those who adapted to the West should be treated fairly just any other citizen.

So peaceful fundamentalists should be treated the same way that terrorists are?

What's a peaceful Islamic fundamentalists? All Islamic fundamentalists that I know of believe that Islam should replace the West as the dominant force in the world. How's that peaceful?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Why Genralize the total muslim population? 95%+ terrorists are wahabis.

SHENS. Go ahead and show me ONE proof of this. The Wahabis are another problem altogether, but they don't pose an immediate threat as their fundamentalism won't allow them the means for global terror. How many Wahabi communities are there anyway outside Saudi Arabia and Qatar anyway? Certainly not many in the West, if at all.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: jpeyton
And I guess you're going to tell us Born Again Christians are peaceful too?

If Islam was entirely a religion of conflict, we'd have 1.2 billion suicide bombers on our hands. As it stands, we only seem to have problems with bombers in countries that the US or Israel is occupying.

Thousands of terrorists out of 1.2 billion Muslims does not make the religion less peaceful. Should we count the 125,000 soldiers in Iraq against Christianity because they are over there making war?

Yes. Like Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany, Iran... need I go on?

The problem is not the active terrorists, but the support these have in the general population.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand here for you. Like your country has an army and you support it, the Islami population sees the terrorists as its army and supports them.

Now you say the US has problems with Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany?

What do you think is then the solution to this?

Please, jpeyton stated that Bombers only appear in countries under occupation from Israel or US, while the truth is that they are everywhere, with no apparent reason. No one did the British Muslims community any harm and yet they raise terrorists. Why?

The solution for terrorists in the west would be quick and brutal deporation of them and their families, and actively breaking apart closed Muslim communities by spreading their members along the country, thus forcing them to integrate. Those who haven't managed to do so and still hold exteremist values should be deported. Those who adapted to the West should be treated fairly just any other citizen.

So peaceful fundamentalists should be treated the same way that terrorists are?

What's a peaceful Islamic fundamentalists? All Islamic fundamentalists that I know of believe that Islam should replace the West as the dominant force in the world. How's that peaceful?

Which fundamentalist do you know? Im a fundamentalists with no such beleif. I do not care.

Do you beleive that the west should remain the dominant force in the world?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Why Genralize the total muslim population? 95%+ terrorists are wahabis.

SHENS. Go ahead and show me ONE proof of this. The Wahabis are another problem altogether, but they don't pose an immediate threat as their fundamentalism won't allow them the means for global terror. How many Wahabi communities are there anyway outside Saudi Arabia and Qatar anyway? Certainly not many in the West, if at all.

Osama bin Laden and elite Alqaeeda members are all wahabis.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: jpeyton
And I guess you're going to tell us Born Again Christians are peaceful too?

If Islam was entirely a religion of conflict, we'd have 1.2 billion suicide bombers on our hands. As it stands, we only seem to have problems with bombers in countries that the US or Israel is occupying.

Thousands of terrorists out of 1.2 billion Muslims does not make the religion less peaceful. Should we count the 125,000 soldiers in Iraq against Christianity because they are over there making war?

Yes. Like Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany, Iran... need I go on?

The problem is not the active terrorists, but the support these have in the general population.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand here for you. Like your country has an army and you support it, the Islami population sees the terrorists as its army and supports them.

Now you say the US has problems with Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany?

What do you think is then the solution to this?

Please, jpeyton stated that Bombers only appear in countries under occupation from Israel or US, while the truth is that they are everywhere, with no apparent reason. No one did the British Muslims community any harm and yet they raise terrorists. Why?

The solution for terrorists in the west would be quick and brutal deporation of them and their families, and actively breaking apart closed Muslim communities by spreading their members along the country, thus forcing them to integrate. Those who haven't managed to do so and still hold exteremist values should be deported. Those who adapted to the West should be treated fairly just any other citizen.

So peaceful fundamentalists should be treated the same way that terrorists are?

What's a peaceful Islamic fundamentalists? All Islamic fundamentalists that I know of believe that Islam should replace the West as the dominant force in the world. How's that peaceful?

Which fundamentalist do you know? Im a fundamentalists with no such beleif. I do not care.

So you don't support the Holy War waged on the West? You're not a fundamentalist then.
For the record, I don't like Jewish or Christian fundamentalists any better. As I said, religion should be taken in context.

Do you beleive that the west should remain the dominant force in the world?

Of course. I enjoy personal freedom, democracy and materialistic wealth. I support granting equal rights to women and pluralism.

Do you have any better system of values to offer me?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Why Genralize the total muslim population? 95%+ terrorists are wahabis.

SHENS. Go ahead and show me ONE proof of this. The Wahabis are another problem altogether, but they don't pose an immediate threat as their fundamentalism won't allow them the means for global terror. How many Wahabi communities are there anyway outside Saudi Arabia and Qatar anyway? Certainly not many in the West, if at all.

Osama bin Laden and elite Alqaeeda members are all wahabis.

What I read about Bin Laden suggests he's a Sunni that doesn't belong to the Wahabists.

Besides, weren't the Shiites the ones that introduced the fine art of suicide bombing to the world?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Why Genralize the total muslim population? 95%+ terrorists are wahabis.

SHENS. Go ahead and show me ONE proof of this. The Wahabis are another problem altogether, but they don't pose an immediate threat as their fundamentalism won't allow them the means for global terror. How many Wahabi communities are there anyway outside Saudi Arabia and Qatar anyway? Certainly not many in the West, if at all.

Osama bin Laden and elite Alqaeeda members are all wahabis.

What I read about Bin Laden suggests he's a Sunni that doesn't belong to the Wahabists.

Besides, weren't the Shiites the ones that introduced the fine art of suicide bombing to the world?

Uhhh no. Tamil Tigers. The difference is we didn't care when they did it 20 years ago because it didn't involve us.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
When did you suddenly start caring about muslim deaths?:roll:

And when did you start caring about muslim deaths when Israel wasn't involved? :Q

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Also, Islam is a religion not a belief.

Offhand, what do you think of what I said? That Islam will need to move away from strict adherence on many aspects of the faith in order to be fully accepted by the world? I only see things getting worse if there's not some transition to a more mystical and open to interpretation version of the religion.

I believe the west needs to change its attidtide towards Islam rather than Islam needing change...

We've already changed (Crusades, Thirty Years War, etc.), centuries ago. Now its your turn. You guys are bringing up the ass end of civilization. The rest of the world is not going to revert to the Dark Ages just to please you dusty relics. And as soon as we don't need your oil anymore, you guys will just go back to throwing rocks at each other over which version of the same bvllsh*t is the dumbest.

By the way, the "West's attitude towards Islam" is based entirely on your behavior. I'd be happy to change my attitude if you guys would start acting like adults living in the 21st century. Quit cutting off heads, blowing yourselves up, hijacking airplanes, making your women wear beekeeper suits, kidnapping everybody whos not nailed down, burning flags, issuing death threats over books, and spewing anti-Semitism and anti-everything thats not Muslim.

Sorry, but whenever you find yourself on the side of people who want to kill over a cartoon, you're just fvcking wrong. Period.

 

[Severian]

The same goes for Islam. Its not going anywhere and its way of life really is not bad. Don't try and push muslims towards democracy becuase democracy doesnt work everywhere! Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. I as a Pakistani feel am better of under Musharraf than I was under Benazir or Sharif.

Why must it always be the vote of the people? 90%+ of the population is uneducated and have little idea on who would be better for them. Democracy is just about manipulating skills and money. America was lucky that until recently is had some great people as presidents. I totally reject the claim that political freedom leads to hapiness. Its more about economic prosperity. Parents know what is best for their child. You seldom get to select them. And they seldom leave their children alone on the beach as easy victims of the waves.

Edited: 08/23/2006 at 02:54 PM by The Green Bean

This line of reasoning underscores my personal belief that "bringing democracy" to the rest of the world is a fool's errand, best undertaken by Don Quixote rather than the West. In order for democracy to truly take root anywhere, the citizens really need to bleed for it, to voluntarily shed their own blood for it. No other sacrifice suffices to cement the transition from Dark Age backwater to modern society. There just are no shortcuts here, and no amount of hand-holding will drag the ignorant wretches into enlightenment. Democracy is truly a DIY phenomenon, in concept and execution.

Once the ME runs out of oil, there really will be no need for the civilized world to interface with them at all anymore. Remind me again, what exactly has the Muslim world contributed to the betterment of mankind in the last couple of hundred years?

I'm not even going to take the easy money on lecturing the Green Bean on why "90%+ of the (Muslim) population is uneducated and have little idea on who would be better for them."; like I said, people need to figure this out on their own.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Sorry, but whenever you find yourself on the side of people who want to kill over a cartoon, you're just fvcking wrong. Period.

Totally agree, and I think you'll find this very interesting. Here's a snippet:

Freedom For Egyptians reminded me why the cartoons looked so familiar to me: they were actually printed in the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr back in October 2005. I repeat, October 2005, during Ramadan, for all the egyptian muslim population to see, and not a single squeak of outrage was present.

and

Now while the arab islamic population was going crazy over the outrage created by their government?s media over these cartoons, their governments was benifitting from its people?s distraction. The Saudi royal Family used it to distract its people from the outrage over the Hajj stampede. The Jordanian government used it to distract its people from their new minimum wage law demanded by their labor unions. The Syrian Government ...

Methinks somebody really capitalized on this event.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Why Genralize the total muslim population? 95%+ terrorists are wahabis.

SHENS. Go ahead and show me ONE proof of this. The Wahabis are another problem altogether, but they don't pose an immediate threat as their fundamentalism won't allow them the means for global terror. How many Wahabi communities are there anyway outside Saudi Arabia and Qatar anyway? Certainly not many in the West, if at all.

Osama bin Laden and elite Alqaeeda members are all wahabis.

What I read about Bin Laden suggests he's a Sunni that doesn't belong to the Wahabists.

Besides, weren't the Shiites the ones that introduced the fine art of suicide bombing to the world?

Bin Laden is a pure wahabi.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Also, Islam is a religion not a belief.

Offhand, what do you think of what I said? That Islam will need to move away from strict adherence on many aspects of the faith in order to be fully accepted by the world? I only see things getting worse if there's not some transition to a more mystical and open to interpretation version of the religion.

I believe the west needs to change its attidtide towards Islam rather than Islam needing change...

We've already changed (Crusades, Thirty Years War, etc.), centuries ago. Now its your turn. You guys are bringing up the ass end of civilization. The rest of the world is not going to revert to the Dark Ages just to please you dusty relics. And as soon as we don't need your oil anymore, you guys will just go back to throwing rocks at each other over which version of the same bvllsh*t is the dumbest.

By the way, the "West's attitude towards Islam" is based entirely on your behavior. I'd be happy to change my attitude if you guys would start acting like adults living in the 21st century. Quit cutting off heads, blowing yourselves up, hijacking airplanes, making your women wear beekeeper suits, kidnapping everybody whos not nailed down, burning flags, issuing death threats over books, and spewing anti-Semitism and anti-everything thats not Muslim.

Sorry, but whenever you find yourself on the side of people who want to kill over a cartoon, you're just fvcking wrong. Period.

Everything is just an opinion. Who is better off is only a matter of opinion. Not everyone would understand.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: jpeyton
And I guess you're going to tell us Born Again Christians are peaceful too?

If Islam was entirely a religion of conflict, we'd have 1.2 billion suicide bombers on our hands. As it stands, we only seem to have problems with bombers in countries that the US or Israel is occupying.

Thousands of terrorists out of 1.2 billion Muslims does not make the religion less peaceful. Should we count the 125,000 soldiers in Iraq against Christianity because they are over there making war?

Yes. Like Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany, Iran... need I go on?

The problem is not the active terrorists, but the support these have in the general population.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand here for you. Like your country has an army and you support it, the Islami population sees the terrorists as its army and supports them.

Now you say the US has problems with Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Germany?

What do you think is then the solution to this?

Please, jpeyton stated that Bombers only appear in countries under occupation from Israel or US, while the truth is that they are everywhere, with no apparent reason. No one did the British Muslims community any harm and yet they raise terrorists. Why?

The solution for terrorists in the west would be quick and brutal deporation of them and their families, and actively breaking apart closed Muslim communities by spreading their members along the country, thus forcing them to integrate. Those who haven't managed to do so and still hold exteremist values should be deported. Those who adapted to the West should be treated fairly just any other citizen.

So peaceful fundamentalists should be treated the same way that terrorists are?

What's a peaceful Islamic fundamentalists? All Islamic fundamentalists that I know of believe that Islam should replace the West as the dominant force in the world. How's that peaceful?

Which fundamentalist do you know? Im a fundamentalists with no such beleif. I do not care.

So you don't support the Holy War waged on the West? You're not a fundamentalist then.
For the record, I don't like Jewish or Christian fundamentalists any better. As I said, religion should be taken in context.

Do you beleive that the west should remain the dominant force in the world?

Of course. I enjoy personal freedom, democracy and materialistic wealth. I support granting equal rights to women and pluralism.

Do you have any better system of values to offer me?

I do not support this "holy war" becuase its clearly not according to the rules of engagement in Islam. Its also illegal becuase its not under anyones command. Islam has been hijacked by the terrorists. And none of the thousand+ fundamentalists I know of many sects support it either. Its only a few miscreants most of them wahabis.

However, Im not anti - modern. Modernisation is a good thing. Westernization is not.

Who said this wolrd was made for pure enjoyment and materliastic wealth? They are only tools for a 60 odd year life.

 

[Severian]

I do not support this "holy war" becuase its clearly not according to the rules of engagement in Islam. Its also illegal becuase its not under anyones command. Islam has been hijacked by the terrorists. And none of the thousand+ fundamentalists I know of many sects support it either. Its only a few miscreants most of them wahabis.

However, Im not anti - modern. Modernisation is a good thing. Westernization is not.

Who said this wolrd was made for pure enjoyment and materliastic wealth? They are only tools for a 60 odd year life.

Edited: 08/24/2006 at 11:30 AM by The Green Bean

How do you define modernization without Westernization? Practically every modern advancement in every field of medicine, science, etc., has come from Western civilization.

Hell, you couldn't even get on the internet to disparage the West if it weren't for the innovations and inventions of the West. I ask again, what has your culture contributed to the planet at large as a positive in the last couple hundred years?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Severian

I do not support this "holy war" becuase its clearly not according to the rules of engagement in Islam. Its also illegal becuase its not under anyones command. Islam has been hijacked by the terrorists. And none of the thousand+ fundamentalists I know of many sects support it either. Its only a few miscreants most of them wahabis.

However, Im not anti - modern. Modernisation is a good thing. Westernization is not.

Who said this wolrd was made for pure enjoyment and materliastic wealth? They are only tools for a 60 odd year life.

Edited: 08/24/2006 at 11:30 AM by The Green Bean

How do you define modernization without Westernization? Practically every modern advancement in every field of medicine, science, etc., has come from Western civilization.

Hell, you couldn't even get on the internet to disparage the West if it weren't for the innovations and inventions of the West. I ask again, what has your culture contributed to the planet at large as a positive in the last couple hundred years?

We can adopt the innovations and inventions without adopting their culture. Difficult - but possible. During th last couple of centuries Islam has been ruled by idiots and have constantly been attacked by western powers.

 

[Severian]

We can adopt the innovations and inventions without adopting their culture. Difficult - but possible. During th last couple of centuries Islam has been ruled by idiots and have constantly been attacked by western powers.

Alright, in what way precisely would you say that Islamic culture is superior to Western culture? Because I can't think of a single one myself. I do fully expect the final sum of our tally to boil down to basically "I like mine best because it's mine" for both of us, but I do appreciate you learning enough English to become fluent, and engaging us on this Western forum. I doubt you have many Westerners fluent in Urdu or Arabic commenting on Islamic or Pakistani forums.

 

[magomago]

Modernization is not necessarily good. I think its a logical fallacly to assume that anything modern is immediately better. With that said, I think MANY things that are modern are better.
But being Modern and being Western are different. Like you pointed out, the internet was invented in "the west" as opposed to the "east" or "middle east". But the internet is ultimately a new way to send information and communicate. Is there anything inherently "western" about that? Do we count sending letters as a "western" thing? Is a post office a western invention? Are services like Fed EX "Western Inventions"? I see the internet as progress in communication...

Something "western" would be more inherent to culture: music for example. Socities have westernized music in that you could take American Music, change the language and you have "western music". Many socities also have music that is influenced by western styles, but clearly still retains a lot of the cultural influence~I can think of Arabic music being a good example because they love to use those synthesized sounds, but the style is something distinct that I would never find in an American song. Same thing with some chinese songs: there is something distinct in the sound, but you can tell there is influence. And the last version would be to retain traditional music, where traditional is not defined as "old arse music 150 years prior" but "music where the host culture has influenced it totally"...genrally since as time moves on the world is more integrated and ideas are passed on faster thus most of traditional music is old arse music

Discovering or advancing technology new is not "western" by any means...because technology and ultimately knowledge is something that transcends cultural boundries and can be used by everyone. This is clearly seen by the fact that throughout history we've had the Chinese (as a group of people), the Muslims (as a group of people) and Europeans (as a group of people) (i hesitate to really use this classifacations because I'm picking 2 ethnic groups a a religion, so you will get overlap for sure) help carry the world in progress at certain points.

Are you saying that other cultures must wear a dress shirt, slacks, and a tie, listen to britney spears, drive BMWs, and have certain cultural mannerisms to invent and discover things, or to help society progress? If you are, well you are wrong
Someone can be modern and still retain a lot of their traditional characteristics~ and in many socities you can see a mixture between professional "western style business suits" and more local "professional clothing"

Hell, you couldn't even get on the internet to disparage the West if it weren't for the innovations and inventions of the West. I ask again, what has your culture contributed to the planet at large as a positive in the last couple hundred years?

Btw, I hope when yousay "your culture" you are implying Pakistani culture and NOT Islamic culture. We may share the same religion, and because our religion is a way of life, certain characteristics maybe the same between our cultures (no eating pig, no drinking, etc. etc.) that doesn't mean that Pakistani culture is the same as Arab culture...despite the fact that we both share a more general "Islamic Culture", I would feel like the odd man out at a Pakistani gathering.

 

[SamurAchzar]

1. It's evident by now that the more plural, free of repression and bureucracy a nation is, the more likely it is to advance in science and economy. Societies like Iran can't sustain a proper Capitalistic economy and don't encourage free thinking. They will always fall short in science and innovation compared to the US.
Look at the USSR and the US, and the huge difference between them today. How was this gap formed in the first place?

2. "West" is a term under which I also include Japan, for example. Not located in the west, certainly, as well as sustaining its own unique culture, but it shares all the "Western" values.
A country doesn't have to sell its history and culture short to be successful.

Bottom line is, freedom is rewarded by progress and enhancement to our way of life. This has been proven countless times. Hey, why the Arab nations who mostly are rich with natural resources so far behind the US? They had a headstart on the US and still haven't made much progress since 300 years ago - and all of their progress (cars, computers, etc.) can be attributed to inventions of the West.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
[We can adopt the innovations and inventions without adopting their culture. Difficult - but possible. During th last couple of centuries Islam has been ruled by idiots and have constantly been attacked by western powers.

May I remind you that some Western countries were too ruled by idiots and have been attacked by Western powers - much worse than attacks Islami countries sustained - and are still free and prospering in the 21st century. Japan and Germany are both good examples. None had easier time in the 20st century than any Arab country did.

You can't keep blaming others for your troubles. You must be doing something wrong, don't you think?