Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 10:40 PM 9/18/01 -0700, samantha wrote:
> >I think it is more of a young and bloody culture wrenched into the 20th
> >kind of problem.
> I keep seeing this attempted explanation. If it means that Islam itself is
> `young', feeling its oats, you have to wonder why even later ideological
> systems are not all frothing at the mouth with unchecked rage and
> missionary zeal. Some have, of course; some have been restrained.
> Islam is 1400 years old. Islam was already old long before anyone spoke
> English. Some 55 generations. This is *not* `young'.
Yes, it is far more a matter of a fraction who feed off of the
resentment and dissappointment of members of a culture that was once the
most sophisticated in the world (or at least thought itself so) that
spanned from Polynesia to Morocco, and was the trade crossroads of the
world. It has fallen from that point to a bunch of divisive countries,
many of which are now in Third World status economically and otherwise,
and the general cultural consensus among most is that it is the fault of
the Crusaders and the countries/cultures which spawned them. Of course,
the fact that most of them picked the wrong side in two european wars
(WWI and the Cold War) doesn't seem to get much recognition, and they
don't consider the idea that despite sitting on the greatest wealth in
the world, many of them act more like spoiled brats than a mature
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:52 MDT