CE&P social thread: why do the people I disagree with hate freedom so much?

[L2R]

america: calls itself "land of the free"/has world largest prisoner population by far

/meme

 

[Shrooms00087]

i am a bit mad, after all.


but seriously, what's the terribleness you refer to, specifically? please only respond if you have actual thoughts of your own on the topic of china, a trait generally not found here.

Who cares what China does I would have said the exact same thing in the 20's only the name would've been America. The game is the same. Their methods of going about it are insane, it rids the illusion of basic freedoms and gives only the freedoms that are necessary for management. Great for business....That's just about it. I'm not going to sit here and mystify China, my basic premise hasn't ever changed, profit is the bane of society, division propels it. The business class is a vacuum of only so many options which rely heavily on a managed society. The business class are robots who only produce repeatable effects. China, America, there is no fucking difference after ascension-- the bread is broken once more and the robots continue forward.

And seriously, there are no unique and actual thoughts, just words we've heard before strung together in patterns familiar to us.

 

[L2R]

the nature of all government is indeed the same. none are innocent, that's true. i thought these were a given. but anyway, the nature of freedom is similarly not as black and white as the average joe understands it. visible walls are more freeing than invisible ones. only when you understand the limits of your bounds can you truly express who you really are.

in a nutshell, the illusion of freedom is worse than obvious restraint.

oh and i believe in creativity, btw.

p.s. i didn't mean to sound narky to you, shrooms, in case i came across that way. regarding china, i often feel like a broken record here.

 

[Care]

Have a look at the sociological concept of power-distance. trust me, within the cultural context, people are happier in china than in most western places. also, the idea of political involvement is different to what we are used to. their one party system reaches all the way down to children in school, those who behave are rewarded with like kids club membership (you see some kids around with red scarves). there is a system to get into political roles. there are avenues to raise concerns to the government.

Less than 10% of Chinese citizens are members of the communist party in China, which is by law the only political party allowed in china. Any other political activity is punishable by long jail terms or worse.

If any moron tries that argument, they'd be completely wrong. There is no record of China ever exerting push on external territories (don't even start with that hong kong/taiwan/tibet bs).

Taiwan and Tibet definitely fall into the category of attempts at expansion. Hong Kong not so much.

lol, yeah that's what the hype machine says. Actions on the other side, which speak far more than propaganda, clearly indicate that american exertion of influence is one of the world's major antagonising forces. Many of the internal disputes in south america, africa and asia over the last 30 years are subsequent to the u.s. assisting one side over another for some ideological or even outright illegal reason.

We attempt to set up democracies that are friendly to us, in the most general of terms that should be a good thing. We could do much worse.

Actually just last week a chinese delegation went to syria to tell them to chill the fuck out.

Really?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57383765/russia-china-reject-interference-in-syria/
Their position is to pretty much do nothing while common people struggling for democracy die at the hands of a ruthless fundamentalist dictator. Asking the dictator nicely to chill out is not going to help. Its all basically a move to stop the spread of democracy in the region.

Im not trying to claim that people will live totally free and happy lives under democratic states, but it is a hell of a lot better than communism. China isnt even really communist from an economic standpoint, they simply maintain their dictatorial totalitarian structure of government while opening up the the capitalistic ways of the rest of the world since Deng Zhou Ping.

Are you really for the kind of censorship that china has towards dissenters? No freedom of speech or media? No internet?

And im sorry to say, but this new middle class that you're so proud of in China wont last. The property bubble will eventually burst in china and they will have to stop devaluing their currency and play by the same rules as the rest of the world. No economy has ever advanced to western-levels of prosperity on manufacturing alone, you need a healthy service and financial sector. I don't relish this fact, because when it happens it will hurt the rest of the world, including america. The Chinese economy will not continue to improve at the rate it has for the past decade. Plus there are still many rural Chinese that you have probably never seen who still live in very primitive conditions.

 

[Care]

america: calls itself "land of the free"/has world largest prisoner population by far

/meme

Despite what some people may think, the war on drugs was not initially intended to bankrupt us and put minorities in jail. It is the result of bad policy making from out of touch politicians, a lack of political participation from those negatively effected, and a legitimate problem. I am confident that we will eventually find a way to decriminalize drug users who make up the vast majority of the prison population. Ive stated in this thread that there are many things about america that are horrible, and this is close to the top of the list. Laws that prosecute accomplices as harshly as the person who commits the crime is another distinctly american law that is downright crazy.

However, as with many issues people see only the bad aspect of it. I dislike the police, but I recognize the important role they play in enforcing good laws that deter crime. Many people in our prison system absolutely deserve to be there, and are there because of rigorous and thorough policing.

 

[Shrooms00087]

the nature of all government is indeed the same. none are innocent, that's true. i thought these were a given. but anyway, the nature of freedom is similarly not as black and white as the average joe understands it. visible walls are more freeing than invisible ones. only when you understand the limits of your bounds can you truly express who you really are.

The importance isn't sight, it's what walls you intend to build. Every time new walls are built up, and the poetry that precedes and follows it, are nothing but excuses to have mansions, houses, squalor, and imprisoned test subjects. It doesn't matter if they're in jail within a jail (a hymn to the drug user) or if the house itself is a giant all inclusive jail.
Jail is jail.

 

[L2R]

^visibility is important. it's truth. it's transparency (lol).

We attempt to set up democracies that are friendly to us, in the most general of terms that should be a good thing.

only in theory which doesn't factor in culture and many other human traits which can change the results of said theory for the sake of simplicity.

We could do much worse.

as could have hitler.

Really?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57383765/russia-china-reject-interference-in-syria/
Their position is to pretty much do nothing while common people struggling for democracy die at the hands of a ruthless fundamentalist dictator. Asking the dictator nicely to chill out is not going to help. Its all basically a move to stop the spread of democracy in the region.

ugh.... wow, you believe a lot of what you are told,.... sadly ironic, bro.

Im not trying to claim that people will live totally free and happy lives under democratic states, but it is a hell of a lot better than communism. China isnt even really communist from an economic standpoint, they simply maintain their dictatorial totalitarian structure of government while opening up the the capitalistic ways of the rest of the world since Deng Zhou Ping.

First half is not necessarily true, the second half is clearly true.

Are you really for the kind of censorship that china has towards dissenters? No freedom of speech or media? No internet?

If i am feeding and building my family's future better in china than i could elsewhere, then why would i want to dissent? why would i need a freedom to do something i wouldn't even exercise?

Sure their system aint perfect, never said it was. It just isn't the prison as perceived by brainwashed westerners, most of whom have never even seen outside of their own country.

And im sorry to say, but this new middle class that you're so proud of in China wont last. The property bubble will eventually burst in china and they will have to stop devaluing their currency and play by the same rules as the rest of the world. No economy has ever advanced to western-levels of prosperity on manufacturing alone, you need a healthy service and financial sector. I don't relish this fact, because when it happens it will hurt the rest of the world, including america. The Chinese economy will not continue to improve at the rate it has for the past decade. Plus there are still many rural Chinese that you have probably never seen who still live in very primitive conditions.

It would be harmful to the chinese economy and society to continue the current growth. How things will turn out only time will tell. It's not wise to talk of predictions when you really aren't understanding of the situation, that's why i don't do it. Much of the situation over there is unprecedented, it can go in any direction. What i can comment on are the actions of their government, which all essentially indicate providing assistance to those worst off. Even if they fail, at least they are trying. Compare that to the states, where policy is constantly steered towards the exact opposite.

 

[Shrooms00087]

If truth is transparent shouldn't the future be easily identifiable through the 'creative' process that has an intelligible aspect? How can one expect to create without knowing (in full) their expectations? How can someone create without a set of circumstances that are also intelligible? Free will is a messy subject.

 

[L2R]

indeed it is a messy subject. it is seriously not what the common man thinks. the vote don't mean shit.

that post sounds like you took on my point, tbh. more knowledge = greater potential. knowledge includes the limits and expectations placed upon one. i think it was gandhi who said something like, you gotta know the rules first before you can break them properly.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Maybe I did who knows. Suppose that these "truths" are nothing but awe inspiring propaganda tools it just means you've climbed the chain and now that the simple methods have no effect, you just move up. In times of trouble you are expected to look down and start the process over where hardly anything ever changes. No boundaries overcame (if anything they were put on the back burner). Then Gandhi was a silly man it sounds like he's asking for instructions on how to do his specific task, as such, his free will is unaccounted for, heh, or I guess, accounted for, no?

 

[Care]

as could have hitler.

I see that your soul has been corrupted too thoroughly by the slan-eyed devils for me to save with my american righteousness. :D

On another note, anyone interested here is a short synopsis of Middle Eastern history should read this. I admit that I am largely ignorant on this subject, so I learned quite a few things.

NSFW:

Before we start we have to define the Middle East. Let's take it to include the Arab world including North Africa, Israel, Turkey and Iran, since these countries all have an inter-related history.
To answer your second question first, no, the region we call the Middle East (I prefer West Asia & North Africa personally and will use it from here on) has not always been as 'destructive', at least perhaps not in the sense you describe it. Before the Islamic era, Mesopotamia - current day Iraq - was a cradle of civilization, let's not forget. But I'm sure you mean in the Islamic times, in which case the answer is still no. Between approximately the 9th century AD and the 13th century, the Arab world was the great cultural powerhouse of the day, and Arab-Islamic caliphates ruled from Cordoba in southern Spain to Iraq/Iran (the border being hazier those days). Baghdad and Cordoba were two of the great intellectual centres of the world. Ibn Khaldun, one of the great names in philosophy and certainly within Arab philosophy, lived in the 14th century. But between successive civil wars, coups, other in-fighting and of course the Crusades, the Arab-Muslim empires began to weaken, and the Mongols stole a good chunk of the Arab lands when they invaded. They sacked Baghdad in 1258, and one could probably argue that the eastern Arab region has still never recovered from that loss. Then, gradually, the Turks came to the fore, successfully capturing Constantinople and destroying the last remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453. From that time the Ottoman expansion just kept increasing - by the mid-17th century, at their height, the Ottomans ruled from the Balkans and Greece down to the Persian gulf, and from there to Tunisia. By this point the intellectual decline had sunk in, but it wasn't, as I understand it anyway, all decay (as many would make it out to be today). Keep in mind that by this point Europe was entering or had entered the Enlightenment and was coming into the fore of culture, philosophy and of course military. By the end of the 19th century, the Ottoman empire was the 'Sick Man of Europe' and falling apart.
So there was a time, and it was a very long time, when the region was the America or British Empire of the known world. Of course the history of the Ottomans and Arab Caliphs is greatly underplayed in Western history, but that's only because we all tend to focus on our own history. The 'near eastern' empires have no impacted Britain or America so much as they have the countries nearer to them.
Now, how it's become 'fucked up', as you put it, is more complex. One of the major reasons is the very messy British diplomacy of the first world war. By the time WW1 was under way, the Arab world was actually in a time of renaissance, called Al-Nahda (if this world sounds familiar to you, it's the name of the Islamist party at the centre of Tunisian politics). That began in the mid-19th century, after the Muhammad Ali, khedive of Egypt (technically an Ottoman vassal, but in practice Egypt was its own country at this point), sent a team of scholars to France. The post-Revolutionary French ideals came with them and there came the earliest sprouts of modernisation at this time, including texts by men advocating women's rights (though the rights advocated would seem backwards in today's age, they were revolutionary at the time). Newspapers were introduced to the Arab world, Egypt became home to one of the earliest film industries, the Arabic text was modernised, etc.
Amongst all this came the nationalist ideal, and one of the important men here was Sherif Hussein of Mecca, one of the great tribal sheikhs. He lobbied the British repeatedly for support to a claim of independence before the First World War broke out, to no avail. It was only when the war began, and when the Ottoman Empire entered it on the German side, that the British took an interest in Arab seperatists.
The British promised Hussein and his sons their support; they promised to bring all the land that is rightfully his to rule under his grasp. But what constituted his land was intentionally left ambiguous. The Arabs took it to mean all Arab lands, from the Hedjaz to Mesopotamia. The British were trying to keep things open in case of other deals - which came to be.
That was their first promise in the war. Their second was to France, who had a political faction that had long claimed French rights over Syria (the French claim of colonial ownership over Syria is the most spurious I've ever heard: they justified Syria as French lands because 800 years ago, it was the French who led the disastrous First Crusade and for this failed invasion the land was rightfully theirs). Eventually, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was struck. They drew a line dividing the Arab parts of the Ottoman Empire, from Acre (in Israel) to Kirkuk (in northern Iraq). All north of the line would belong to France, all south of the line to Britain. The Palestine region would be a buffer zone, with ownership split equally between them. The artificial lines they drew, as in Africa, completely ignored the pastoral nomads who had for centuries passed from one of these regions to another, and were now confined to whichever side they happened to be caged on once the lines came to made proper.
Their final promise was to the Zionist lobby at home in London. Zionism was still a bud of an ideology at this time and hadn't quite taken off, but hoping to win support of the Jewish community world-wide with this. (I might be a bit wrong here, I'm still somewhat iffy on these details). The British government came to promise to support the Jewish right to their ancestral homeland - i.e., Palestine.
So the British promised the Arabs Arabia. To the French they promised all of Syria, half of Mesopotamia (as well as Southern Turkey) and a buffer zone in Palestine. And to the Zionists, they promised them that same Palestinian strip of land.
Needless to say, their ability to live up to any of these promises failed to meet up with the rhetoric. Feisal, Sherif Hussein's son, was crowned king of Syria months before the French moved in to secure those lands and was forcibly removed - he then became king of Iraq, where his line would rule until 1958, when the Ba'ath performed their coup. The Al-Sauds, who the British also supplied weapons to, took over most of the Arabian peninsula and ousted the Hashemite dynasty from its long reign in Mecca. These new kings spread their Wahhabi creed across the land they now reigned. It had previously been mostly confined to their neck of the woods - in their town of Riyadh, now of course capital of Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden and his Saudi followers were all Wahhabis. The Hashemite dynasty still lingers, having managed to survive in Jordan.
The French were brutal colonialists, often worse than the British in their methods (see their work in the Algerian war of independence for example). To create loyalty amongst their new subjects, they raised the minorities into power. In Lebanon, the democracy was (I believe still is) split along religious lines, with Christians being given the major seat of power. In Syria, they empowered amongst others the Alawites - of whom Bashar Al Assad of today is one of. So you see, those changes in the political makeup of the countries have remained even to this day, after colonialism.
The British, amongst other things, also managed to alienate the Zionists and helped feed the fire into what would become the Nakba (disaster) of the Palestinians and the declaration of the Israeli state. But I don't know that part of the history too well and won't go into it.

So, following the First World War and the rampant imperialism of Britain and France and following the decolonisation after the Second World War, one of the polarising aspects became the foundation of Israel. The various Arab countries immediately declared war, and with little to no intel and little to no co-ordination they attacked. Psh, Israelis? Who do they think they are? We're morally superior to them! Unfortunately that dim-sighted view still remains amongst some.
The plight of the Palestinians, pretty much from the beginning, became a political weapon which statesmen would use to keep the peace within their own country. Israel was the perfect scapegoat they could always point at - though they could never really do anything, because no one could ever set aside their differences. The only time they actually managed to was during the Yom Kippur war, when Egypt and Syria managed to co-ordinate a successful opening offensive. The war ended in a draw, but the Egyptians touted that half-victory, such was (is) the strength of Israel that they'd rejoice for just that.
The failed war on Israel inspired nationalists in the region, and here we get all the coups - in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya - all, so they say, for Arab nationalism. The 50s and 60s were the time of Pan-Arabism, which failed to do anything except bring these strongmen into power - Nasser, Assad, Saddam, Gaddafi - who all failed to live up to their promises.
Meanwhile, in the Arabian peninsula, oil was discovered and capitalised on, and a few small nations on the fringes of the Arab world became exorbitantly rich over the course of a few decades, especially the Saudis. What's important to understand is that not since the earliest days of Islam have the deserts of Arabia been any hotspot of the region. The capitals of the early caliphates quickly moved Syria, Iraq and Egypt - Cairo and Baghdad both having been created by caliphs. The golden age of Islam wasn't focused close to these bedouin lands and for the Ottomans, the Arab portions of their land were an accessory to their Balkan jewels. And, by a stroke of luck - or maybe it was a curse - these lands, which were so backwards, suddenly came to be immensely wealthy.
It took time to actually grasp their wealth - taking American and British hands off the oil profits took years. But once these countries had done so, and after the 1973 oil crisis when Saudi Arabia especially flexed its muscles and showed what impact it could have over the entire world, their power grew and the Wahhabi creed was given the chance to spread.
Wahhabism is a branch of Salafist Islam, which essentially holds that the first generation of Islam - that of the Prophet's - was the single perfect time in all history. Everything before it was corrupt; every after it is a corruption. So Salafis strive to live as though the were in the 7th century, to the greatest extent possible. There are stories of hardcore Salafis who would stop mid-meal to ask "Did the prophet eat chicken?" and not continue the meal until they'd poured over the Quran and hadith to check; if he hadn't, they would be obliged to throw it out. The 1979 Siege of Mecca, when a group of fundamentalist Salafis (fundie fundies) occupied the Ka'ba and its mosque, took things in a bad direction. These men took over at the turn of the 15th Islamic century and claimed to be fulfilling religious prophecy. They would take over the land and implement their Salafi beliefs in a way which the Saudis had currently failed to. These terrorists - led by a bedouin called Juhayman, literally 'Angry Face' - were swiftly put down. But, fearing another uprising such as their's, the Saudis became more fundamentalist in their policies at home, instituting many of the things the terrorists had wanted - such as more religious studies in schools at the expense of the sciences.
Egypt had long been the cultural capital of the modern Arab world, but Saudi would rival it through sheer wealth. It was they that brought the hijab and abaya back, after the Egyptian feminists of the early 20th century first liberated themselves from these darker sides of Arab-Islamic culture.
Another great problem that arises from the Sauds and their like is that, as they have the oil money, they aren't very inclined to give invest their money in wise ways that could produce a country of great culture and economy - instead you have a police state that showers money on its citizens to keep the quiet. That will work until the oil wells dry up in 40-50 years, and then we might see some more, great changes as we see today in other parts of the Arab world.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

"I understand the basic point of the Republican presidential primary: get the party members out to pick a candidate from the shortlist of folks with a budget to run for president. And I understand that the candidates therefore need to appeal to the base. And I get that Romney is utterly unacceptable to one sub-group (due to not being a Real Christian) and to another sub-group (due to being the policy equivalent of silly putty), and that Gingrich is in there to deliver a big fat Fuck Off to the RNC over his past treatment (not to mention the narcissistic personality disorder). Rick Santorum I'm at a loss to explain unless he turns out to be Sasha Baron Cohen's greatest ever and longest running parody act: I'm waiting for him to either call for the reintroduction of the ducking stool for witches, or to be caught in an airport toilet cubicle with an underage [male] page and a couple of lines of cocaine.

But what's with the whole race to the bottom over racism and sexism?

I mean, these guys seem to be competing to shit all over the latin-American vote. And the whole ludicrous insanity of their anti-abortion and anti-contraception stance looks like they're actively trying to get every female of child-bearing age to vote against them. (It's like they've read "The Handmaid's Tale" and think it's a road map, not a warning.)"

- Charles Stross.

I have to say, the Sasha Baron Cohen idea is the best I've heard to explain Santorum.

 

[L2R]

I see that your soul has been corrupted too thoroughly by the slan-eyed devils for me to save with my american righteousness. :D

and how! :D

"there's something about moutai"

On another note, anyone interested here is a short synopsis of Middle Eastern history should read this. I admit that I am largely ignorant on this subject, so I learned quite a few things.

NSFW:

Before we start we have to define the Middle East. Let's take it to include the Arab world including North Africa, Israel, Turkey and Iran, since these countries all have an inter-related history.
To answer your second question first, no, the region we call the Middle East (I prefer West Asia & North Africa personally and will use it from here on) has not always been as 'destructive', at least perhaps not in the sense you describe it. Before the Islamic era, Mesopotamia - current day Iraq - was a cradle of civilization, let's not forget. But I'm sure you mean in the Islamic times, in which case the answer is still no. Between approximately the 9th century AD and the 13th century, the Arab world was the great cultural powerhouse of the day, and Arab-Islamic caliphates ruled from Cordoba in southern Spain to Iraq/Iran (the border being hazier those days). Baghdad and Cordoba were two of the great intellectual centres of the world. Ibn Khaldun, one of the great names in philosophy and certainly within Arab philosophy, lived in the 14th century. But between successive civil wars, coups, other in-fighting and of course the Crusades, the Arab-Muslim empires began to weaken, and the Mongols stole a good chunk of the Arab lands when they invaded. They sacked Baghdad in 1258, and one could probably argue that the eastern Arab region has still never recovered from that loss. Then, gradually, the Turks came to the fore, successfully capturing Constantinople and destroying the last remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453. From that time the Ottoman expansion just kept increasing - by the mid-17th century, at their height, the Ottomans ruled from the Balkans and Greece down to the Persian gulf, and from there to Tunisia. By this point the intellectual decline had sunk in, but it wasn't, as I understand it anyway, all decay (as many would make it out to be today). Keep in mind that by this point Europe was entering or had entered the Enlightenment and was coming into the fore of culture, philosophy and of course military. By the end of the 19th century, the Ottoman empire was the 'Sick Man of Europe' and falling apart.
So there was a time, and it was a very long time, when the region was the America or British Empire of the known world. Of course the history of the Ottomans and Arab Caliphs is greatly underplayed in Western history, but that's only because we all tend to focus on our own history. The 'near eastern' empires have no impacted Britain or America so much as they have the countries nearer to them.
Now, how it's become 'fucked up', as you put it, is more complex. One of the major reasons is the very messy British diplomacy of the first world war. By the time WW1 was under way, the Arab world was actually in a time of renaissance, called Al-Nahda (if this world sounds familiar to you, it's the name of the Islamist party at the centre of Tunisian politics). That began in the mid-19th century, after the Muhammad Ali, khedive of Egypt (technically an Ottoman vassal, but in practice Egypt was its own country at this point), sent a team of scholars to France. The post-Revolutionary French ideals came with them and there came the earliest sprouts of modernisation at this time, including texts by men advocating women's rights (though the rights advocated would seem backwards in today's age, they were revolutionary at the time). Newspapers were introduced to the Arab world, Egypt became home to one of the earliest film industries, the Arabic text was modernised, etc.
Amongst all this came the nationalist ideal, and one of the important men here was Sherif Hussein of Mecca, one of the great tribal sheikhs. He lobbied the British repeatedly for support to a claim of independence before the First World War broke out, to no avail. It was only when the war began, and when the Ottoman Empire entered it on the German side, that the British took an interest in Arab seperatists.
The British promised Hussein and his sons their support; they promised to bring all the land that is rightfully his to rule under his grasp. But what constituted his land was intentionally left ambiguous. The Arabs took it to mean all Arab lands, from the Hedjaz to Mesopotamia. The British were trying to keep things open in case of other deals - which came to be.
That was their first promise in the war. Their second was to France, who had a political faction that had long claimed French rights over Syria (the French claim of colonial ownership over Syria is the most spurious I've ever heard: they justified Syria as French lands because 800 years ago, it was the French who led the disastrous First Crusade and for this failed invasion the land was rightfully theirs). Eventually, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was struck. They drew a line dividing the Arab parts of the Ottoman Empire, from Acre (in Israel) to Kirkuk (in northern Iraq). All north of the line would belong to France, all south of the line to Britain. The Palestine region would be a buffer zone, with ownership split equally between them. The artificial lines they drew, as in Africa, completely ignored the pastoral nomads who had for centuries passed from one of these regions to another, and were now confined to whichever side they happened to be caged on once the lines came to made proper.
Their final promise was to the Zionist lobby at home in London. Zionism was still a bud of an ideology at this time and hadn't quite taken off, but hoping to win support of the Jewish community world-wide with this. (I might be a bit wrong here, I'm still somewhat iffy on these details). The British government came to promise to support the Jewish right to their ancestral homeland - i.e., Palestine.
So the British promised the Arabs Arabia. To the French they promised all of Syria, half of Mesopotamia (as well as Southern Turkey) and a buffer zone in Palestine. And to the Zionists, they promised them that same Palestinian strip of land.
Needless to say, their ability to live up to any of these promises failed to meet up with the rhetoric. Feisal, Sherif Hussein's son, was crowned king of Syria months before the French moved in to secure those lands and was forcibly removed - he then became king of Iraq, where his line would rule until 1958, when the Ba'ath performed their coup. The Al-Sauds, who the British also supplied weapons to, took over most of the Arabian peninsula and ousted the Hashemite dynasty from its long reign in Mecca. These new kings spread their Wahhabi creed across the land they now reigned. It had previously been mostly confined to their neck of the woods - in their town of Riyadh, now of course capital of Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden and his Saudi followers were all Wahhabis. The Hashemite dynasty still lingers, having managed to survive in Jordan.
The French were brutal colonialists, often worse than the British in their methods (see their work in the Algerian war of independence for example). To create loyalty amongst their new subjects, they raised the minorities into power. In Lebanon, the democracy was (I believe still is) split along religious lines, with Christians being given the major seat of power. In Syria, they empowered amongst others the Alawites - of whom Bashar Al Assad of today is one of. So you see, those changes in the political makeup of the countries have remained even to this day, after colonialism.
The British, amongst other things, also managed to alienate the Zionists and helped feed the fire into what would become the Nakba (disaster) of the Palestinians and the declaration of the Israeli state. But I don't know that part of the history too well and won't go into it.

So, following the First World War and the rampant imperialism of Britain and France and following the decolonisation after the Second World War, one of the polarising aspects became the foundation of Israel. The various Arab countries immediately declared war, and with little to no intel and little to no co-ordination they attacked. Psh, Israelis? Who do they think they are? We're morally superior to them! Unfortunately that dim-sighted view still remains amongst some.
The plight of the Palestinians, pretty much from the beginning, became a political weapon which statesmen would use to keep the peace within their own country. Israel was the perfect scapegoat they could always point at - though they could never really do anything, because no one could ever set aside their differences. The only time they actually managed to was during the Yom Kippur war, when Egypt and Syria managed to co-ordinate a successful opening offensive. The war ended in a draw, but the Egyptians touted that half-victory, such was (is) the strength of Israel that they'd rejoice for just that.
The failed war on Israel inspired nationalists in the region, and here we get all the coups - in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya - all, so they say, for Arab nationalism. The 50s and 60s were the time of Pan-Arabism, which failed to do anything except bring these strongmen into power - Nasser, Assad, Saddam, Gaddafi - who all failed to live up to their promises.
Meanwhile, in the Arabian peninsula, oil was discovered and capitalised on, and a few small nations on the fringes of the Arab world became exorbitantly rich over the course of a few decades, especially the Saudis. What's important to understand is that not since the earliest days of Islam have the deserts of Arabia been any hotspot of the region. The capitals of the early caliphates quickly moved Syria, Iraq and Egypt - Cairo and Baghdad both having been created by caliphs. The golden age of Islam wasn't focused close to these bedouin lands and for the Ottomans, the Arab portions of their land were an accessory to their Balkan jewels. And, by a stroke of luck - or maybe it was a curse - these lands, which were so backwards, suddenly came to be immensely wealthy.
It took time to actually grasp their wealth - taking American and British hands off the oil profits took years. But once these countries had done so, and after the 1973 oil crisis when Saudi Arabia especially flexed its muscles and showed what impact it could have over the entire world, their power grew and the Wahhabi creed was given the chance to spread.
Wahhabism is a branch of Salafist Islam, which essentially holds that the first generation of Islam - that of the Prophet's - was the single perfect time in all history. Everything before it was corrupt; every after it is a corruption. So Salafis strive to live as though the were in the 7th century, to the greatest extent possible. There are stories of hardcore Salafis who would stop mid-meal to ask "Did the prophet eat chicken?" and not continue the meal until they'd poured over the Quran and hadith to check; if he hadn't, they would be obliged to throw it out. The 1979 Siege of Mecca, when a group of fundamentalist Salafis (fundie fundies) occupied the Ka'ba and its mosque, took things in a bad direction. These men took over at the turn of the 15th Islamic century and claimed to be fulfilling religious prophecy. They would take over the land and implement their Salafi beliefs in a way which the Saudis had currently failed to. These terrorists - led by a bedouin called Juhayman, literally 'Angry Face' - were swiftly put down. But, fearing another uprising such as their's, the Saudis became more fundamentalist in their policies at home, instituting many of the things the terrorists had wanted - such as more religious studies in schools at the expense of the sciences.
Egypt had long been the cultural capital of the modern Arab world, but Saudi would rival it through sheer wealth. It was they that brought the hijab and abaya back, after the Egyptian feminists of the early 20th century first liberated themselves from these darker sides of Arab-Islamic culture.
Another great problem that arises from the Sauds and their like is that, as they have the oil money, they aren't very inclined to give invest their money in wise ways that could produce a country of great culture and economy - instead you have a police state that showers money on its citizens to keep the quiet. That will work until the oil wells dry up in 40-50 years, and then we might see some more, great changes as we see today in other parts of the Arab world.

oh boy oh boy oh boy! umm.... overstimulated...err.... talk to jamshyd... also remind me later, i have a couple of great uni textbooks to recommend to you about this. .about six months back i completed a unit on the roman empire in the east, which encompasses the middle east just prior to the start of the dark ages.... roughly 3rd and 4th century. fascinating era. two books, one a collection of original contemporaneous sources translated, another with a great summary of that period.

 

[L2R]

care, for the beginnings of the middle east, check out:
http://www.amazon.com/Rome-East-Tra...3572/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330257914&sr=8-1
and
http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Eastern...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330258026&sr=1-1

and if you really want, i can upload the unit's lecture mp3's to megaupload for you.

 

[L2R]

don't fuck with the vatican

 

[Care]

care, for the beginnings of the middle east, check out:
http://www.amazon.com/Rome-East-Tra...3572/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330257914&sr=8-1
and
http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Eastern...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330258026&sr=1-1

and if you really want, i can upload the unit's lecture mp3's to megaupload for you.

I may check those out. Im planning on taking a class on middle eastern history next semester with one of my favorite professors at my uni. Its crazy to think about how far ahead of the game the middle east was before the enlightenment era and how they have regressed so much compared to the rest of the world in the last century. Its kinda sad how many history classes ive taken in my life and I have almost no knowledge of Middle Eastern history.

 

[MyFinalRest]

^that's a misguided bigoted notion that you have probably heard in pop media culture. Many places in the middle east have truly progressed greatly since the so-called European Enlightenment that only enlightened a few European people.

Its kinda sad how many history classes ive taken in my life and I have almost no knowledge of Middle Eastern history.

Considering that liberals have ruined higher eductation and made it nothing more than another forum for pop-culture, you just might have to do a little reading on your own here. The university is often and unfortunately subject to current political pressures while sacrificing true knowledge for what it sensational or popular at the time. Many teachers, just like you, have read next to nothing on the Mid East and get their info from CNN.

 

[Care]

Is there any problem in the world in which the blame isn't squarely placed on the shoulders of liberals MFR?

 

[MyFinalRest]

Considering that the Green Party might be the only "conservative" party in the USA today, I'd say probably not!

It's all about exercising caution, understanding our history, and balancing the forces of individuality with the whole of society and the planet. "Liberals" that follow the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian party ideologies often fail to follow these simple guidelines and end up getting it all wrong and fucking shit up.

 

[Bardeaux]

Considering that the Green Party might be the only "conservative" party in the USA today, I'd say probably not!

Good lord I'm a card carrying conservative!