The Islamic State, is it what the Middle East needs?

Before we broke the Middle East up into its current form after world war 1 it was the Otooman Empire. The Ottoman Empire came I to existence in 1299 and ruled until modern times. So the Middle East has been ruled and conquered historically for thousands of years by massive violence. Essentially it's in their DNA.

Now keep in mind I'm not an IS supporter, however this does bring to mind a few questions. Such as...

Does the history of the area leave a violent genetic imprint on the populace making them tend to be more violent?

Do they NEED to be ruled and conquered?

Can democracy exist in a nation considering their history?

If I was on my laptop I would include sources and go deeper into this topic but I think I have enough of the idea out there.

a reply to: onequestion

Giving the middle east an Islamic state would be a mistake of the century. Look what happened when Israel was made a state. Oh joy.

So the Middle East has been ruled and conquered historically for thousands of years by massive violence. Essentially it's in their DNA.

Huh? It's what? In their DNA….what???
Really?
So, the middle east has been ruled and conquered (you didn't even spell that right while judging an entire population by and regardless of their history, on a site that has no meaning about their history) for thousands of years by massive violence---and that gives you the right to extrapolate about their DNA and make judgements…


never mind. Dude

a reply to: tetra50

What?

Are you not aware of the theories around DNA and history imprints?

a reply to: FlySolo
I in no way support the Islamic state but my question is does the Middle East need to be ruled with an iron fist.

Apparently that wasn't clear enough.

Really aren't there already Islamic states or countries..seems like they are not in charge of those places though, there are rules..they will never be happy no matter what. They get nothing.

a reply to: onequestion
That's quite an assumption.
Really?
and my threads go to the TRASH and you're still here feeding the animal that's got us seeing people getting their heads cut off? Really?

No, they need the opposite. They need to develop a society that is more open to differences, in which people are free to live the way they choose to live. Religion shouldn't dictate people's rights, especially the right to live.

a reply to: tetra50

Clearly your overreacting to title and not reading my responses or assessing any of the ideas present.

a reply to: LukeDAP

Besides outright rule and being forced to live this way what other way is there?

So far 1 million middle easterners died during our wars, how close is ISIS to us?

Who's worse?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: tetra50

Clearly your overreacting to title and not reading my responses or assessing any of the ideas present.

clearly, you aren't adequately representing your ideas….or I wouldn't wish for more informaiton to make the judgments and assumptions you are curently making. Clearly.
tetra50

a reply to: tetra50

Clearly your reaction is very emotional.

Maybe if your not aware of the mysteries surrounding DNA and cannot conceptualize the idea of memory imprints of DNA affecting their choices then this thread wasn't meant for you.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: tetra50

Clearly your reaction is very emotional.

Maybe if your not aware of the mysteries surrounding DNA and cannot conceptualize the idea of memory imprints of DNA affecting their choices then this thread wasn't meant for you.

Clearly your reaction is not logical.
Perhaps writing threads about the Islamist future isn't for you, either.
tetra

a reply to: tetra50

Obviously this is a tough concept for you to grasp and discuss rationally maybe you should go to a different thread.

And thank you for providing me with a prime example of the medias fear and trauma propaganda as it relates to Isis In this thread.

Apparently it's working.

The middle east has a lot of catching up, if they wish to become as violent as the U.S. We have been involved in 8 major wars since the civil war, none on our soil, and ended WW2 with the most violent end on a civilian population with nuclear.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: tetra50

Obviously this is a tough concept for you to grasp and discuss rationally maybe you should go to a different thread.

And thank you for providing me with a prime example of the medias fear and trauma propaganda as it relates to Isis In this thread.

Apparently it's working.

As it relates to the DNA assertion you made in the beginning of this thread, which is what you based the entire thread upon, it's not a tough concept for me at all. I would challenge you to provide sources for your assertions in this thread.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Abstract
An increasingly popular view among philosophers of science is that of science as action-as the collective activity of scientists working in socially-coordinated communities. Scientists are seen not as dispassionate pursuers of Truth, but as active participants in a social enterprise, and science is viewed on a continuum with other human activities. When taken to an extreme, the science-as-social-process view can be taken to imply that science is no different from any other human activity, and therefore can make no privileged claims about its knowledge of the world. Such extreme views are normally contrasted with equally extreme views of classical science, as uncovering Universal Truth. In Science Without Laws and Scientific Perspectivism, Giere outlines an approach to understanding science that finds a middle ground between these extremes. He acknowledges that science occurs in a social and historical context, and that scientific models are constructions designed and created to serve human ends. At the same time, however, scientific models correspond to parts of the world in ways that can legitimately be termed objective. Giere's position, perspectival realism, shares important common ground with Skinner's writings on science, some of which are explored in this review. Perhaps most fundamentally, Giere shares with Skinner the view that science itself is amenable to scientific inquiry: scientific principles can and should be brought to bear on the process of science. The two approaches offer different but complementary perspectives on the nature of science, both of which are needed in a comprehensive understanding of science

never mind….it's not worth fighting about…

does that make us even. And what does that mean to the young girls/women in the "islamic state" you describe, which I don't get, yet, via your thread, and their DNA, that automatically dispenses because of their history, that they should end the way they do…but that's beyond me….right.

tetra

in my opinion we all have the same innate tendency for competition and and ultimately warfare. show me non violent humans, what country do they inhabit?

a reply to: creation7

And where does this come from?

originally posted by: onequestion
Does the history of the area leave a violent genetic imprint on the populace making them tend to be more violent?

Do they NEED to be ruled and conquered?

Can democracy exist in a nation considering their history?

I believe so, for example, I'm English, growing up in my area there was a lot of negative views towards foreigners, especially of Asian decent, due to the influx of them coming over here to the uk (Rich coming from an Englishman I know.

Having gone to a mixed school when I was younger, I had no problem mixing with the foreign kids, in fact my 3 best friends at primary school were/still are Muslims. However, as I grew up I noticed when speaking to older people, that deep down no one really wanted them here and just tolerated them as it were.
However, I moved to a more 'white' populated area and quickly found out that games like 'paki bashing' were everyday occurrences.

The people in this predominantly white area had it instilled in them that these people are foreigners, dirty and do not belong. All of this, basically down to them invading our land (again, rich coming from an Englishman).

So that being said, had these peoples families been bombed and ridiculed over and over again, like what these ME's go through, then I would say why wouldn't it have an effect on the generations or DNA of sorts..

Do they need to be ruled and conquered?
I think not, as long as they are controllable, and by that I mean as long as they don't try to enforce their beliefs unto other people with or without force.

Muslims have lived in the UK for a while now and have been accepted and can generally live here in peace but that's because they don't try to enforce their beliefs on us..

I think Muslims need to understand, it's not a battle against all Muslims, it's a battle against the people who believe that they must enforce their beliefs in countries that have no Islamic origin (UK, US, Canada, Australia, anywhere you like..

It's the same for black people.. They seem to think the world is against them, no! The world is against the ones who think they are 'gangstas' who would rob you on the street at gun/knife point, or the ones who stare u out on public transport and then ask you "what you looking at".

And of course to show there is no bias, the same rings true for white people, the world don't hate you, just the ones who think they own the world and are better then everybody else, when in fact we are all equal.

It's about time people woke up and realised that we live in not a multi cultural society, or city, or town or country but a multi cultural planet.. If your belief system is not the same as your neighbours, say "have a nice day and move on"..

And to answer your final question, I believe democracy can exist in such a place given there history. If Nazi Germany can change then why can't these people?

But saying all this, when the shepherds direct the flocks, the flocks usually follow. So maybe it would be down to our government to decide, seeing as they seem to be calling the shots.

The Middle East does not need to be ruled by an iron fist, but Islamic nations do.