"Why Arabs Lose Wars" Topic

It's ok to place sanctions that will deprive normal people of food and medicine and increase infant and overall mortality rates like Iraq between 1991 and 2003.

But it's not ok to simply machine gun these people down.

In some ways it's more sadistic to have someone die in agony due to starvation and disease created by sanctions than to simply gun them down.
--------
well as someone who was involved in enforcement of sanctions both re Iraq and FRY I'd disagree that implementing sanctions (that are intended to change behaviour)is somehow crueller than simply killing people. I'd be the first to admit that coming from a law enforcement type background (and not military), interventionism (hence why in the area I live in the police are called Bizzies – short for busy bodies)and rules are in the blood – along with being a Christian Socialist lefty type with a mixed-race immigrant family!

ThomasHobbes
Western line is "Muslims are good, evil terrorists in Afghanistan are bad." And then some Muslim fellow whose lived in West for a long time blows up some marathon runners, shoots his fellow soldiers, tries to blow up Time Square or kills some Jewish kids in France.

I remember before 9-11 watching some extremist Muslims protesting in England demanding a British muslim republic and death to Tony Blair.

Not surprising a number of them including some prominent preachers were arrested post London subway attacks.

Why weren't these people arrested prior 9-11? Why let them spout their hatred against their adopted countries and act as recruiting agents for terrorism.
--------------
on the latter point (re letting people spout hatred) to a degree its the same as why odious people in your country are allowed to preach their vile views like Westboro BC and the KKK. Prosecutions for incitement have been relatively few in the UK – whether left/right, Muslim, Irish etc.

re your line 'Muslims good, terrorists bad' – surely thats what we have always done – the counter-view – whether its Muslims, Jews or Catholics who are being stereotyped as security risks/threats/traitors is no help to anyone save bigots.

Of course when you refer to some Muslim fellow perpetrating the attack , 2 of the victims from 17e Rιgiment du Gιnie Parachutiste were Corporal Abel Chennouf and Private Mohamed Legouad

on the latter point (re letting people spout hatred) to a degree its the same as why odious people in your country are allowed to preach their vile views like Westboro BC and the KKK. Prosecutions for incitement have been relatively few in the UK – whether left/right, Muslim, Irish etc.

Actually in the same documentary an ex-French intelligence agency stated that Britain did not mind harbouring extremists as long as they didn't cause trouble in Britain.

London 2005 proved that attitude wrong.

The problem in the West is:

1. Political correctness and the fear of being caught out as discriminating against minority groups and a fear of promoting integration of migrants into mainstream society lest it be viewed as racism (and I am a migrant from a non-English speaking background).

2. Values that protect criminals at the expense of public safety and the criminals victims. This doesn't just include terrorists but all manner of scum – drug dealers, rapists, murderers etc. But in this context, there was no real interest by Western law enforcement of investigating extremists due to "freedom of speech" unless you were spouting Nazi propaganda.

So the police and criminal justice system turned a blind eye towards extremists until people started crashing airliners into skyscrapers.

The same can be applied to other forms of crime – e.g. the out of control bikie war in Sydney with shootings happening every couple of days.

Only those who do wrong have anything to fear from police monitoring.

3. Political correctness denies the fact that Islamist extremists are guided by extreme Islamic values as preached by Saudi Arabia. Most terrorists are ascribed as insane – e.g. the French went a long way to ascribing insanity to the Toulouse shooter, Mohammed Merah. The US is doing the same with Ft Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. In both instances the men had connections with extremist groups.

In essence the West is in denial as to the motivation of these people.

It's much like the West ascribe a few insane individuals for the horrors of the Nazi regime and then white wash the rest of the Germans as victims.

Same thing with Taliban – in one news story it's a "handful of extremists ruining it for all the peace loving Afghanis" and yet in another they report massive kill counts.

Why not acknowledge that at least some portions of the civilian populations in Pakistan and Afghanistan support the Taliban just like a sizeable percentage of the German population gladly supported Hitler?

Interesting article regarding Muslim preference for Shariah law where they live.

link

They apparently also believe in non-Muslims living outside of Sharia law but in reality, non-Muslims are heavily persecuted in predominantly muslim countries (e.g. Arab states, Malaysia, Pakistan).

And 6 Islamic men found guilty of trying to bomb right wing extremist rally. They failed because rally ended early and they had a chance encounter with police that led to their arrest.

link

Great proof of British intelligence epically failing to do anything. Probably too busy .

Unfortunately you are correct Thomas … about protecting all manner of scum … and sadly politcal correctness abounds … As far as Nidal Hasan, after a military trial, he should be executed when found guilty … which he clearly is … And that is because he murdered people, not because he is moslem …

And that is because he murdered people, not because he is moslem

I totally agree.

Unfortunately in order to cloud the reasons for the attack, they are obfuscating the manner with acusations about mental illness (hell 1 in 5 people has some form of mental illness anyway).

They Norwegian government also tried to make an insanity case for the Oslo butcher Anders Breivik.

I suspect the Western government would do the same for a Nepalese Maoist, Peruvian Shinging Path guerrila or Real IRA terrorist if they commited some atrocity in a western country.

In another interesting case, some Australian lecturers were trying to argue that Western society is responsible for modern terrorism.

It's easy to see that Western societies are in denial about nature of these attacks.

If we acknowledge these people are guided by principles other than "liberal democratic values" and then provide measures to monitor them, we might stem the flow of terrorism a lot more effectively than drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan.

Re Anders Breivik – Norways maximum prison sentence is, I think 20 years.
On the other hand if youre criminally insane, you can be held until cured (if ever).
I suspect that mightve been behind norwegian thinking.

Well as modern warfare has evolved over the decades, it's too expensive and costly in "blood and treasure", that 3rd World or smaller nations can't wage war with the 1st World Armies, other than using terrorism, guerillas, insurgents etc., etc. Even the term "guerilla" came from France's campaign in Spain 200 years ago … And of course, regardless, of a regions' or groups'(like AQ, they have/had no National affiliation) cause, etc., this type of unconventional warfare can be effective. As in Iraq, once their conventional forces were rapidly defeated they turned to (factional) insurgency. And this also happened in many of the countries the Nazis conquered in WWII … The US's support of Israel and the West's general view of the ME/SWA certainly have contibuted to the fanatical islamists actions … Plus UBL and his crew wanted to turn the world into a moslem Caliphate and slaughter the infidal also contributed to the US/West's reactions … which includes effective use of drones. Again, the US does not care who you pray to … If I remember the macho bravado saying correctly back at FT. Benning … "Mess with the best … die like the rest … "Purile" … maybe … but it gets the point across …

Part of the Norwegian desire to find Breivik mentally unstable, seemed to be reassurance that only mad people could commit such crimes. The Swedes used to think any criminal was, by their nature, not sane, as they attacked society.

In the future, fundamentalists will be confronted by twin nightmares, a West self-sufficient in energy and able to deploy a whole range of semi or perhaps fully autonomous robotic weapon systems.

Make no mistake, the Western domination in technology will continue to grow. Our only real concern will be the nature of the society they will be deployed to protect. As a teacher of the next generation, I'm equal parts optimistic, equal parts pessimistic.

Do Arabs always lose wars?

OK it was an inter-Arab conflict, but Jordan dealt with a Syrian incursion in the 1970s competently enough.

And the Qatari troops in Misratah last year seem to have been effective – as were IIRC Emirati and Kuwati troops during Gulf War I.

Which suggests the problem isn't the culture per se, just that Western trained armies do better than Soviet-equipped and trained ones.

Arab armies might have Soviet advisors and Soviet kit but tend to ignore them. Syria dug her Sa-8 mobile SAMs in and paid the price, herself and Egypt also conducted the most basic tactical errors in 73. The Saudis, after having billions in training and kit behaved like trigger happy tribesmen, when trying to retake Khafji, USMC air support had to vectored away from the area due to the number of rounds being fired up in the air.

So yes, sorry, its culture, you cannot suddenly fast-forward a country, just because it can buy sophisticated technology. The Arab nations have produced fine warriors, throughout the ages, but as has been said repeatedly before, they failed to match this warrior spirit with a modern culture and society, preferring to graft technology on to a 7th century mindset and pretend. War has a brutal way of revealing wishful thinking, and so it has proved.

Great proof of British intelligence epically failing to do anything. Probably too busy .
--------------
thats rather unfair – the people involved in MI5, SB and CTU surveillance teams have got nothing to do with foreign policy activities have they – fact is that surveillance is intensely man and woman power intensive – you need at least a team of 10 cars plus foot operatives to follow a single person. The Boston bombing shows that keeping tabs on these people is very difficult even in a country with arguably greater resources and technical kit

It's much like the West ascribe a few insane individuals for the horrors of the Nazi regime and then white wash the rest of the Germans as victims.
-----------------
Actually I'm not sure that is a commonly held view in many Western European countries (even if it might be outside Europe) – I've never heard it propounded that a few insane individuals (outside of Hitler) were responsible or that the Germans were victims (you certainly won't find many Brits, Dutch, French etc that believe that) – I think the concept of the banality of evil is quite well known. The extensive coverage of the Balkan wars also caused many people to see that the perpetrators were sadly ordinary men not escaped lunatics.

So the police and criminal justice system turned a blind eye towards extremists until people started crashing airliners into skyscrapers.

The same can be applied to other forms of crime – e.g. the out of control bikie war in Sydney with shootings happening every couple of days.
-------------
I don't know about crime in Australia but in the area I live in the UK there are frequent shootings, but thats nothing to to do with police apathy as the vast majority of officers work outstandingly hard, but due to the culture of the area (or or part of its) where the worst thing is being a 'grass' and the standard phrase is "dem dirty bizzies" (a statement that implies that the police are all corrupt and therefore its ok to be involved in organised crime)

Come off it, that's just a lame moral cover for a generation of work shy, low skill, drop-outs who have no alternative but to turn to crime, if they want to earn more than the dole. Rather like the, 'those greedy bankers do it', excusing the utterer of any blame when they rip somebody off.

I've been watching my movie, what did I miss?

latto6plus2
Yup from what I hear from a friend in the Norwegian justice system its an attempt to do an end run around the 20 year max confinement.

Fatman

Come off it, that's just a lame moral cover for a generation of work shy, low skill, drop-outs who have no alternative but to turn to crime, if they want to earn more than the dole. Rather like the, 'those greedy bankers do it', excusing the utterer of any blame when they rip somebody off.

I grew up in the crap parts of several cities and knew people who had done time for a variety of crimes from burglary to assault to armed robbery. One also committed murder and is still in jail for it (dashed some guys head in with a shovel to get his girlfriend – he got 25 years for Murder in the First Degree you'd be executed or get life for in certain parts of America. Due to good behvaiour he'll only be serving 12 and will be out soon).

All of these guys were lazy no-hope wasters.

I remember one of them who claimed to be an Aboriginal despite being white, blue eyes and blond hair (actually in Tasmania most Aboriginals are whites).

In between taking hits from a bong, he told us he couldn't get a job cause he was black.

I thought "no mate you can't find a job cause you're a lazy stoner who happily resorts to crime when he wants something."

Of course I didn't say it out aloud as he was prone to beating people up.

With regards to the Norway trying to get around 20 year max sentence.

The 20 year max sentence is proof of political correctness gone mad. Here you have an extremist who murdered dozens of people and the politically correct justice system doesn't allow more than a 20 year sentence.

This political correctness is what is making our streets less and less safe and what is leading us to lose wars.

It's why new conflicts are being fought through subterfuge of drones, contractors and special forces.

This means less oversight from media, anti-war groups and politicians looking to score easy points.

Ummmm…wow. This thread took a turn I was not expecting. Some responses were what I expected. But not the last few ones. Robert

Er moderator what exactly has this to do with gaming?…..axe it.

1. Political correctness and the fear of being caught out as discriminating against minority groups

That would be 'freedom of speech'…..

2. Values that protect criminals at the expense of public safety and the criminals victims.

That would be 'due process'…..

It may be ugly and nonsensical but the huge difference between 'the West' and the rest of the world are laws that protect the individual from the state.

Does the system fail? Sure, a lot. But the system will do a better job of protecting you then say, keeping a gun in a drawer.

Who says the Arabs don't win wars. Sure they're losing the battles and the skirmishes but in the long run they are bankrupting their enemies and winning the long game. Mongols, Ottomans, British and Americans might all share the same fate.Penniless conquerors sent packing by the fiscal impossibility of keeping a profitable hold of the Arab world. Perhaps they play the long game better than we think.
Rod Robertson.

Johny Boy. It was a interesting viewpoint as to why in most if not the majority of conflicts that the Arabs have lost. It applies to how you could and would game them using that information i.e scenarios and campaigns. Unfortunately politics had to make itself know . Robert

Agree entirely, and in it's original context a very valid question with a host of factors contributing to possible reasons forthe proposed question. However as has been pointed out, it has degenerated into a slanging match.

I Agree entirely with Rod's point above, as well as the cultural context suggested. As long as the thread sticks to the original question no problem, but some of this stuff…..gees.

In a vain attempt to get back to the question, I guess some of the later responses show how far we take for granted debates about our society. Tenuous I know, but too often people view other cultures as similar to their own, the differences are just on the surface (food, clothing, music, buildings).

Wargamers are some of the worst, units from different cultures operate using the same rule systems, any cultural (note not national, but cultural) differences are reflected by different national TOE's, morale and motivation. Trouble is a cultural difference changes your entire world view, which in turn changes how you think and how you relate to various human activities. I worked with Arabs, they are NOT similar to Europeans, this is not any statement of relative superiority, but a simple reflection that cultural diversity is present. There seems to be a pernicious and growing belief, in current political circles, that countries can be lumped together into blocs and diversity is only recognised in superficial terms. 'They're like us really' No they are not, and imposing Western solutions, based on Western understandings just creates more conflict.

The problem is further muddled, in simulating cultural warfare when those cultures send their officer class to be trained in the West, who then go to lead troops who have not had such an exposure. Or worse, go back to train a new generation in the 'best way' to fight, soon cultural forces start to reduce any of the effectiveness, and exams are taken with students coming from the same tribe duty bound to help each other, i.e. to Westerners, cheat. Thus reducing the efficacy of the tests, though nominally they have an officer academy with Western trained instructors.

Milites wrote:

Wargamers are some of the worst, units from different cultures operate using the same rule systems, any cultural (note not national, but cultural) differences are reflected by different national TOE's, morale and motivation.

I've always wanted a wargame where each side is playing to a different set of rules. The nearest I've yet seen is the old SPI game 'Kharkov'. In that, the Germans had consistently high-quality units with divisional integrity bonuses and mechanised exploitation movement, and the option to form hedgehogs in defence. The Soviets had an Army command structure with variable (but hidden from both sides until their first action) troop quality, column shifts for tank brigades, and surprise bonuses. Either side could win resoundingly, provided it played to its strengths and did not dance to the other player's tune.

In asymmetric warfare the need for different rules for each side is even greater. I think it is possible, in modern warfare, for a high-tech Western power to make operational decisions that seem logical in their own terms, and fight a campaign that looks as if it should have worked, and still to lose overall because they simply didn't understand the rules of the game the other side were playing. Of course these days we also have a lot of crapulent decision-making that makes no sense in any terms, but even if there weren't, cultural doofers make things horribly complicated.

All the best,

John.

Absolutely John , I played the Soviets in Kharkov, as generic troops, and was simply crushed. I often thought a good mechanism would be separate CRT's for the different nations, so results reflected doctrinal practice, especially the time taken to achieve the end result.

SPI's Stalingrad game seems to have had interesting mechanics, allowing the Germans to move all units and repeatedly attack, whereas the Soviets had severe limitations, unless certain conditions were met. The CRT was notoriously bloody, so the Germans could keep on attacking, but risked burning out their units. Although Streets of Stalingrad was a larger, more detailed game, it suffered from a homogenous CRT and unit capabilities. Map was awesome though!

I'm wondering if you could ever have a game where you both create your own rules, based on a points system, then play each other? It's why I liked playing card based games like Up Front, all the armies had different abilities, which reduced the mechanistically predictable approach most games took. Culture though is the killer, always has been, always will be and due to its amorphous nature, will often be ignored by intellectual midgets, who love order and harmony.

Yes, most of today's Western Armies can fight COIN … but sometimes there is a learning curve …

Milites
Come off it, that's just a lame moral cover for a generation of work shy, low skill, drop-outs who …
---------------
whilst not wishing to divert the thread again, having missed the last few days being out working, not sure where, if that was a reply to me, in my post was I giving any moral cover to those who live in a criminal sub-culture (exemplified as said by the being a grass is worse than anything, never help the police attitude)that exists in some parts of the region where I live and work.

I'll note the Israelis seem to have no problems turning Arabs into top notch soldiers….

And the IDF didn't exactly walk through Hezbollah.

I'm unsure if the troops concerned are Arabs, but the Chadian Army seems to be doing its share of butt kicking in Mali.

GNREP8, no it was a rejection of the lame moral attitude that also inhabits parts of the community I teach. Bottom line, the feckless, low-skilled ***** who utter it, have leeched off the welfare state, see no reason why they should work but demand a life style commensurate with those who do. Sad, that decades of state-sponsored education has reinforced this attitude instead of challenging it.

Israeli Arabs? If so you have made my point, they live in Westernised society and thus reap the benefits, one of which is being able to be taught without pernicious tribal influences undermining the efficacy of their training.

Never said the IDF were perfect, the 2006 operation was muddled, poor though through and relied on fighting on the enemies terms. I'm pretty sure if you'd have swapped an Arab army for the IDF they'd have done worse. Then again maybe not, they'd have probably levelled the civilian infrastructure and the world would barely have batted it's eye.

The Chadians are excellent tribal warriors fighting another tribe, even when battling the Libyans, it was inter-tribal. Against the Western nations its different, our tribal instincts have been subsumed or re-directed so that the ferocity is there, but the divisions, that occur naturally in society, do not impact against a collective effort.

Great example of flaws in both Western and Muslim cultures.

link

Brother stabs sister to death (100 times) as honour killing.

Swedish court sentences him to 8 years but then reduces it to 4 years because he was 16 at time of murder.

On one hand mindless political correctness (i.e. refusing to give harsh sentences to violent offenders) and on the other hand, Islam's brutal approach to female rights.

^ what on earth has this got to do with the original subject?

Was going to say that the US has been trying to teach Afghans to abide by the Conventions.

Back in the muj-Soviet days, there were people trying to do the same thing (Amnesty International, et al). The locals literally cannot wrap their minds around the rules in the Conventions.

These are also the same locals that have 'family feuds' including company-level support weapons. Those usually last a couple weeks before the (usually Pakistani) Army parks a few tanks between the families and says, 'enough'.

Once the Army (more importantly, the tanks) go away, the locals get back into their feud, but leave the sustained-fire MGs, most of the RPGs, and mortars back at the village for a couple months, until things come back to a boil.

what on earth has this got to do with the original subject?

Actually it kind of does a lot.

Good examples of key weaknesses in fighting "culture" of both sides:

1. West has extreme power but limits it to the point of pointlessness.

In Australia troops are investigated just about any time an enemy casualty occurs.

Recently the Army was looking at investigating SAS troops (with potential murder charges) because in a firefight they lobbed a grenade into a house which killed some children.

And just this week, they've announced an investigation into the death of 4 Taliban during a fire fight.

2. Arabs (and Afghans) are more concerned with family/tribal/clan "honour" than any notional allegiance to their country.

I think you'll find the reluctance to use force is a relatively new addition to the Western culture. There are many supposed 'culprits' but if you look at history we were not adverse to 'butcher and bolt', or butcher and stay. The Islamic practice of honour killing is symptomatic of a tribal mind set that needs a central proposition (Islam) to keep it from fracturing into countless vendettas.

Whether posters here like it or not the Arab way of war is tribal, something we harnessed and subsumed to the common good, a concept alien to them. Their devotion to their religion is simply because it is their only way of showing commonality, hence the constant stress on the ummah and calls for capital punishment for apostasy, in many Islamic countries.

The West though must bear most of the burden for the current situation, as arbitrary lines on a map do not a country make, especially if the inhabitants have not advanced beyond their tribal loyalties. It's why I always laugh when Israel is included sweepingly in the 'Middle East'.

The problem with the Muslim military has to do with the cultural structures that support it. All those structures are tied to a 1,200 year old codex that is immutable; therefore the Muslim world cannot adapt and evolve. Throughout their world, every aspect of Muslim life has 2 chains of command, the secular and the religious. Both chains have a veto. So if either side is not supportive of a function or improvement, it doesn't happen.

In Europe, we largely divorced the church and state relationship, allowed individual freedom to make choices. Good ideas thrived, bad ideas died, and the improvements made to western society were astronomical. So the Muslims were left now with mimicking existing western ideas without understanding or the supporting principles.

They are not stupid, and they know this is a problem. Their philosophers have been asking themselves what went wrong for over 200 years. Which in itself is telling. Unfortunately, the Koran is the absolute rule of law and is not subject to change. And all their decisions are bound to it.

"And all their decisions are bound to it."

"Aye there's the rub …"

PHamer – I can only assume you don't know many Muslims…

The largest army in NATO (IIRC) is Muslim, and has a pretty impressive track record of not liking non-secular governments too much.

And it's not like the Albanians, Algerians, Moroccans or indeed our NATO allies in Albania have this problem either.

Might be worth reading the foreign news pages once in a while.

If you're talking about Turkey it's the Second largest Army in NATO – link And as can be seen recently they have had their own problems non-secular or otherwise … According to this link, Deployable NATO Forces – US is first, then Turkey, France(#3), Germany(#4) – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO With the UK and Italy tied for #5 … it looks like to me … just FYI …

Don't think the Turks or Albanians would like to be called Arabs, Stu. The post was on Muslims, PHGamer was spot on, except for the use of the term Muslim. Islam does though, in its current iteration, pose problems for any state that adheres to it, both in terms of a social tension between secular and religious authorities, and as a restraint to any technological breakthroughs.

Iran is now saddled with a Muslim extremism fuelled by a conservative interpretation of Islam, which has hindered the traditional Persian creativity and set up rival organisations to its traditional armed forces.

Turkey actually is proof of the argument, it's army is relatively efficient due to enforced secularity and an Islam regarded as untainted by Arab influence.

I don't know many Muslims, just a student of history. Turkey proves the point though. Their miltary and country has prospered since Ataturk reformed the government structures of the country. This is pretty good for a country that as the Ottomen Empire, spent 200 years trying to decide if the printing press should be allowed or not.

Milites – PHGamers used the term 'Muslims'. You are quite correct, Turks and Albanians do not regard themselves as Arabs.

So either PH can't tell the different between an Arab and a Muslim or he is rather ignorant of modern history.

Islam seems to pose the Turks no more problems than the Americans suffer with Christianity.

Indeed I'd say rather less.

Turkey seems to be one of the most "modern"/secular of Islamic countries of all those that practice the religion …

Top 10 Largest National Muslim Populations

Indonesia 170,310,000
Pakistan 136,000,000

Bangladesh 106,050,000

India 103,000,000

Turkey 62,410,000

Iran 60,790,000

Egypt 53,730,000

Nigeria 47,720,000

China 37,000,000

With the USA primarily being "Chistian" in all it's versions, there still is a fringe which causes some consternation on occasions … However, those seem more of an annoyance than a threat of any kind. Of course, there is the other end of the "fringe" like the Amish, who cause no upset at all and are productive members of society … I like to buy their produce too ! BUT … to get a little more back on topic based on the title of this thread … Turks, Albanians and Persian/Iranians are not Arabs and have not fought/lost a war in sometime …

Turks have been fighting the Kurds for decades, the Iranians fought the Iraqis in the past few decades and the Albanians were in Iraq and I think Afghanistan.

Egypt has won a war, albeit against Libya. Algeria seems to have a competant military given it has beaten an Islamic insurgency.

Jordans military seems rather good, certainly good enough to beat the Syrians and Black September.

Qatars' military keeps popping up all over the palce and seems to be successful.

The UAE did OK in Gulf War I.

As for Christianity…. any nation where it is law to teach Creationism (a sit is in Kentucky) has issues. But that's a different debate :)

Yes, they have been fighting a low intensity guerilla war against the Kurds for sometime, with heavy losses to the Kurds. link And the Turks have not lost … albeit the Kurds may argue the point. The Iran-Iraq was '80-'89, and both sides claim victory(?) … That was decades ago … Albanians in Iraq and/or the 'stan were in small numbers … link I know Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Jordan, Qatar and the UAE are generally considered Arabs and Moslem … And if you have ever been in KY, or much of the rural South, many of them take their religion seriously … But for the most part, save the "fringe elements", they are just a bunch of good old boys … quaint some times, annoying some times but harmless(save for the "Dixie Mafia" !) … maybe even amusing …

The point remains that the loony tunes are affecting the law of KY, which is just what makes some here have been decrying in Arab States.

That the Albanians were in low numbers alters not the fact they've fought a modern war recently.

It's a law to teach creationism as an alternative theory, to the scientific one, is vastly different to the theocratic injunction that creationism IS the only theory.

As for the sly dig at Christianity, compare the number of scientific papers, let alone patents, the entire Arab world produces compared to the US. Hint, Harvard produces more than 17 Islamic countries combined.

Any suggestion that US Christianity has had a deleterious effect, similar to that of Islam, shows profound theological and sociological ignorance. Until Muslims undergo their own 'Reformation' and 'Enlightenment', both bloody and disruptive periods they will never be able to compete with the West, economically or militarily. At the moment they are going through a bloody and disruptive phase, but it is entrenching orthodox Islam, not challenging it.

This piece is interesting, but it feels it has to soft soap the effect religion has had, by repeating the glory days of Islam and suggesting religion has been a positive influence on Muslim science. The dig at stem cell research is interesting, but fails to show, with Christian scientists, that opposition, though spiritually based was also derived more from the idea there might be better, more effective, alternatives.

link

I should have been more specific when dealing with you stu … the Albanians have not recently fought a war on their own or where they were the majority of the forces … Has far as my buddies from the South, the vast majority of Christians in that region(or any region in the US !)don't commit the human rights violations, terrorist acts, etc. as we see by many of the islamic fanatics. At least not in recent history … And BTW, I'm not from the South, I'm a "Yankee" from Ohio. However, during the ACW, my ancestors were still in Europe … so even calling myself a Yankee is a bit of a stretch in my mind …