Problems with Islam

[Edric O]

I was talking about the Russian Revolution, Wolfwiz... that's why I called it the "Nicholas II" solution...

The actual revolution itself (the October Revolution) was mostly bloodless, because the government was so universally hated that no one lifted a finger to defend it (not even the army, which had almost entirely collapsed). About a year later, however, the monarchists (the "Whites") managed to get foreign support and launched the Russian Civil War, which, unlike the revolution, was very bloody.

[Wolf]

Ah, I see. Yes, I knew the Nicholas II reference, but the "bloodless" had me cold -- I was confused -- thank you for clearing that up.

[otheymzefedaykin]

EdricO, you should change the name, bacauses "Nicholas II" i believed that you mean a beahading ravolution.... :-

Don't leave the monarchy in SA, because whith who, americans could be control the Middle-East ? (because they will have only Iraq tocontrol !)

[Wolf]

I apologize if I misunderstand you, but you're saying we shouldn't leave the Saudi monarchy in power, but that you worry that it would be Americans doing the removing, thus leaving America and Israel in total control of the Middle East?

[Edric O]

Don't worry. When was the last time the USA removed a pro-American dictator from power?

[Wolf]

Yeah, but isn't that a little weird? I thought Saudi Arabia used "the West" as a scapegoat for all their problems. Are they really as pro-US as we think, or don't the Saudi people know what's going on? I would imagine not, actually, but consider that all these recent acts of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, including the one carried out today were conducted by the Saudi people. I wonder if the two are related? Terrorism, and the government being so heavily de facto pro-US and so heavily de jure anti-West.

[danielsh]

Every oppressive government needs a scapegoat upon which to blame its problems.

[emprworm]

  but consider that all these recent acts of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, including the one carried out today were conducted by the Saudi people.

the chickens always go home to roost.

[Ninja_Sher]

Which is reminiscent of the French & Russian revolutions (in pretty much every respect except being a bloodless revolution in the first place -- that and the French figured things out faster than Russia).

Well the French revolution was much more popular as Napoleon is still respected as one of the most benevolent head of state the world had seen.

[exatreide]

Beside of course the invasion's of several other countries...the deaths of thousands...The buturching of helpless turkish prisnors by baynet.

[thomas]

Napoleon is views as a great military leader and a decent leader, his military sklills are waht kept him up, and how can he be a grande leader when france went though about 4-7 differant revolutions after that? France's government during the 1800s was shifting like trains at a station

[Anathema]

Napoleon was a great leader. I'll name one of his achievements: the code civil, wich is still in use today by France and some other countries (in slightly modified form)

And the invasion of foreign countries can hardly be considered part of the revolution itself...

[Ninja_Sher]

Napoleon was a great leader. I'll name one of his achievements: the code civil, wich is still in use today by France and some other countries (in slightly modified form)

And the invasion of foreign countries can hardly be considered part of the revolution itself...

Invasions were maid out of political turmoil. For example he invaded Russia for it breaking the trade treaty and start trading with France's enemy countries. Tell you why there were enemies of France, because of the revolution the othere Kingdoms feared that their own coutries might be having same fate and overthrowing the kings and they attacked France so Napoleon had to take action. If you look upon the development France went through ( especially the development of normal people ) you would respect Napoleon as well.