What Have The Arabs Given To The World In The Last 20-30-50 Years?

[montelatici]

The Arabs greatly contributed to construction/structure technique, math, poetry, and tradition in the past, but they did lost more than given instead of adopting the changing world and advance from the 7th century, the Turks are excellent 'indicator' for it. [and yes they are Arabs]

LMAO The Turks are NOT Arabs. Too funny.

They are Asians. Do you think Indonesians are also Arabs? Do you think all Muslims are Arabs? Too fucking funny.

Almost all of what we call "the middle east" is in Asia.

I lived in Turkey for 2 years. I have had many friends who are Turkish. They do not consider themselves as Arabs. They are Asian. It is Asia Minor, not the Middle East. Turkish people in no way consider themselves Arab. Only about one percent of Turkish people even speak Arabic. Arabs, and I've lived in the ME too, do not consider Turks as Arabs. No one with any knowledge of this issue considers Turks as Arabs. Their history is not Arabic. They are not Arabic. As well, Turkish culture is not the same as Arabic culture: you don't know that because you have lived in neither place. And Turkish food is far more similar, almost identical in fact, to Greek food, not Arabic food. You are very ignorant about this issue.

Esmeralda is right Turks are not Arab they speak a whole different language and different culture.

Well you can read the following posts.
Thing is Turks share Arab origins, cultural aspects and religion with 85-90% of the Arabs, the main point in this debate I was trying to make is that -lets say- ME remained somewhere behind, and mostly by Arabs.

That is patently untrue. Outside of religion, the Turks have very little in common with the Arabs. The Jews have far more in common with Arabs culturally.

 

[aris2chat]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Sad that it is forgotten when it is the foundation of many modern achievements.

Sad that it is forgotten by people who themselves glorify ancient historical rights.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

I realize that this is not "within the last 50 years" - but here are some thoughts.

What is the purpose of a thread like this? I think it's obvious.
Second - no modern achievements can stand alone. They did not occur in a vacuum and every great discovery or invention is built upon the achievements of earlier people. Threads like these seem designed to demean and diminish the true magnitude of those achievements and of course, of those people.

Has the Arab world contributed much to scientific advances in the last 50 years? Not so much, and that very issue is the cause of a certain amount of soul searching in the Islamic community. Many Arab scientists have ended up immigrating to other countries where their research has flourished under sponsorship.

Here is a good article, worth reading because it adds depth to what is otherwise rather shallow.

Saudi Aramco World Rediscovering Arabic Science

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I realize that this is not "within the last 50 years" - but here are some thoughts.

What is the purpose of a thread like this? I think it's obvious.
Second - no modern achievements can stand alone. They did not occur in a vacuum and every great discovery or invention is built upon the achievements of earlier people. Threads like these seem designed to demean and diminish the true magnitude of those achievements and of course, of those people.

Has the Arab world contributed much to scientific advances in the last 50 years? Not so much, and that very issue is the cause of a certain amount of soul searching in the Islamic community. Many Arab scientists have ended up immigrating to other countries where their research has flourished under sponsorship.

Here is a good article, worth reading because it adds depth to what is otherwise rather shallow.

Saudi Aramco World Rediscovering Arabic Science

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

Every new dig or document found changes history. Even carbon dating has changed history.
New eyes and new analysis of the past change what we thought we knew way back in school.
Science, medicine, astronomy, physics, they all change with each new discovery.

 

[montelatici]

LMAO The Turks are NOT Arabs. Too funny.

They are Asians. Do you think Indonesians are also Arabs? Do you think all Muslims are Arabs? Too fucking funny.

The Turkish culture is Arabian culture like most ME Arab/Muslim states, it is easier to count the differences instead of the similarities , which is why I consider them Arabs, it is influenced by Islam that is correct, those who live on the border are mostly to be influenced by the two sides of the borders, did you see Turks eating Bak'lawa on Eid El-Fit'er with chopsticks?

Bullshit. Totally untrue. You can consider them anything you want, but they are not Arabic. All Islamic cultures are not Arabic. What an ignorant thing to think.

Are Turks "arabs" or....?
No we aren't. As you also called us, we are Turks.
Here is a brief history of Turkish people :
The first historical references to the Turks appear in Chinese records of about 2000 B.C. These records refer to tribes called the Hsiung-nu, an early form of the Western term Hun, who lived in an area bounded by the Altai Mountains, Lake Baikal, and the northern edge of the Gobi Desert and are believed to have been the ancestors of the Turks. Specific references in Chinese sources in the sixth century A.D. identify the tribal kingdom called Tu-Küe located on the Orkhon River south of Lake Baikal. The Khans (chiefs) of this tribe accepted the nominal suzerainty of the Tang dynasty. The earliest known example of writing in a Turkic language was found in that area and can be dated from about A.D. 730.
Other Turkish nomads from the Altai region founded the Göktürk Empire, a confederation of tribes under a dynasty of Khans whose influence extended during the sixth to eighth centuries from the Aral Sea to the Hindu Kush in the land bridge known as Transoxania, i.e., across the Oxus River. The Göktürks are known to have been enlisted by a Byzantine emperor in the seventh century as allies against the Sassanians. In the eighth century some Turkish tribes, among them the Oguz, moved south of the Oxus River, while others migrated west to the northern shore of the Black Sea.
Turks came into Asia Minor in 1071 AD after the victory of Malazgirt War by the Seljuks.
Although nowaday some Turks are mixed with some other ethnicities who were ruled by Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years which include, Bosnian, Circassian, Greek, Laz, Albanian, Armenian, Syrian, Kurd etc , there are a lot of pure blood ones, as well.
We don't consider Turkishness as an ethnicity matter but a national matter. Therefore, whomever considers himself/herself a Turk, then he/she is one.

Are Turks arabs or....
Bottom line: Turks are not Arabs no matter how you wish to view them.

I Know the Turks are proud nation and they see themselves distinguished "race", which is partly true, but the Arabian influence and the Islam (Islam is the Arab main culture frame) are the major part of Turkey.
Let me ask you a question, do you consider Israel as part of Africa or Asia?

Don't you understand: it isn't what I "consider" or what you "consider." It is what is. Turkish people are not Arabs. Their culture is not Arabic; their history is not Arabic. Period.

Bullshit

They are all A-rabs

Saudis, Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, Indians. Packis......all towlheads that are different than us normal people and should be feared

What's your definition of "terrorism"?

Terrorism involves the singling out of innocent civilians BECAUSE they are innocent civilians, killed quite deliberately for the purpose of instilling fear in the populace.

Only an extremely dishonest propagandists tries to claim that any civilian death during armed conflict constitutes terrorism.

Were Stukka bombers attacking Polish cities, killing civilians during armed conflict engaging in terrorism?

 

[Sally]

If that's what you want to depend on, go for it. I prefer regular Encyclopedias plus what comes out of the history departments of major universities and colleges.

I prefer to use a variety of sources - Wikipedia is one, and like I said - it is sourced. You can track down the claims and see what agendas might be involved. There are many good sources.

Yeah, I am sure that all the posters who depend on Wikipedia are actually tracking down the claims!!!

It's up to the individual.

Of course it is, but I doubt that there are many individuals actually tracking down the claims on Wikipedia to see if they are true.

If not, it should be easy to track them down and dismantle their arguments

Yeab sure, we all don't want to have a life but should be tracking down everything others bring up on Wikipedia. You might want to spend your days on the Internet tracking things down, but I certainly don't.

 

[Sally]

the arabs did just as much as all the rest of us.

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Sad that it is forgotten when it is the foundation of many modern achievements.

Sad that it is forgotten by people who themselves glorify ancient historical rights.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

Every new dig or document found changes history. Even carbon dating has changed history.
New eyes and new analysis of the past change what we thought we knew way back in school.
Science, medicine, astronomy, physics, they all change with each new discovery.

Of course new things are found out about the past, Aris, but certain things never change -- like all the wars there were in ancient times. I feel that regular encyclopedias and the history departments of universities give a much better review of what went on in the past than something like Wikipedia.

 

[Sally]

LMAO The Turks are NOT Arabs. Too funny.

They are Asians. Do you think Indonesians are also Arabs? Do you think all Muslims are Arabs? Too fucking funny.

Almost all of what we call "the middle east" is in Asia.

I lived in Turkey for 2 years. I have had many friends who are Turkish. They do not consider themselves as Arabs. They are Asian. It is Asia Minor, not the Middle East. Turkish people in no way consider themselves Arab. Only about one percent of Turkish people even speak Arabic. Arabs, and I've lived in the ME too, do not consider Turks as Arabs. No one with any knowledge of this issue considers Turks as Arabs. Their history is not Arabic. They are not Arabic. As well, Turkish culture is not the same as Arabic culture: you don't know that because you have lived in neither place. And Turkish food is far more similar, almost identical in fact, to Greek food, not Arabic food. You are very ignorant about this issue.

Esmeralda is right Turks are not Arab they speak a whole different language and different culture.

Well you can read the following posts.
Thing is Turks share Arab origins, cultural aspects and religion with 85-90% of the Arabs, the main point in this debate I was trying to make is that -lets say- ME remained somewhere behind, and mostly by Arabs.

That is patently untrue. Outside of religion, the Turks have very little in common with the Arabs. The Jews have far more in common with Arabs culturally.

Is this Haniyah now posting or the guy who popped up under her screen name who said his wife comes from Spain? I can never be sure. One thing I think we all knoew for sure -- the Hindus in India and the Muslims in Pakistan have far more in common culturally than the Muslims do with other Muslims in the Middle East. The amusing thing is that the Muslim Bangadeshi have an enclave in New York where they dress in Arabic clothes because it brings them closes to Mohammed.

 

[aris2chat]

Over the past 50 years or so?

Unlikely.

Their glory days are 1000-1300 years in the past.

So far back in time now that it's been forgotten by much of the world.

Sad that it is forgotten when it is the foundation of many modern achievements.

Sad that it is forgotten by people who themselves glorify ancient historical rights.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

Every new dig or document found changes history. Even carbon dating has changed history.
New eyes and new analysis of the past change what we thought we knew way back in school.
Science, medicine, astronomy, physics, they all change with each new discovery.

Of course new things are found out about the past, Aris, but certain things never change -- like all the wars there were in ancient times. I feel that regular encyclopedias and the history departments of universities give a much better review of what went on in the past than something like Wikipedia.

We know now that some egyptian battle were exaggerated. We know more about the battle(s) of troy. We have learned more about the jewish wars and how many jews were killed or enslaved. We even know more about the world wars and how they were fought, how many died and even found more graves and ovens at the camps. The finding of Alexander's tomb. New information about Stonehenge and other stone circles. So much in the last decade.

 

[Sally]

Sad that it is forgotten when it is the foundation of many modern achievements.

Sad that it is forgotten by people who themselves glorify ancient historical rights.

Arabic contributions to science, medicine, etc., built upon the remnants of such knowledge in the Classical Age, and, of course, during their heyday, they did some good original and innovative work themselves, in their various academies, but, like the Greeks of Antiquity, that was a long, long, long time ago, and they degenerated within a few centuries.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

By the time an encyclopedia is printed and sold, it is already outdated. Wikipedia is updated within minutes. People who disagree and have evidence can edit the information. All references are included so anyone can double check the facts.
Quick and easy is why it is used. Any event is subject to some point of view as an explanation. Wiki should only be a first step to research. A directional arrow to help you on your way. Most schools and colleges do not allow quoting or references from Wiki. They want you in the library finding more details and research from other sources. Most people in college can use their library/student ID to access documents, papers, magazines, news, etc. from any library and online. Information and research the general public cannot access or would have to subscribe to.
If you don't know anything about a subject wiki is a good overview. If you really need details and more reliable info, go further on your own.

I agree with you up to a point, Aris. Sure things change every year in many things -- current events, modern technoilogy, etc., but you can't change history. That is in the past. The people who have worked on these encyclopedias have researched thoroughly about the past, and no one can claim that they haven't done their job. I am in agreement with that teacher that students shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia when so much is thrown in and not checked out like is done with regular encyclopedias.

Every new dig or document found changes history. Even carbon dating has changed history.
New eyes and new analysis of the past change what we thought we knew way back in school.
Science, medicine, astronomy, physics, they all change with each new discovery.

Of course new things are found out about the past, Aris, but certain things never change -- like all the wars there were in ancient times. I feel that regular encyclopedias and the history departments of universities give a much better review of what went on in the past than something like Wikipedia.

We know now that some egyptian battle were exaggerated. We know more about the battle(s) of troy. We have learned more about the jewish wars and how many jews were killed or enslaved. We even know more about the world wars and how they were fought, how many died and even found more graves and ovens at the camps. The finding of Alexander's tomb. New information about Stonehenge and other stone circles. So much in the last decade.

I am not disagreeing with you, Aris. I just wanted to point out that there are things in history that have never changed.

 

[Coyote]

I prefer to use a variety of sources - Wikipedia is one, and like I said - it is sourced. You can track down the claims and see what agendas might be involved. There are many good sources.

Yeah, I am sure that all the posters who depend on Wikipedia are actually tracking down the claims!!!

It's up to the individual.

Of course it is, but I doubt that there are many individuals actually tracking down the claims on Wikipedia to see if they are true.

If not, it should be easy to track them down and dismantle their arguments

Yeab sure, we all don't want to have a life but should be tracking down everything others bring up on Wikipedia. You might want to spend your days on the Internet tracking things down, but I certainly don't.

Geez Sally. You just don't quit do you?

 

[georgephillip]

The Turkish culture is Arabian culture like most ME Arab/Muslim states, it is easier to count the differences instead of the similarities , which is why I consider them Arabs, it is influenced by Islam that is correct, those who live on the border are mostly to be influenced by the two sides of the borders, did you see Turks eating Bak'lawa on Eid El-Fit'er with chopsticks?

Bullshit. Totally untrue. You can consider them anything you want, but they are not Arabic. All Islamic cultures are not Arabic. What an ignorant thing to think.

Are Turks "arabs" or....?
No we aren't. As you also called us, we are Turks.
Here is a brief history of Turkish people :
The first historical references to the Turks appear in Chinese records of about 2000 B.C. These records refer to tribes called the Hsiung-nu, an early form of the Western term Hun, who lived in an area bounded by the Altai Mountains, Lake Baikal, and the northern edge of the Gobi Desert and are believed to have been the ancestors of the Turks. Specific references in Chinese sources in the sixth century A.D. identify the tribal kingdom called Tu-Küe located on the Orkhon River south of Lake Baikal. The Khans (chiefs) of this tribe accepted the nominal suzerainty of the Tang dynasty. The earliest known example of writing in a Turkic language was found in that area and can be dated from about A.D. 730.
Other Turkish nomads from the Altai region founded the Göktürk Empire, a confederation of tribes under a dynasty of Khans whose influence extended during the sixth to eighth centuries from the Aral Sea to the Hindu Kush in the land bridge known as Transoxania, i.e., across the Oxus River. The Göktürks are known to have been enlisted by a Byzantine emperor in the seventh century as allies against the Sassanians. In the eighth century some Turkish tribes, among them the Oguz, moved south of the Oxus River, while others migrated west to the northern shore of the Black Sea.
Turks came into Asia Minor in 1071 AD after the victory of Malazgirt War by the Seljuks.
Although nowaday some Turks are mixed with some other ethnicities who were ruled by Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years which include, Bosnian, Circassian, Greek, Laz, Albanian, Armenian, Syrian, Kurd etc , there are a lot of pure blood ones, as well.
We don't consider Turkishness as an ethnicity matter but a national matter. Therefore, whomever considers himself/herself a Turk, then he/she is one.

Are Turks arabs or....
Bottom line: Turks are not Arabs no matter how you wish to view them.

I Know the Turks are proud nation and they see themselves distinguished "race", which is partly true, but the Arabian influence and the Islam (Islam is the Arab main culture frame) are the major part of Turkey.
Let me ask you a question, do you consider Israel as part of Africa or Asia?

Don't you understand: it isn't what I "consider" or what you "consider." It is what is. Turkish people are not Arabs. Their culture is not Arabic; their history is not Arabic. Period.

Bullshit

They are all A-rabs

Saudis, Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, Indians. Packis......all towlheads that are different than us normal people and should be feared

What's your definition of "terrorism"?

Terrorism involves the singling out of innocent civilians BECAUSE they are innocent civilians, killed quite deliberately for the purpose of instilling fear in the populace.

Only an extremely dishonest propagandists tries to claim that any civilian death during armed conflict constitutes terrorism.

Were Stukka bombers attacking Polish cities, killing civilians during armed conflict engaging in terrorism?

I would argue they were by contemporary standards deliberately killing civilians to advance a political agenda; timing is everything, however:
"For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law of jus cogens.

"It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after 1945.

"During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

"'To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'"

"Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of 'substituting power for principle' at Nuremberg. 'I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled.', he wrote. 'Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.'"[14]
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

You're the utter idiot so you tell me.

What are you, like 12 years old?

I'm old enough to recognize the supreme international crime:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'"
How old are you?

War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's all a matter of perspective - and the winners make the rules. Tee hee.

Not since Nuremberg, Chuckles:
"The Nuremberg Principles[edit]
In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finland to prosecute the political leadership in the war-responsibility trials in Finland.

"The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

"In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:[12][13]

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Kondor3]

You're the utter idiot so you tell me.

What are you, like 12 years old?

I'm old enough to recognize the supreme international crime:
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'"
How old are you?

War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's all a matter of perspective - and the winners make the rules. Tee hee.

Not since Nuremberg, Chuckles:
"The Nuremberg Principles[edit]
In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finland to prosecute the political leadership in the war-responsibility trials in Finland.

"The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

"In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:[12][13]

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Very nice.

On paper.

Now, all you need to do is to effectively prosecute, and enough muscle to make it stick, and you're all set.

 

[Sally]

Yeah, I am sure that all the posters who depend on Wikipedia are actually tracking down the claims!!!

It's up to the individual.

Of course it is, but I doubt that there are many individuals actually tracking down the claims on Wikipedia to see if they are true.

If not, it should be easy to track them down and dismantle their arguments

Yeab sure, we all don't want to have a life but should be tracking down everything others bring up on Wikipedia. You might want to spend your days on the Internet tracking things down, but I certainly don't.

Geez Sally. You just don't quit do you?

I think many of the viewers and other posters can say the same thing about you.

 

[Coyote]

It's up to the individual.

Of course it is, but I doubt that there are many individuals actually tracking down the claims on Wikipedia to see if they are true.

If not, it should be easy to track them down and dismantle their arguments

Yeab sure, we all don't want to have a life but should be tracking down everything others bring up on Wikipedia. You might want to spend your days on the Internet tracking things down, but I certainly don't.

Geez Sally. You just don't quit do you?

I think many of the viewers and other posters can say the same thing about you.

Why? Even if I'm nice, you still bite.

Go figure. It's a no win.

 

[Sally]

Of course it is, but I doubt that there are many individuals actually tracking down the claims on Wikipedia to see if they are true.

If not, it should be easy to track them down and dismantle their arguments

Yeab sure, we all don't want to have a life but should be tracking down everything others bring up on Wikipedia. You might want to spend your days on the Internet tracking things down, but I certainly don't.

Geez Sally. You just don't quit do you?

I think many of the viewers and other posters can say the same thing about you.

Why? Even if I'm nice, you still bite.

Go figure. It's a no win.

Why was it so difficult to understand that I prefer regular encyclopedias over Wikipedia? I really don't want to spend my time verifying that everything posted in Wikipedia was the real McCoy when I could be spending my time doing other things.

What I did enjoy was your post saying how you enjoyed encyclopedias when younger. They showed us the world. I would suggest you buy a set of Will and Ariel Durant series on Civilization. Very interesting!!!

 

[Coyote]

If not, it should be easy to track them down and dismantle their arguments

Yeab sure, we all don't want to have a life but should be tracking down everything others bring up on Wikipedia. You might want to spend your days on the Internet tracking things down, but I certainly don't.

Geez Sally. You just don't quit do you?

I think many of the viewers and other posters can say the same thing about you.

Why? Even if I'm nice, you still bite.

Go figure. It's a no win.

Why was it so difficult to understand that I prefer regular encyclopedias over Wikipedia? I really don't want to spend my time verifying that everything posted in Wikipedia was the real McCoy when I could be spending my time doing other things.

What I did enjoy was your post saying how you enjoyed encyclopedias when younger. They showed us the world. I would suggest you buy a set of Will and Ariel Durant series on Civilization. Very interesting!!!

Thank you Sally

And I will look for that Durant series (my library has a lot).

You might enjoy the series Connections (James Burke) - a fascinating look at how modern achievements were built upon older ones. It's an old series but never fails to amaze me

 

[aris2chat]

I realize that this is not "within the last 50 years" - but here are some thoughts.

What is the purpose of a thread like this? I think it's obvious.
Second - no modern achievements can stand alone. They did not occur in a vacuum and every great discovery or invention is built upon the achievements of earlier people. Threads like these seem designed to demean and diminish the true magnitude of those achievements and of course, of those people.

Has the Arab world contributed much to scientific advances in the last 50 years? Not so much, and that very issue is the cause of a certain amount of soul searching in the Islamic community. Many Arab scientists have ended up immigrating to other countries where their research has flourished under sponsorship.

Here is a good article, worth reading because it adds depth to what is otherwise rather shallow.

Saudi Aramco World Rediscovering Arabic Science

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I realize that this is not "within the last 50 years" - but here are some thoughts.

What is the purpose of a thread like this? I think it's obvious.
Second - no modern achievements can stand alone. They did not occur in a vacuum and every great discovery or invention is built upon the achievements of earlier people. Threads like these seem designed to demean and diminish the true magnitude of those achievements and of course, of those people.

Has the Arab world contributed much to scientific advances in the last 50 years? Not so much, and that very issue is the cause of a certain amount of soul searching in the Islamic community. Many Arab scientists have ended up immigrating to other countries where their research has flourished under sponsorship.

Here is a good article, worth reading because it adds depth to what is otherwise rather shallow.

Saudi Aramco World Rediscovering Arabic Science

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Yet despite that Sally, your source gave essentially the same information as Wikipedia gave me:

"...it ceased to exist with the Mongol destruction of Baghdad in 1258"

One of the proposed endpoints of the Islamic Golden Age.

Don t Blame It on al-Ghazali

al-Ghazali Abu Hamid 1058-1111

 

[Coyote]

I realize that this is not "within the last 50 years" - but here are some thoughts.

What is the purpose of a thread like this? I think it's obvious.
Second - no modern achievements can stand alone. They did not occur in a vacuum and every great discovery or invention is built upon the achievements of earlier people. Threads like these seem designed to demean and diminish the true magnitude of those achievements and of course, of those people.

Has the Arab world contributed much to scientific advances in the last 50 years? Not so much, and that very issue is the cause of a certain amount of soul searching in the Islamic community. Many Arab scientists have ended up immigrating to other countries where their research has flourished under sponsorship.

Here is a good article, worth reading because it adds depth to what is otherwise rather shallow.

Saudi Aramco World Rediscovering Arabic Science

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I realize that this is not "within the last 50 years" - but here are some thoughts.

What is the purpose of a thread like this? I think it's obvious.
Second - no modern achievements can stand alone. They did not occur in a vacuum and every great discovery or invention is built upon the achievements of earlier people. Threads like these seem designed to demean and diminish the true magnitude of those achievements and of course, of those people.

Has the Arab world contributed much to scientific advances in the last 50 years? Not so much, and that very issue is the cause of a certain amount of soul searching in the Islamic community. Many Arab scientists have ended up immigrating to other countries where their research has flourished under sponsorship.

Here is a good article, worth reading because it adds depth to what is otherwise rather shallow.

Saudi Aramco World Rediscovering Arabic Science

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Yet despite that Sally, your source gave essentially the same information as Wikipedia gave me:

"...it ceased to exist with the Mongol destruction of Baghdad in 1258"

One of the proposed endpoints of the Islamic Golden Age.

Don t Blame It on al-Ghazali

al-Ghazali Abu Hamid 1058-1111

Thank you - that is a fascinating read

 

[irosie91]

face facts kids.. "the Islamic 'golden age' "---
ended----not because Genghis khan was an animal----- but because Islamic societies destroyed and suppressed the intellectual elites
that they had conquered------the Zoroastrians, jews, and Christians-----and later Hindus and Buddhists. There never really existed an "Islamic" golden age of 'science'------just an age during which Islamic societies and some muslims benefitted from islamic invasion.

 

[aris2chat]

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

from the 9th -13th C. there were several schools of thought that rejected western/Greek science and preached the Quran literally. This lead to the end of the golden age, and it has been dead for the last millennium.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't usually mix well with science....according to wikipedia, the end of the age is variously given as 1258 when Bagdad was sacked by the Mongols and 1492 when the Christians conquored Granada. Arab countries have a serious brain drain going on.

I really wonder why so many of the posters rely on Wikipedia so much. Years ago when all of us had to do reports for school, we either had a set of encyclopedias at home or went to the library to use their sets. I can see why, when there was an article on Wikipedia in my newspaper, some teacher said that she didn't allow her students to use that as a source for their reports as anything could be put in. In a regular encyclopedia, you have had scholars and researchers doing a darn good job of giving information to the public.

Caliphate Islamic history -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Yet despite that Sally, your source gave essentially the same information as Wikipedia gave me:

"...it ceased to exist with the Mongol destruction of Baghdad in 1258"

One of the proposed endpoints of the Islamic Golden Age.

Don t Blame It on al-Ghazali

al-Ghazali Abu Hamid 1058-1111

Thank you - that is a fascinating read

History is not always what is in an encyclopedia. What some thing of as history is limit by the writers knowledge.