Muslims and terrorists

[Buster Bluth]

All I can say on the topic is that I'm sick and tired of Christians being attacked, and everyone being to worried about offending muslims. DON'T GET IT. Oh maybe I do get it because Christians are the majority in the US so that now makes them racist. There is only one one God.....

Probably even less than that.

 

[pkt77242]

Redbar
They had over one thousand years to make something of themselves and didn't do it in spite of absolute control and hundreds of years of oil reserves. The inept interference of the West (mainly the British) in the few years between the end of WWI and the end of WWII is not the cause of their troubles.
Even now, when given the choice, they appear to want to return to the seventh century.

Wow. I don't even know where to start. You are painting with a broad brush. Holy ****. Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and even Kuwait and Qatar are not wanting to go back to the seventh century. Also the British and the US meddled in the Middle East for long after WWII. You might want to go check your history.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I'm no expert on Islam either. I've taken one world religion course but i learned a lot during an extremely intense 2 year education in Arabic at DLI in Monterey, CA. While we were learning the language we were also learning about the religion and their culture. I was given a Qur'an in Arabic that I had the opportunity to skim through. I also spent a month in Jordan (as well as multiple deployments to the Middle East). I know that Jordan is no hotbed for terrorist activity and that my instructors escaped to the US for their own personal reasons but I've had zero bad experiences with Arabs. They've all been very kind and generous people. I know that the terrorists have given them all a bad wrap, though, and it's unfortunate.

 

[Bluto]

Redbar
They had over one thousand years to make something of themselves and didn't do it in spite of absolute control and hundreds of years of oil reserves. The inept interference of the West (mainly the British) in the few years between the end of WWI and the end of WWII is not the cause of their troubles.
Even now, when given the choice, they appear to want to return to the seventh century.

Man this is some pretty racist bs. Apparently you missed the memo on the US arming the Mujahaden who morphed into Al Queda, installing the Shah in Iran, our unquestioning support of Israel even when they do something stupid and the arming of Saddam Hussein in the 80's so 20 years later we could go in and blow up the better part of Iraq...oh and we sold weapons to the Iranians to support death squads in Central America, but yeah we as a nation have no culpability in all this.

 

[Bluto]

The fact of the matter is and I'm sure some may find this hard to believe but Islam is as diverse as Christianity, including all of its insane and goof ball iterations. Shocker I know.

 

[Zwidmanio]

Redbar
They had over one thousand years to make something of themselves and didn't do it in spite of absolute control and hundreds of years of oil reserves. The inept interference of the West (mainly the British) in the few years between the end of WWI and the end of WWII is not the cause of their troubles.
Even now, when given the choice, they appear to want to return to the seventh century.

You're completely ignoring the role of the Islamic world in the Dark Ages where they preserved vast libraries of Western (Greek in particular) knowledge and contributed to significant advances in medicine, science, mathematics, etc. In fact, the medieval Islamic world is often credited with helping kick start the Renaissance.

It's unfortunate that much of their world has devolved into the state it has, but for hundreds of years while the Western/European world was largely ignorant and uneducated, the Islamic world was actually one of the more progressive and enlightened cultures around.

I certainly wouldn't say they've ccomplished nothing. I also do not believe that there is something so fundamental to Islam that they wouldn't again be able to, once again, co-exist with other cultures and religions.

 

[greyhammer90]

Probably even less than that.

 

[Jasher]

Man this is some pretty racist bs.

Islam is a race? Lol!?!

 

[irishpat183]

I loathe Bill Maher...but he's spot on:

Maher: Comparing Islam to Christianity 'liberal bullsh*t' | The Daily Caller

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...Islam is NOT a violent religion...

There are literally billions of peaceful Muslims, so it's tough to say, flat-out, that it's a "violent" religion.

But that said, if you were making Bleacher Report for the "Most Violent Religion" rankings, Islam would be #1. It's both the Jerry Rice and Michael Jordan of violent religions. If Cal Ripken and Barry Bonds had a violent religion love-child, Islam would be it.

Write the wrong book, it's fatwa. Draw a picture of the Prophet, it's fatwa. Speak ill of the Prophet, worship another god, or bring dishonor on the family, it's oftentimes literally death. Want to blow yourself up? Do it in the name of the Prophet, and you'll get 72 virgins. Just try and take some infidels with you, mkay?

Again, this is not to say that all Muslims are violent. But if we're ranking major religions by violence then one of them has to win. And only an ostrich would find that to be anything other than Islam.

 

[Bluto]

Islam is a race? Lol!?!

In the context of the criticism being made of Islam it was being associated with race...hence it was a racist comment. If it makes you feel better insert white supremist for racist champ. The level of stupidity in this thread is mind boggeling. Lol.

 

[BGIF]

...

Even the practical history of Islam is littered with violence (I am aware that Christianity has a great deal of horrible events in its history. In keeping with my thesis of examining Islam independent of other religions, I will ignore Christianity). Mecca and Medina were functionally conquered at the point of a sword. This was the pattern of Islamic expansion until the Moorish armies were turned back by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732.

...

Good stuff in your post particularly your closing statement.

I am confused though by Islamic expansion by patterned on the sword until 732. Charles The Hammer checked the Islamic expansion into France but it continued throughout the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and the Indian subcontinent.

Vlad Dracula was famous for his battles against the Islamic invaders. Athens, Rhodes, Buda and Pest, Belgrade, Vienna, Venice, Cyprus, Constantinople, Syracuse, Palermo, Messina, Malta, Lahore, ... .

Rome was sacked by Islamic invaders in the 800's.

In the 1300's Timur's self chosen nickname was "Sword of Islam".

 

[BGIF]

...

Even the practical history of Islam is littered with violence (I am aware that Christianity has a great deal of horrible events in its history. In keeping with my thesis of examining Islam independent of other religions, I will ignore Christianity). Mecca and Medina were functionally conquered at the point of a sword. This was the pattern of Islamic expansion until the Moorish armies were turned back by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732.

...

Good stuff in your long post particularly your closing statement.


I am confused though by this paragpraph above that Islamic expansion was patterned on the sword until 732. Charles The Hammer checked the Islamic expansion by sword into France but it continued in other directions throughout the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and the Indian subcontinent.

Vlad Dracula was famous for his battles against the Islamic invaders. Athens, Rhodes, Buda and Pest, Belgrade, Vienna, Venice, Cyprus, Constantinople, Syracuse, Palermo, Messina, Malta, Lahore, ... .

Rome was sacked by Islamic invaders in the 800's.

In the 1300's Timur's self chosen nickname was "Sword of Islam".

 

[BGIF]

The tiny minority who support terrorism are bad people.

And what about the "Silent Majority" of them that say nothing?

In 1845 Abilitionists in the Baptist Convention proposed a measure that it was wrong for a person to own another. The Baptist representatives from the Southern states walked out en masse realizing they would lose the vote and a new denomination was founded.

But the Southern Baptist Convention was a tiny group until the Civil War. It mushroomed after "The War of Yankee Agression".

Check the rise of the KKK and concurrent rise in popularity of the SBC. Yeah, must have been coincidental as was their mutual hatreds of Black, Jews, and Catholics. In the 1890's the SBC was still publicly pushing restrictive resolutions against Blacks. Later they just saved it for the pulpit and late night reminders.

In 1993, in a one paragraph "apology" the SBC noted, whoops we were wrong.

In 2012 the SBC elected an African American as their leader. Hallelujah!


Now image how much bloodshed could have been avoided if those religious leaders that walked out in 1845 had stood up and said, "Yes, it is wrong and we won't condone it, not even silently."

Imagine if one of those ministers had walked in front of Beauregard's Battery and stood firm between the mouth of those guns and the unarmed mechant vessel, The Star of The West". Or, if they had shown some moral conviction 3 months later when Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter.

But they didn't.



In the decade since 9/11 how many Muslim leaders, Iman or community activist, have stood up and voiced their outrage over the slaugher, here or abroad?

How many times have you heard of a Muslim leader condemning suicide bombers killing fellow Muslims, much less Infidels?

How many letters to the editor, Marches on Washington, and the like have you heard from that community?

There's been a few, I know one personally, but ON TOPIC in the PAST DECADE, damn few.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Sorry, but you're missing the big picture. I'm explaining why the public perception exists the way it does. Also, throughout history people have tried to add religious relavence to cover their more base motives.

You're talking about less than 1 incident per year listed of vandalism/arson/bombing/etc. on that Wikipedia page. Less than 1 incident per year where no one is getting killed IS NOT going to register in the forefront of public concern as a big deal. Why? Because you have 30,000+ cases of arson per year. So this isn't going to stick out.

How many people have died to abortion crazies? 1. And it was a worker, not an innocent bystander.

Now, what if abortion crazies had killed thousands of random innocent bystanders to try to make their point "for Jesus"? Then you would have people thinking the same thing about these Christian groups as they do about Muslims.

I love you man. But your focus is off. Anything you say you have to preface in terms of attacking us, now. Which is pretty invalid to develop a truism, in terms of terrorists, terrorism, etc.

A point to all, do not confuse Moors with Muslims. In fact the Moorish forces that swept across North Africa to Italy and Spain had little to do with the Kurdish Muslims of Saladin, made most famous in the Crusades. This is in fact how issues get camoflaged and how things get lumped together to derive a "false motive." And this is why some issues become so difficult to untangle! Sooner or later, no one is left who knows or is willing to tell the truth! Especially when people are dying.

The fact of the matter is, this is a pretty peaceful period in American and human history. So looking at what, a few incidents a year over a twenty year period is not the stuff of which generalizations can be made. Sorry man, we just spent four centuries torturing people that we first held as slaves. I mean we can talk about the first century of American history in an agregate and gross political sense, but it still is all about the money. All the decisions that were made drawing the States into the Civil War were all about Money, Property and Power. Lincoln had to work like hell to draw the issue of slavery into it; after all these were good Christian people.

The English have spent eight centuries torturing my people. (And don't think you have seen it all, because I can show you pictures of everything from piles of asbestos blowing in the wind dumped next to playgrounds of the poor and the working class, to British command posts built on top of hospitals and old folks homes to use them as human shields, a clear violation of the Geneva convention, and every other treaty known to man. And here is the ironic thing; they tried to make Ireland a religious thing, time after time, and all it really ever was was a class thing!



In fact, here is how it works: The British were not negotiating with the Irish in good faith. Things were going nowhere. In April of 93, the PIRA smuggled a huge ammonium nitrate bomb in and parked it in a dump truck in the London Financial district. They warned the English; police evacuated the area. Over a million and a half square feet of office space was devastated. One poor soul was killed. The Japanese, and other ligations told the British that if they didn't get it handled soon, they would move everything to New York. The negotiations were soon completed.

The point of this is that this is what it really looks like. And when it is really going, things happen. And it is really all about people getting what they need at a physiological level. It is not ever really as high up the needs pyramid as far as religion. That is always cover.

 

[GDomer09]

Does Christianity openly accept homosexuals now? Are priests no longer accused of molestation and pedophilia?

To compare this statement to extreme violence baffles me, but since you are. The majority of the world and country haven't accepted homosexuals for different reasons than religion. The second part of your comment - single individuals committing crimes unrelated to there religion. I'm pretty sure Priests aren't saying I'm a priest so I can molest children.

 

[GDomer09]

First off I don't believe Islam is a violent religion. I believe it’s a combination of the poverty and education in the majority of the country's Islam is the majority. The problem is Islam is older than Christianity and look how far it's evolved. I hear people time and time again going back 50+ years to claim Christianity is just as violent as Islam. We are talking about here and now.

Question:
1) Name one Christian extremist group and how many they've killed?
2) Islam isn't a religion that tries to go out and save people by bringing them to their religion. Why is that?

 

[BGIF]

First off I don't believe Islam is a violent religion. I believe it’s a combination of the poverty and education in the majority of the country's Islam is the majority. The problem is Islam is older than Christianity and look how far it's evolved. I hear people time and time again going back 50+ years to claim Christianity is just as violent as Islam. We are talking about here and now.

Question:
1) Name one Christian extremist group and how many they've killed?
2) Islam isn't a religion that tries to go out and save people by bringing them to their religion. Why is that?

Christianity is roughly 600 years older. Mohammed was born in 570 and died in 632.

 

[DSully1995]

Christianity is 600 years older.

And if you back up 6-700 years christianity wasnt the (largely) well behaved child it is today, maybe just growing pains? or does it take that long to realize maybe we should chill a bit?

 

[GDomer09]

And if you back up 6-700 years christianity wasnt the (largely) well behaved child it is today, maybe just growing pains? or does it take that long to realize maybe we should chill a bit?

According to BGIF's post Islam is 1500 years old. It looks like we are the masters at learning how to chill. That was the point I was trying to make in my post. We had a shaky start, but look at us now compared to Islam's tolerance and evolution.

 

[magogian]

Redbar
They had over one thousand years to make something of themselves and didn't do it in spite of absolute control and hundreds of years of oil reserves. The inept interference of the West (mainly the British) in the few years between the end of WWI and the end of WWII is not the cause of their troubles.
Even now, when given the choice, they appear to want to return to the seventh century.

Irish1958,

I don't think this is quite accurate.

Its more of, Islam and particularly the Ottoman Empire became very powerful and were fonts of knowledge and understanding, etc. from the 13th century through the 16/17th centuries. But over the 17th-19th centuries, they started to stagnate. Knowledge and development started falling behind the West. In the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire began to make a variety of good reforms. But it got caught in the cluster**** of WW1 and met its end. During this time, the British and allies co-opted many of the Nationalist movements of territories under the control of the Ottoman empire. They used these movements to undercut the support for their enemy. It worked. So, after the war, control in many areas of the Middle East defaulted to the Brits and other allies. To overgeneralize and oversimplify, the Brits and other allies (indirectly) ruled these areas for a few decades until they were divided up and "freed."

A big problem for many of these countries was that, when freed, they did not have democratic traditions or strong civil institutions. To the extent they had any, they collapsed with the fall of the Ottoman empire. Practically the only powerful force in their societies was religion. And it was often co-opted by autocrats because it was the only real threat to their rule.

And that is what we see today. Most of the countries in the Middle East are ruled by autocrats. They direct the religious passions of their citizenry outward, typically inflaming it. By giving them external enemies (Israel, US forces in Muslim countries, Western meddling, corrupting influence of Western culture), it may not necessarily cause a rally around the flag effect but it at least directs their anger against these perceived enemies rather than what is in many cases their true enemy, their own governments.

Frankly, the biggest reason so many of these countries are crap is because they were never readied under the Ottoman empire for self-rule. Whatever civil institutions and democratic norms that were developed largely collapsed with its fall.

And when the Brits and allies briefly controlled, they simply didn't have the time to inculcate such institutions and norms, as say, India. It isn't clear how much they tried, but that is easily explained because there was no general intention, post WW1, to turn the Middle East into colonies, such as India had been.

The West wanted allies in the Middle East, and the only options, unfortunately, were autocrats, or the religious crazies like in Iran. Not much of a choice. Autocrats seemed more pliable, so we chose them. And autocrats were more often in power and seemed better able to maintain it, so the West considered them a better bulwark against the Soviet Union.

Many people, and typically liberals, all too often blame the West for these problems. Yes, it is very true that the West was hardly an angel through all of this, and, yes, we had a hand in them. But we were confronted with nothing but bad choices. And we chose what seemed the least bad option. Any "least bad" option will have all sort of negative consequences. And we have seen that. But it hardly means it is our fault.

*The various countries in the Middle East had somewhat varying experiences. It is simply impossible to provide a country-by-country analysis here. But, I believe my generalizations are fair, and are required for any sort profitable discussion

 

[IrishLax]

I love you man. But your focus is off. Anything you say you have to preface in terms of attacking us, now. Which is pretty invalid to develop a truism, in terms of terrorists, terrorism, etc.

Bogs.... per the OP, we were talking over the past decade in America. Obviously, the Klan, IRA, etc. etc. etc. became defunct in their terrorist activities before that line that was drawn in the OP.

 

[magogian]

I loathe Bill Maher...but he's spot on:

Maher: Comparing Islam to Christianity 'liberal bullsh*t' | The Daily Caller

Great video. Thanks for posting.

The guest is hilarious. He seems shocked that Maher isn't willing to do the Christianity is just as bad as Islam shtick that is so common.

 

[Kanye West]

Who figured that the religion started by a warlord is the most violent. Jihad was semi-tolerable in 600 AD, but it is simply not anymore.99% of the Islamic people don't really believe in the older view of Jihad but the ones that do are causing all this mess. There needs to be more education towards extremist groups as they are the root cause of this problem.

 

[GDomer09]

And what about the "Silent Majority" of them that say nothing?

In 1845 Abilitionists in the Baptist Convention proposed a measure that it was wrong for a person to own another. The Baptist representatives from the Southern states walked out en masse realizing they would lose the vote and a new denomination was founded.

But the Southern Baptist Convention was a tiny group until the Civil War. It mushroomed after "The War of Yankee Agression".

Check the rise of the KKK and concurrent rise in popularity of the SBC. Yeah, must have been coincidental as was their mutual hatreds of Black, Jews, and Catholics. In the 1890's the SBC was still publicly pushing restrictive resolutions against Blacks. Later they just saved it for the pulpit and late night reminders.

In 1993, in a one paragraph "apology" the SBC noted, whoops we were wrong.

In 2012 the SBC elected an African American as their leader. Hallelujah!


Now image how much bloodshed could have been avoided if those religious leaders that walked out in 1845 had stood up and said, "Yes, it is wrong and we won't condone it, not even silently."

Imagine if one of those ministers had walked in front of Beauregard's Battery and stood firm between the mouth of those guns and the unarmed mechant vessel, The Star of The West". Or, if they had shown some moral conviction 3 months later when Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter.

But they didn't.



In the decade since 9/11 how many Muslim leaders, Iman or community activist, have stood up and voiced their outrage over the slaugher, here or abroad?

How many times have you heard of a Muslim leader condemning suicide bombers killing fellow Muslims, much less Infidels?

How many letters to the editor, Marches on Washington, and the like have you heard from that community?

There's been a few, I know one personally, but ON TOPIC in the PAST DECADE, damn few.

^ Wow!!!! This x100!!!

 

[Redbar]

Irish1958,

I don't think this is quite accurate.

Its more of, Islam and particularly the Ottoman Empire became very powerful and were fonts of knowledge and understanding, etc. from the 13th century through the 16/17th centuries. But over the 17th-19th centuries, they started to stagnate. Knowledge and development started falling behind the West. In the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire began to make a variety of good reforms. But it got caught in the cluster**** of WW1 and met its end. During this time, the British and allies co-opted many of the Nationalist movements of territories under the control of the Ottoman empire. They used these movements to undercut the support for their enemy. It worked. So, after the war, control in many areas of the Middle East defaulted to the Brits and other allies. To overgeneralize and oversimplify, the Brits and other allies (indirectly) ruled these areas for a few decades until they were divided up and "freed."

A big problem for many of these countries was that, when freed, they did not have democratic traditions or strong civil institutions. To the extent they had any, they collapsed with the fall of the Ottoman empire. Practically the only powerful force in their societies was religion. And it was often co-opted by autocrats because it was the only real threat to their rule.

And that is what we see today. Most of the countries in the Middle East are ruled by autocrats. They direct the religious passions of their citizenry outward, typically inflaming it. By giving them external enemies (Israel, US forces in Muslim countries, Western meddling, corrupting influence of Western culture), it may not necessarily cause a rally around the flag effect but it at least directs their anger against these perceived enemies rather than what is in many cases their true enemy, their own governments.

Frankly, the biggest reason so many of these countries are crap is because they were never readied under the Ottoman empire for self-rule. Whatever civil institutions and democratic norms that were developed largely collapsed with its fall.

And when the Brits and allies briefly controlled, they simply didn't have the time to inculcate such institutions and norms, as say, India. It isn't clear how much they tried, but that is easily explained because there was no general intention, post WW1, to turn the Middle East into colonies, such as India had been.

The West wanted allies in the Middle East, and the only options, unfortunately, were autocrats, or the religious crazies like in Iran. Not much of a choice. Autocrats seemed more pliable, so we chose them. And autocrats were more often in power and seemed better able to maintain it, so the West considered them a better bulwark against the Soviet Union.

Many people, and typically liberals, all too often blame the West for these problems. Yes, it is very true that the West was hardly an angel through all of this, and, yes, we had a hand in them. But we were confronted with nothing but bad choices. And we chose what seemed the least bad option. Any "least bad" option will have all sort of negative consequences. And we have seen that. But it hardly means it is our fault.

*The various countries in the Middle East had somewhat varying experiences. It is simply impossible to provide a country-by-country analysis here. But, I believe my generalizations are fair, and are required for any sort profitable discussion

Magog,
I think you are largely accurate in this post, especially the bolded. I agree that in most cases the choices for the U.S. were a series of bad ones. There was, however, another one and that was to not get involved, like many other countries around the world. But as I said in a post above, hands get dirty on the path to becoming a superpower. I don't think we hated Muslims, we just didn't consider them, we wanted stability or instability depending on the region. We had bigger fish to fry. We meant no harm individually in most cases, we just wanted them to stfu and remain quiet in their condition. They did for a while.

Now mind you I am not blaming us, I don't know that there is anything more we could have done. I just believe the law of unintended consequences applies to becoming the richest most powerful nation in the world. This might not seem fair to some, but with all the combinations in the world doesn't it seem logical that if there was going to be a mindset that needed to be first, number 1, the victor, in economics and in war that there would be a mindset that would become violently unsatisfied with the leftovers.

We need to try to wipe out these violent strains of Islam, but we need to do it without acting like this whole thing is a mystery and demonizing a larger group of people. By doing that we will miss our greatest opportunities to stop this sentiment by not looking for opportunities to share and include these regions in the prosperities of the time. In their own way and time not ours.

 

[kmoose]

The bottom line is this:

No religion is, in and of itself, violent. It is PEOPLE who pervert the teachings and promote violence in the name of religion. The Christians have done it, the Jews have done it.............. it is the Muslims' turn now. Just like Judiasm and Christianity, eventually enough Muslims will be fed up with the perversion, that they will rally against the men who would pervert their religion for their own goals/gains.

Someone mentioned Jordan. I was just in Jordan, back in February. It was my second time in Jordan (the first was in 2007) and everyone I met was as friendly as could be. No one made me feel even the slightest bit unwelcome, and their sense of hospitality rivals anything in the American South. Mostly, they are just like us; people trying to get through life with as many good memories as they can accumulate, while leaving a better life for their children. The problem with this debate is that it encourages us to judge others by a label, instead of taking the time to get to know individuals, and judging them on who and what they are.

 

[Bluto]

Really good op Ed on this subject:

Ali Eteraz: The Myth of Muslim Condemnation of Terror

 

[magogian]

Someone mentioned Jordan. I was just in Jordan, back in February. It was my second time in Jordan (the first was in 2007) and everyone I met was as friendly as could be. No one made me feel even the slightest bit unwelcome, and their sense of hospitality rivals anything in the American South. Mostly, they are just like us; people trying to get through life with as many good memories as they can accumulate, while leaving a better life for their children. The problem with this debate is that it encourages us to judge others by a label, instead of taking the time to get to know individuals, and judging them on who and what they are.

Jordan is something of an oasis in the Middle East. I haven't been there since 2003 and 2004, but if I had to pick one place to live in the Middle East, aside from Israel, it would probably be there.

 

[irish1958]

Irish1958,

I don't think this is quite accurate.

Its more of, Islam and particularly the Ottoman Empire became very powerful and were fonts of knowledge and understanding, etc. from the 13th century through the 16/17th centuries. But over the 17th-19th centuries, they started to stagnate. Knowledge and development started falling behind the West. In the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire began to make a variety of good reforms. But it got caught in the cluster**** of WW1 and met its end. During this time, the British and allies co-opted many of the Nationalist movements of territories under the control of the Ottoman empire. They used these movements to undercut the support for their enemy. It worked. So, after the war, control in many areas of the Middle East defaulted to the Brits and other allies. To overgeneralize and oversimplify, the Brits and other allies (indirectly) ruled these areas for a few decades until they were divided up and "freed."

A big problem for many of these countries was that, when freed, they did not have democratic traditions or strong civil institutions. To the extent they had any, they collapsed with the fall of the Ottoman empire. Practically the only powerful force in their societies was religion. And it was often co-opted by autocrats because it was the only real threat to their rule.

And that is what we see today. Most of the countries in the Middle East are ruled by autocrats. They direct the religious passions of their citizenry outward, typically inflaming it. By giving them external enemies (Israel, US forces in Muslim countries, Western meddling, corrupting influence of Western culture), it may not necessarily cause a rally around the flag effect but it at least directs their anger against these perceived enemies rather than what is in many cases their true enemy, their own governments.

Frankly, the biggest reason so many of these countries are crap is because they were never readied under the Ottoman empire for self-rule. Whatever civil institutions and democratic norms that were developed largely collapsed with its fall.

And when the Brits and allies briefly controlled, they simply didn't have the time to inculcate such institutions and norms, as say, India. It isn't clear how much they tried, but that is easily explained because there was no general intention, post WW1, to turn the Middle East into colonies, such as India had been.

The West wanted allies in the Middle East, and the only options, unfortunately, were autocrats, or the religious crazies like in Iran. Not much of a choice. Autocrats seemed more pliable, so we chose them. And autocrats were more often in power and seemed better able to maintain it, so the West considered them a better bulwark against the Soviet Union.

Many people, and typically liberals, all too often blame the West for these problems. Yes, it is very true that the West was hardly an angel through all of this, and, yes, we had a hand in them. But we were confronted with nothing but bad choices. And we chose what seemed the least bad option. Any "least bad" option will have all sort of negative consequences. And we have seen that. But it hardly means it is our fault.

*The various countries in the Middle East had somewhat varying experiences. It is simply impossible to provide a country-by-country analysis here. But, I believe my generalizations are fair, and are required for any sort profitable discussion

I agree with everything you have thoughtfully stated.
Nevertheless, in close to 1,000 years of absolute control their main contribution to the present welfare of mankind appears that they did not destroy a few books and the way they are going, the next 1,000 won't even have this accomplishment.
The culture doesn't appear to encourage free thought and intellectual experimentation, both necessary for scientific advancement and artistic expression. They also appear to have a limited concept of human rights (especially for "infidels"). All of which the West has been struggling with for the past 500 years.
As for my statement about the return to the seventh century, consider the recent elections by sizable majorities in Palastine and Egypt, the "Iranian revolution," the alarming trends in Iraq and Afghanistan, the repression of women, the acceptance of defacto slavery in much of the Muslim world, the total repression if political expression and so forth.
We in the Western world aren't perfect (see bogtrotter07's post above).
Here is a thought experiment: would you rather be an American or an Iranian, Saudi, etc. of equal economic affluence? Why?
I am racist in that I don't like the race of bombers and killers of children.