If we look at the areas of the world where the English exerted their influence, the people of these countries including the diasporas of these countries that are living in England constantly remind us how much they hate the British Empire and how the English owe them for ruining their ancestral homelands. Indeed, the argument utilised against the far-right in terms of mass immigration is that the British deserve to have this mass immigration because they destroyed these people's lands. These are places like>Ireland>Jamaica>Pakistan and India>Bangladesh>Egypt>Nigeria>South Africa>Yemen>Iraq>Singapore >Barbados and Bahamas>Somalia>Uganda>EthiopiaBut if we look at the Arab conquests and Arab influence, we see that the majority of these places either absolutely love Arabs, or even if they are hostile to Arabs, they are still directly influenced by Arabs in some way, such as Khomeini's Iran or Turkey. These are places like >Egypt>Syria>Bangladesh>Pakistan>Somalia>Morocco>Tunisia>Algeria>Libya >Afghanistan>Chechyna>Dagestan>Senegal>Ivory Coast>Nigeria >Iraq>Palestine>Burma>BruneiIn all these places Arabization is seen as a GOOD thing and a praiseworthy thing, but in the countries where the English have pitched up we find that those inhabitants as well as the diasporas weaponise it against the English and say that the English must be punished.
>>16883739Cause British Conquest happened much more recently, Arab conquests happened in the Middle Ages. The Arabs were hated during that time, but too much time has past. It's like asking why don't Euros hate the Romans for their conquests.
>>16883739Because Arabs brought Islam and Islam is necessarily good in societies where saying otherwise gets you punished for blasphemy. No matter what Arabs did, they also brought the true faith so it evens out.
>>16883751
>>16883746If the Arabs were hated in places like Lebanon, Palestine,Iran, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Spain etc after conquesting them then how come at that time Islam experienced its greatest ever power and advancement under the Umayyad's and then the Abbasids? The entire Islamic empire spoke Arabic, wrote in Arabic and translated books into Arabic. The cultures of the Berbers, Persians, Levantines etc and then later the Turks and Indians were all meshed with Arab culture with no conflict occurring. If the Arabs were hated why were they not resisted in their new territories as the British were?
>>16883762So? images of life always leads to idolatry and jewish hollywood>>16883786Arabs liberated these areas from the previous rulers (like Greeks) and were fighting off Norman incursions. After which Turks and Mamelukes took hold of the regions.
>>16883739English were spreading western degeneracy Arabs were spreading Islam big difference already. English used to emasculate the male population of lands they used to conquer Arabs didn't.
>>16883739Religion. Islam basically converts people into cultural Arabs so of course they would view Arabic conquest as a good thing.Ironically, the British taking a relatively hands-off approach to colonization, not re-settling the lands with Brits or converting them to Anglicanism, meant their ex-colonies hated them MORE in the long-term.
>>16884235>Arabs liberated these areas from the previous rulers (like Greeks)>Literally can't see the "not freed, more like under new management" meme right in his faceAhmed Khan detected
The british empire fell in my grandfathers lifetime, we are still living through its fallout, eventually it will join rome greece ming and persia or whatever as some le based golden age but right now we are in the part of the cycle where everyone shits on britian
>>16883739Aren't Iranians still butthurt about it
Its because white people are too OP in everything.Its a means of saying white people to humble themselves, so they can leave room for other people to at least try harder
>>16883739Arabs so thoroughly destroyed the local culture wherever they went that most of the conquered consider themselves Arabs. Spain and India are the only ones who survived Arab occupation, and they hate Arab guts. India in particular regards the period of Islamic invasions as one of the worst genocides in history.As for why England gets more attention, it's because English colonialism is more recent and in living memory whereas Arab colonialism was long established.
>>16883739http://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/These figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.>>many countries listedThis gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.
>>16883739much of the land that was conquered by the arabs were eventually arabized, so they love their arab rootsthe ones that weren't arabized (spain and persia) have some history of spiting the arabsmost British colonies were not anglicized; they were not thought of as "British"the ones that were (Canada, Australia, new Zealand) still love their British roots
Inferior genes obviously. Arabs are an ancient and powerful race while anglos are a made up mutt species that nobody really respected even in their own island. Couple that with white men looking too feminine in general making them seem weak and incompetent
Leftists were able to convince third worlders that European colonialism is the reason for their current poverty/backwardness and not their post-colonial leadership.
>>16883739Early Arab conquests were not colonialism, which is something most people on this board seem blissfully unaware of despite the fact its literally basic history. Umayyad Spain wasn't a colony of Arabia. There was no mass extraction of labour and resources to feed the growth of a metropole. Partly because it wasn't nakedly exploitative in the same way and also because it was longer ago, the main remaining legacies of the Arab conquests that still actually impact people today are the positive ones, mainly their cultural, artistic and intellectual contributions. >Indeed, the argument utilised against the far-right in terms of mass immigration is that the British deserve to have this mass immigration because they destroyed these people's landsThe thing about this is that its an inherently flawed argument that both masks the way immigration is one of the fruits of colonialism and neocolonialism and also legitimises the idea that immigration is inherently an assault on western countries from outsiders. When you have a situation of an imperial core directly profiting off its control of an underdeveloped, peripheral colony, people from that periphery, its obvious people from that periphery are going to want to go where the money and better opportunities are once they have the means to do that. Bringing in cheap surplus labour into the core also fuels its economic growth. Impoverished Irish labourers were providing very little value to the British Empire in rural Connacht, but plenty of it in the factories of Manchester. It was neither a situation of perfidious Paddy infiltrating Britannia to bring about its ruin or noble England providing succor to the suffering poor of Ireland out of kindness. Same situation today with people from the global south migrating to developed western countries.
