how is it not in context ? perhaps you should re-read what you claimed then re-read my post.
its very clear if oil dried up every country will suffer - not only islamic countries.
Debussey said that the muslim countries that do not have oil production = doing very poorly, and if the oil-rich muslim countries had not had the oil in the first place, it = very likely that they'd suffer the same destiny as well. The argument had nothing to do with what would happen if the oil dried up. They.simply.do.not.produ
ce.much(besides oil which requires mainly pumping it up and cashing in).nor.do.they.give.the.wo
rld.much.innovation.and.
this.is.closely.tied.to.
their.religion.
Debussey = saying that a society infested with islam = not very positive to progress, especially in science (which has been seen early in christianity as well, up until the scientific revolution). They base their whole understanding of reality on an irrational dogma instead of seeking new and improved ways of seeing the world. Not surprisingly, they are lagging behind in science, ethics and so on.
The avg. spendage on R&D in muslim countries is less than 0,2% of the GDP, while being 4%+ or something in the west. (not completely sure about the exacts, but this is close). This can not be attributed only "poorness" of certain countries.
And at the same time: Basing a law system upon a religious dogma like Islam = a huge way backwards for the west. A system like this = progress frozen.
Sharia law = not a law based upon debate and common sense. It = based on a fairytale religion (and it clearly shows), and Islam = supposed to be "perfect" and changing the laws = not possible. When the sharia law in itself = moronic, how = it useful to implement it?
Too tired to discuss this now, will write something more coherent after some sleep