Because your whole premise as wrong. It is not historically Muslim land.
You've gotta be kidding. If you start at 1,200ad and go to 1,900ad, and you look at the Arabian Peninsula (and ~1,000+ miles of Northeast Africa), exclude the atheists, and I'm pretty sure you are going to get a population that is 80%+ Muslim. You don't hit other religions until you cross present day Turkey into Greece or cross present day Pakistan into India. If that's not Muslim land, what is?
The US is predominantly Christian. The presence of some Muslims there for 50 years doesn't make it a logical place for a Muslim homeland.
By your line of thinking the US is historically Comanchee land, and therefore the Comanchee's should be able to force an independent Comanchee nation on Kansas (or wherever they came from), allow people of Comanchee ancestry to live there as citizens and no one else, and expect the states (much less the federal government) to allow that Comanchee nation to exist peacefully INSIDE the USA? The whole idea that the US would accept that FORCED upon them is RIDICULOUS. The parallel with Israel-Arabia is nearly identical, so if you think the Israel situation is reasonable, go ahead and argue in favor of Komanchee, Sioux, Cherokee and other nations INSIDE the US - I wanna hear it.
Oh, and CSCO's growth stinks. So there!
(yeah, yeah, I don't want to talk about Dell's share price...) |
