Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 2 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By adelady

Thread: Muslims and Israel.

  1. #1 Muslims and Israel. 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    645
    Are Muslims angry at Jews, England, and the USA because Israel was founded on Arab land. Now foreign people lay claim to the land. And western ways are overtaking eastern ones.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Is this a question? If so, the answer is a qualified yes.

    As for "western" vs "eastern" ways, it rather depends on what you mean.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Are Muslims angry at Jews, England, and the USA because Israel was founded on Arab land. Now foreign people lay claim to the land. And western ways are overtaking eastern ones.
    Muslims are angry at anyone who is not a Muslim, so that includes the remaining members of Great Britain.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Land 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    11
    Israel has just a very little piece of land and population is just about 7 million inhabitants. There are living tens of millions arabs around it but they wouldn't like to give this little piece of land to the jews. That's incredible. Also there always have been a little jews community even if the Palestine was ruled by Turkey and other countries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Muslims are angry at anyone who is not a Muslim, so that includes the remaining members of Great Britain.
    You forgot to put "A few" at the beginning of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Muslims are angry at anyone who is not a Muslim, so that includes the remaining members of Great Britain.
    You forgot to put "A few" at the beginning of that.
    Yes, I did, and my statement is a generalisation. A generalisation just like the OP, and many more of his topics.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Are Muslims angry at Jews, England, and the USA because Israel was founded on Arab land.
    It's broader than just the establishment of Israel and extends to Western nation meddling in the Arab world including the various secular movements, general loosening of sexual standards and role of women, financial influence and business practices, law etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Muslim everywhere (from childhood to adult today) is repeatedly told about the story of the prophet who spreaded a cultural revolutionary over old Mecca thousand years ago, saving the slaves, the black, the warriors, and the poor people from the Pagan degenerate society (they really do), and winning over Mecca in a military triumph. The enemy was a cartel of Pagan, Meccan elite, Christians, and Jews who mocked, excommunicate, torture and attempt assasination on the (new) Muslim community, which (the enemy) name happen to exist today except the Pagans. -Today the state of mind is timeless, and probably almost like a copy of emotion and prejudice of that day, and they will quickly see any injustice done by the west today as "THE justification" (of the story).

    But the west really rule the world afterward, so it is really a no-brainer to see everything bad happening to them was linked to the west...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The problem is that, no matter who is in charge, all the bad stuff is blamed on them. And strangely..... no matter how many times we try to change leadership, bad stuff still happens. It's not like there exists a better ruling group out there than the West, that would do a wonderful job. You can't just wave a magic wand and suddenly grant everyone prosperity.

    Well....unless you're Muslim, because if you're Muslim then you're fed a bunch of romantic stories about how great the past Muslim leaders were, and how perfect the world was except when the infidels invaded. Never mind all the aggressive campaigns the Muslims waged against (relatively peaceful) places like India.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    I agree... everyone seems to blame the west for everything. They thought west is absolutely responsible for anything that has happen to them. Either it be the rise of a dictator or economic collapse: it is because of west intervention that is screwing things up (but this is true. eg: CIA).

    But honestly...
    People do perceive the west as having great capacity to do everything. Clearly this put west in a really big responsibility. eg: If the UN needed something to happen they really needed US support, else stuff just won't happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Israel would not have happened but for Britain. It is therefore THEIR mess, let them clean it up, the rest of us should wash our hands of it. British double-crossed the Palestinians, promising to get the Ottoman Turks off their backs in WWI, then imposed a "cure" as bad, if not worse, than the disease.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Well....unless you're Muslim, because if you're Muslim then you're fed a bunch of romantic stories about how great the past Muslim leaders were, and how perfect the world was except when the infidels invaded. Never mind all the aggressive campaigns the Muslims waged against (relatively peaceful) places like India.
    You mean like pretty much every Christian American talks about the "good old" days in America.....

    A lot of folks choice to ignore the worst parts of the past. We see some of it here too. Like the Middle East was great before Britain got involved. It's a long ways from the truth.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Well....unless you're Muslim, because if you're Muslim then you're fed a bunch of romantic stories about how great the past Muslim leaders were, and how perfect the world was except when the infidels invaded. Never mind all the aggressive campaigns the Muslims waged against (relatively peaceful) places like India.
    You mean like pretty much every Christian American talks about the "good old" days in America.....

    A lot of folks choice to ignore the worst parts of the past. We see some of it here too. Like the Middle East was great before Britain got involved. It's a long ways from the truth.
    They have been screwing up that part of the world longer than is generally assumed by self-appointed guardians of "the truth". Who drew the map of that part of the world, thus sowing the seeds of most modern discord? (This last rhetorical question presumes a knowledge of more recent events in the Eastern Mediterranean region, the 20th century A.D., to be exact. The link below was intended to document earlier attempts by Perfidious Albion to influence the area under discussion. I regret the confusion. The fact is that Britain has been involved quite some time in the "Middle East", which is British colonialist terminology, incidentally, and generally to the detriment of those residing in the region so called.)

    Levant Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by Arthur Angler; February 2nd, 2012 at 01:59 PM. Reason: clarification
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Who drew the map of that part of the world, thus sowing the seeds of most modern discord?

    Levant Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    That link provides no evidence that they "drew the map" of the area. They were not the only organization trading in the area. And they didn't always have much power (the Ottomans gave them a very hard time, for example). Their role, and any power they did have, had declined well before the 19th century. So I find it hard to see how they have a significant role in any current problems. Are you also going to blame them for 20th century problems in Spain, Venice, North Africa and everywhere else in the Mediterranean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Who drew the map of that part of the world, thus sowing the seeds of most modern discord?

    Levant Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    That link provides no evidence that they "drew the map" of the area.
    No, the Sykes-Picot deal pretty much did THAT:

    70 - Sykes-Picot: Western Designs On the Middle-East | Strange Maps | Big Think
    Last edited by Arthur Angler; February 1st, 2012 at 12:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    British were obsessed in WWII with maintaining the Med as a British "lake"- hence defense of Malta and Crete plus idiotic campaign in Greece, the so called Soft Underbelly of Europe. Difficult, rugged, and mountainous, yes- "soft", no. This also accounts for Churchill's relatively chummy relations with "former" British intelligence asset Benito Mussolini, Knight Grand Cross Order of the Bath.

    You will notice area "B" in the above map is in close proximity to Egypt and Suez- this is not accidental. Nor was the failed attempt by the French, the British, and their Israeli puppets to steal the canal from Egypt in the Suez Crisis, when Ike told them to knock it off.

    http://www.suezcrisis.ca/summary.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Who drew the map of that part of the world, thus sowing the seeds of most modern discord?

    Levant Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Their role, and any power they did have, had declined well before the 19th century.
    When did the Battle of the Nile take place? 1798.
    When did the 19th century start? 1801.
    When are you going to get a clue, stranger? Up to you.
    When will the British stop their imperialism? Never.

    Battle of the Nile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    No, the Sykes-Picot deal pretty much did THAT:
    So nothing to do with the Levant Company, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    When did the Battle of the Nile take place? 1798.
    ...
    Battle of the Nile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So nothing to do with the Levant Company, then.

    I really don't care about your views on British Imperialism, I was simply pointing out a factual error.

    Wouldn't it have been easier to just say, "oh yes, I was wrong about that"? Rather than reverting to your usual offensive style of discussion.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Wouldn't it have been easier to just say, "oh yes, I was wrong about that"? Rather than reverting to your usual offensive style of discussion.
    It would have been easier, but it would also have been honest, positive, cooperative and aligned with the aims of the forum. For these reasons alone Arthur had to reject it.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Well....unless you're Muslim, because if you're Muslim then you're fed a bunch of romantic stories about how great the past Muslim leaders were, and how perfect the world was except when the infidels invaded. Never mind all the aggressive campaigns the Muslims waged against (relatively peaceful) places like India.
    You mean like pretty much every Christian American talks about the "good old" days in America.....

    A lot of folks choice to ignore the worst parts of the past. We see some of it here too. Like the Middle East was great before Britain got involved. It's a long ways from the truth.
    They have been screwing up that part of the world longer than is generally assumed by self-appointed guardians of "the truth". Who drew the map of that part of the world, thus sowing the seeds of most modern discord?

    Levant Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    What are you talking about with the Levant company? The borders in the Middle East were deliberately drawn to partition the Ottoman Empire into pieces from which it would not be able to reassemble itself. The goal was purely destructive in nature, and nobody at the time made any pretense that it was otherwise.

    Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Ottomans had been a nuisance to Europe for over half a millennium going back to the fall of Constantinople in 1451 AD, and other stuff before that. I'm sure the European powers were all too happy to take the opportunity to be rid of that pestilence once and for all. It's just unfortunate that nobody thought ahead far enough to perceive how their actions would affect the quality of life of those misfortunate enough to be born within the newly drawn boundaries.
    msafwan and Strange like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    I can imagine that the Middle-East was once a hub for sea commerce for East-West-Trade, but Europe just had to think that it is better to just skip all this hub and just make colonies on the East instead. Of course I speculated on this motive, but is a fact that: Middle-East already had their influence on the East even before Europe colonize them (because Middle-East culture arrived there first). eg: South-East-Asia is a Muslim country (not Christian) and there's also Muslim in China, but countries outside this East-West-Trade route has no Muslim influence.

    For some reason Europe has the tendency for expansion, but others do not. eg: China arrive in America first but they didn't colonize it, Middle-East arrive in South-East-Asia first but didn't colonize it, but Spanish colonized the America, and Dutch colonize the South-East-Asia, and British use private companies to do their colonization. Europe's motive seems to want to skip the East-West-Trade route IMO, but don't know why they believe it is acceptable to colonize.
    Last edited by msafwan; February 1st, 2012 at 06:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    For some reason Europe has the tendency for expansion, but others do not.
    Ever heard of the Ottoman empire, the Mongol empire, the Chinese? The Japanese in early to mid 20th century.

    Modern day Indonesia is simply an empire by another name. Ask a Papuan. Modern China's expansion into Tibet is just the latest in a series of expansionist moves.

    The reason we think of Europeans as expansionists is because so much of it was done by colonisation of remote and exotic places overseas rather than by invasion and annexation of neighbours. But that is, in fact, the more common process. For European examples look at Napoleon or Great Britain or Russia, both before and after communism, and Nazi Germany.

    All powerful countries look to ways they can consolidate or expand their reach and their power.

    As for Palestine and Israel and the Middle East generally. That area has constantly been overtaken by traders, merchants and expansionists from just about every direction. During the Ottoman period it worked because they ran the notion of a quasi-racial identity as Arab/Muslim, but the main success derived from the 'rulers' allowing the local religious, commercial, social, warlord and tribal arrangements to continue with only minor tweaking. The idea that there are longstanding countries in this area with defined borders and populations is just not true. Look at the Kurds 'boundaries' for their ethnic, cultural, tribal society.
    Strange likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    No, the Sykes-Picot deal pretty much did THAT:
    So nothing to do with the Levant Company, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    When did the Battle of the Nile take place? 1798.
    ...
    Battle of the Nile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So nothing to do with the Levant Company, then.

    I really don't care about your views on British Imperialism, I was simply pointing out a factual error.

    Wouldn't it have been easier to just say, "oh yes, I was wrong about that"? Rather than reverting to your usual offensive style of discussion.
    By one means or another, the British have been screwing around with Islamic civilization for centuries- therefore, it is a British problem as much as an "Islamic" problem, if not more so. Levant Company, Battle of the Nile, T.E. Lawrence, Sykes-Picot, Balfour Declaration, common denominator? British meddling, that's what. The late and not so great Col. Ghadaffi of Libya was not a graduate of Sandhurst, but plenty of Arabs have been, and they are putting that training to use.

    Perhaps I have made my point clear at last.

    Anger over British-trained Arab police | Signalfire
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The idea that there are longstanding countries in this area with defined borders and populations is just not true. Look at the Kurds 'boundaries' for their ethnic, cultural, tribal society.
    There ARE boundaries, though- NOT drawn by the people who happen to live there. WHERE do the boundary definers reside? In a pestilential kingdom far, far away...

    It is an excellent case of the "divide and rule" principle of empire. Oppressed ethnic minorities are easily recruited as guerrillas and spies, etc. This is why there are Tamils in Sri Lanka, Protestants in Ireland, East Indians in South Africa, etc., etc., etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Sykes-Picot
    So that'll be 50% French "meddling", then?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Well....unless you're Muslim, because if you're Muslim then you're fed a bunch of romantic stories about how great the past Muslim leaders were, and how perfect the world was except when the infidels invaded. Never mind all the aggressive campaigns the Muslims waged against (relatively peaceful) places like India.
    You mean like pretty much every Christian American talks about the "good old" days in America.....

    A lot of folks choice to ignore the worst parts of the past. We see some of it here too. Like the Middle East was great before Britain got involved. It's a long ways from the truth.
    They have been screwing up that part of the world longer than is generally assumed by self-appointed guardians of "the truth". Who drew the map of that part of the world, thus sowing the seeds of most modern discord?

    Levant Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    What are you talking about with the Levant company? The borders in the Middle East were deliberately drawn to partition the Ottoman Empire into pieces from which it would not be able to reassemble itself. The goal was purely destructive in nature, and nobody at the time made any pretense that it was otherwise.

    Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Ottomans had been a nuisance to Europe for over half a millennium going back to the fall of Constantinople in 1451 AD, and other stuff before that. I'm sure the European powers were all too happy to take the opportunity to be rid of that pestilence once and for all. It's just unfortunate that nobody thought ahead far enough to perceive how their actions would affect the quality of life of those misfortunate enough to be born within the newly drawn boundaries.
    A nuisance to EUROPE?!??!!???!!! My dear fellow, the principal "nuisance to Europe" from the remote past to the present has been Europeans. Martin Luther, Calvin, Napoleon, Hitler, you know, chaps like that- maybe you have heard of them...

    This is an incorrect and ethnocentric assumption. During the Fourth Crusade(1204 A.D.), the problem was not the Turks, but the supposed co-religionists of the residents of Constantinople from Western Europe and the conniving Venetians- a big influence upon the British later on. This began the decline which led to the capture of all Byzantium by the Turks(1453 A.D.). And were not the Ottomans good enough to die for the British in the Crimean War? Finally, if you think Imperial geopolitics does not concern itself with the consequences of its actions you are very naive indeed. Maybe instead of making such broad and poorly documented statements you will do your homework better next time.

    One thing you ARE correct about is the intention to leave a purely destructive legacy behind. And it is high time we recognized the Arabs and Muslims and others living in the region as damned bad sports about it!
    Last edited by Arthur Angler; February 2nd, 2012 at 01:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Sykes-Picot
    So that'll be 50% French "meddling", then?
    Oh, yeah, the French are on both ends of the meddling stick from 'way back, though. Britain has been jacking with them HARD over the years, haven't forgotten 1066 A. D., you know. Spain, too, the Basques are fine confederates for both countries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The idea that there are longstanding countries in this area with defined borders and populations is just not true. Look at the Kurds 'boundaries' for their ethnic, cultural, tribal society.
    There ARE boundaries, though- NOT drawn by the people who happen to live there. WHERE do the boundary definers reside? In a pestilential kingdom far, far away...

    It is an excellent case of the "divide and rule" principle of empire. Oppressed ethnic minorities are easily recruited as guerrillas and spies, etc. This is why there are Tamils in Sri Lanka, Protestants in Ireland, East Indians in South Africa, etc., etc., etc.
    Right, but you make it sound like it's an accident. The Ottomans threw in their support behind Germany in World War 1, and lost their territorial rights as a consequence of defeat. Germany had to make those horrendous "reparation" payments to Britain, and the Ottoman empire's territories were simply divided up and made into colonies for the victorious French and British. It wasn't fair, but in those days people hadn't yet come around to the idea of being fair with the losers of wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Well....unless you're Muslim, because if you're Muslim then you're fed a bunch of romantic stories about how great the past Muslim leaders were, and how perfect the world was except when the infidels invaded. Never mind all the aggressive campaigns the Muslims waged against (relatively peaceful) places like India.
    You mean like pretty much every Christian American talks about the "good old" days in America.....

    A lot of folks choice to ignore the worst parts of the past. We see some of it here too. Like the Middle East was great before Britain got involved. It's a long ways from the truth.
    They have been screwing up that part of the world longer than is generally assumed by self-appointed guardians of "the truth". Who drew the map of that part of the world, thus sowing the seeds of most modern discord?

    Levant Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    What are you talking about with the Levant company? The borders in the Middle East were deliberately drawn to partition the Ottoman Empire into pieces from which it would not be able to reassemble itself. The goal was purely destructive in nature, and nobody at the time made any pretense that it was otherwise.

    Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Ottomans had been a nuisance to Europe for over half a millennium going back to the fall of Constantinople in 1451 AD, and other stuff before that. I'm sure the European powers were all too happy to take the opportunity to be rid of that pestilence once and for all. It's just unfortunate that nobody thought ahead far enough to perceive how their actions would affect the quality of life of those misfortunate enough to be born within the newly drawn boundaries.
    A nuisance to EUROPE?!??!!???!!! My dear fellow, the principal "nuisance to Europe" from the remote past to the present has been Europeans. Martin Luther, Calvin, Napoleon, Hitler, you know, chaps like that- maybe you have heard of them...

    This is an incorrect and ethnocentric assumption. During the Fourth Crusade(1204 A.D.), the problem was not the Turks, but the supposed co-religionists of the residents of Constantinople from Western Europe and the conniving Venetians- a big influence upon the British later on. This began the decline which led to the capture of all Byzantium by the Turks(1453 A.D.). And were not the Ottomans good enough to die for the British in the Crimean War? Finally, if you think Imperial geopolitics does not concern itself with the consequences of its actions you are very naive indeed. Maybe instead of making such broad and poorly documented statements you will do your homework better next time.

    One thing you ARE correct about is the intention to leave a purely destructive legacy behind. And it is high time we recognized the Arabs and Muslims and others living in the region as damned bad sports about it!
    I don't mean to imply it was a one sided disagreement. Europe wronged the Ottomans, the Ottomans wronged Europe, and it was one of those conflicts that was destined to keep going back and forth until somebody lost.

    Remember the Barbary Corsairs that used to raid European shores and take the inhabitants back to Tripoli as slaves? They were also known as Ottoman Corsairs.

    Barbary corsairs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    The principle reason the European powers couldn't just get an army together and put an end to that is because it would mean fighting through the Ottomans to get there. The Corsairs' ships themselves were simply too fast and unpredictable to stop them departing Tripoli, arriving at their destination, grabbing the inhabitants of some random coastal settlement, and then getting safely back to Tripoli with them, at which point the only way to get them back would be to pay a large ransom (if you could afford it). You can well imagine that caused no end of anger for the surviving relatives of those who were taken. Europe was made to feel very helpless by that whole affair, and crushing the Ottomans once and for all would have been a good way to blow off some steam (in the long term political sense anyway. Tripoli had long ago been crushed by WW1).
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Fascinating reading, but we are wandering a bit far afield from the point, which IS:

    The British are responsible for the mess in the Eastern Mediterranean as we currently observe it. If they wanted the Ottomans NOT to control the area they should have left it to the Egyptians in 1840, but NO, they forced Egypt to give the area up to those VILLAINOUS Ottomans. Then they promised it to the Arabs who lived there, double-crossing the Ottomans. The Arabs, who evidently were not paying attention to the fate of the Ottomans and the quality of British assurances, got caught with their pants down by the Balfour Declaration and the ensuing wars of Zionist aggression.

    All this has caused a bit of a sticky wicket.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Fascinating reading, but we are wandering a bit far afield from the point, which IS:

    The British are responsible for the mess in the Eastern Mediterranean as we currently observe it.
    I thought the point of all that "fascinating reading" was that isn't as simple as your naive view would have it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Fascinating reading, but we are wandering a bit far afield from the point, which IS:

    The British are responsible for the mess in the Eastern Mediterranean as we currently observe it.
    I thought the point of all that "fascinating reading" was that isn't as simple as your naive view would have it.
    If you would be kind enough, please expound upon what influence the Barbary pirates, whose influence of any kind appears to have ended in the 1830s according to the source and well before the first aliya, had upon the founding of the Zionist state. I might add that during the British Mandate there were several instances of Zionist terrorism and that by conceding to said terrorists the British gave not only a motive to modern Arab terrorists but a model to follow- "Terror bombing works."

    Enlighten me particularly how such influence is more significant than the Balfour bloody damned Declaration, there's a good chap.

    Balfour Declaration of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Yeah, I realize you are right, British Imperialism was responsible for the Nanking Massacre, the Russian Revolution, the Fall of Rome, the destruction of the Library at Alexandria, the Tunguska event and the Japanese tsunami.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    how such influence is more significant
    If we're going to talk about "influence" or "underlying causes" or "real reasons" for the problem of plonking Israel into Palestine, we should really look straight at Nazi Germany.

    There had been Zionist movements of various sorts around the place for ages. It was only the Holocaust that gave the impetus to give Jews a safe haven. If there had been no Holocaust, Zionists would still be around as they'd been in the past. But they'd be just another bunch of obsessive cranks with a particular bee in their bonnets just as they were a century ago.

    You want blame? Go for the nastiest culprits available. Nazis.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yeah, I realize you are right, British Imperialism was responsible for the Nanking Massacre, the Russian Revolution, the Fall of Rome, the destruction of the Library at Alexandria, the Tunguska event and the Japanese tsunami.
    Not what I was asking for and you bloody well know it. I had expected better from you and still expect you will rise to the challenge in your own good time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    how such influence is more significant
    If we're going to talk about "influence" or "underlying causes" or "real reasons" for the problem of plonking Israel into Palestine, we should really look straight at Nazi Germany.

    There had been Zionist movements of various sorts around the place for ages. It was only the Holocaust that gave the impetus to give Jews a safe haven. If there had been no Holocaust, Zionists would still be around as they'd been in the past. But they'd be just another bunch of obsessive cranks with a particular bee in their bonnets just as they were a century ago.

    You want blame? Go for the nastiest culprits available. Nazis.
    Tsarist Russian pogroms were pretty bad. And the Dreyfus Affair, nasty business that. Then there's always the Klan here in the USA. And medieval Europe, where they got blamed for the plague- almost forgot Martin Luther, RAVING anti-Semite. Anyway, we already HAVE a thread about the Nazis.

    1:14...Tom Lehrer - National Brotherhood Week - now on DVD - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Not what I was asking for and you bloody well know it. I had expected better from you and still expect you will rise to the challenge in your own good time.
    For a while I thought it might be possible to have an intelligent dialog with you, but I have given up.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Not what I was asking for and you bloody well know it. I had expected better from you and still expect you will rise to the challenge in your own good time.
    For a while I thought it might be possible to have an intelligent dialog with you, but I have given up.
    Sorry to hear that. You can always resort to the traditional British strategy of getting somebody else to do the fighting for you. I hear the Israelis are good at it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    It appears that this forum, is a perfect vehicle, for your anti British/English vitriol. You do however, come across as a dude, who wears a ten gallon hat on a two pint head.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    It's just called the truth, mac. Sorry for ya if you can't handle it.

    You can't do much about the truth or you would put up a better fight than some lame insult, so who has the tiny head there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Hey im new from israel....17 years old.
    By Orionid in forum Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 27th, 2011, 10:04 PM
  2. Can Israel survive in the near future?
    By newnothing in forum Politics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: November 10th, 2009, 02:20 AM
  3. hii -i am backing a fter a while-icarus5 from israel
    By cohen avshalom in forum Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 18th, 2009, 12:14 PM
  4. Why all this evolution on Israel?
    By Silex7 in forum Politics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: March 12th, 2009, 01:46 AM
  5. Islam view On coexistance (muslims & non-muslims)
    By Silex7 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 19th, 2007, 09:14 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •