Iran�s best ally ?

LOL, the crusades was a european thing, not a middle eastern thing. it was the europeans that started the war, and it was the europeans caused all the suffereing.

saladin did kill civillians, but not as much as the crusading christians. when teh christians were killing all the jews and muslims of jerusalem, saladin was forgiving and sparing the christian civillians.

when the crusaders were massacring muslims all over the place during peace time, saladin did not fight back, keeping his promise of peace.

christian atrocities during the crusades make muslim atrocities look like nothing.

and yes, the muslim empires expansionist policy also made it an imperialist nation.

britain promised the arabs palestine if they helped defeat the ottomans. the arabs kept their promise but the british didnt. they occupied the middle east (except turkey, iran, syria, and lebanon) for the next 30 years. then after WWII they turned around and gave the land to the jews.

and who says that it is the jews "homeland"?

is iraq my homeland because the sassanids ruled there 1000 years ago? no.

that land is not jewish land, it was given to the jews at the expense of others.

along with 70% of africa, palestine, jordan, egypt, afghanistan, china, india, etc..

do they not teach you about british atrocities in other countries?

when i say britain will pay, i mean that they will pay monetarily. nothing physical or anything like that.

and i am not a muslim so keep your inner crusader aggression to yourself please.

please tell me how many rich, stable african countries there are today.

africa was raped by the british, and brutaly too. ivory, wood, humans, minerals, gold, etc...

all taken back to britain, nothing was done for the development of those regions in which all of this was taken.

YES, RAPE!

exactly, hooray for british imperialism!

yes, the british introduced the concept of making tribes fight each other in africa.

ofcourse they fought each other before, but the difference is that here, the british would kill a group of people from one tribe, and then blame it on other, and in that way the caused war.

the british would lie to one tribe telling them that they want all the power, so that tribe would attack the other.

the british even supplied the different sides with weapons just to keep the wars going.

that is the difference brought by british imperialist policy. soon the portugese and the french adopted that policy too.

DIRECT RESULT OF BRITISH POLICY and unfortunately, all that hate instilled in the african people by the british exist to this day. the rwandan genocide was a direct result of the british policy used by the portugese decades early, which seperated the once united hutu's and tutis.

i dont support them either.

i never said britain support the regime in S.A, but it was british policy during colonial times that left that white supremacist attitude in the whites there.  direct result of british policy.

no you havent. you have come to terms with the sweet coated history of your nation.

Iranian41ife very well put.

i think this thread is just about finished.

Well at least now we're one of the worst not the worst.

The Middle East was a great place before imperialism? Then explain the Crusades (and if thats imperialistic then surely Islamic attacks into Spain and France are exactly the same?). Saladin killed/enslaved all who didnt convert to Islam, does that sound like happy religion to you? The Middle East has always been a religious hotbed (Islam, Christianity and Judaism amongst the older examples). And imperialism did not suddenly create the differences between the faiths, thats absurd. Religions have always fought each other, always will. You also say that because only two powers ruled the region there was peace...thats an endorsement of Imperialism, that technically means that a single world Empire might abolish war or make it incredibly uncommon.

Palestine/Israel- no I dont 'know' why Britain is directly at fault here, Jews needed a country of their own for protection, Britain was getting rid of much of its Empire so why not install them in their homeland? Its the fault of Arabs for not accepting them. or should we have abandoned the Jews?

Iraq as I have admitted many times before was a cock up and horribly wrong, an example of a bad legacy of imperialism.

I'm afraid I know little of Britains involvement in Iran so i'll concede to you there.

Perhaps 'Britian' will pay. But i feel Britain won't, we made mistakes, we admitted them and we've tried to help our ex-colonies, you cant abuse an ex-con trying to make right. Well you can but its bad form. And surely such revenge laden rants dont help anyone. In fact they are counter productive. I dont whinge over Rome or the Norman Invasion so get over it, someone came in cocked some stuff up, tried to amke good and is now trying to help others. Otherwise you start soundoing like a corny Islamic Terrorist- 'Death to the infidel, God will smite them, rise up my brothers...'. You cant call Britain a bloodthirsty monster than turn around and demand vengance. This is a discussion, not a tirade.

So we drained Africa of her resources did we? Which explains, say, Nigerias oil wealth? Or Zimbabwe having such good harvests(before Mugabe killed all the farmers...). Africa was exploited by merchant companies, and darn me but isnt that what is happening in say Saudi Arabia, the Royal Family and Oil firms take the profits and the Saudis suffer...Africa is still one of the most resource rich continents left and current economists say that the world will draw more and more from Africa soon. We are in an age of Financial Imperialism, perhaps thats a better target, after all those big companies dont have to care how awful the palce is provided they get their resources...a step up surely from teh British who had to bother with all that government buisness...

Infighting, yes I can imagine Britain used it but 'introduced'? I am certain others will have tried it before, Julius Caesers 'divide and conquer' was more than a few centuries before that....And i somehow doubt African tribes were fighting free before, I am sure we made the situation worse but it isnt as if Britain turned up and suddenly Africa had turned into a bunch of corrupt, vicious nutters. The French used a tactic they saw worked, so should an engineer not copy a good method for drilling which will give him more for less? It made financial sense and surely someone would have come up with it anyway....More than that there must have been some 'entry' for British colonials trying  to start this infighting, if the Africans were really so saintly surely they wouldnt have understood ethnic fighting or refused it? As for the Civil Wars- all the fault of Britain- because people copied from a British imperial model? I think not. That is like saying that pollution is all the fault of the first man to build a car...which was inspired by a carriage which was inspired by a cart which was...etc. This gets nowhere. I am certain you will find African wars before Britain got anywhere near it....

I know S. Africa is horrible, all I'm saying is that its an example of a thriving state (OK so the vast majority of the population is poor but thats how most countries start out...and there are vast problems like AIDS that dont help, eventually S. Africa will be as stable and satisfied as Europe, you cant flick your fingers to get instant results). I know they were racist and had apartheid, so did America (in fact despite British soceity in the Empire looking down on other races no form of actual institutionalised racism was created). Now compare to a current racist state- Saudi Arabia (sorry for the constant references to it, I've been studying it recently) where rape of immigrants is not punished. Any Arab man can rape an immigrant and get away with it, in fact its was in the news recently, in fact, from ORBAT.com;

More so Britain  has never encouraged S. Africa for its apartheid but condemned it, we put an embargo on their goods until apartheid finished.

No I cannot justify the blood spilt by my nation, but heres a question, can you justify yours? Or rather while I cant justify it, I have never tried to or at least i hope i havent given that impression, i have tried to convey that the blood spilt and damage caused was much inferior to what you claim.

Suez Canal, Palestine and Iraq are not the only ones (do you have a complete list as I'd be interested to see, thank you) but are the only ones high profile enough for me, I'll discuss the others if you'll  be so good as to inform me of their dentities.

Right- what governments, Africa did not really ahve government before we came. Next the peple were poor and not all became poor because of us, most just didnt move, there was no organised campaign to grind them in the dust, empire wise that doesnt work. And draining resources, that still happens (see one of my earlier points).

As far as i know Britain never created a culture of corruption, surely that would leave us worse off as we try to 'drain their resources and smash them to the ground'. Corruption formed later when usually educated persons saw a chance. And the Africans were originally working class poor...although thats not right as they werent exactly factory workers. they worked on farmy, hunted and carried. Basicly their previous lives but on a more organised scale. Lacking in freedom yes but with guaranteed food/shelter. We didnt kill people to gain a stronger prescence (the one example i can think of that is similar was the destruction of the Zulu). Generally wars were carried out against other colonial powers or to safeguard existing territory. As for good leaders- how do you know they were good, nationalistic and idealistic mayhaps but idealism rarely makes good government...(Che Guevra?)

Dark Age atrocities are 1000 years ago not 3000. And i used them because its a good series of examples, because it had its influence, is using things that happened 100 or 200 years ago any reference to today, no but you still used it!. Ireland has in fact raided England for many years when not roiled in their own. And that wasn the gist of my argument. My argument was that the atrocities were in fact relatively restrained for their time.

Britain took control of the Falklands for Naval control, I said that. I was (probably badly) saying that it was not a conquest based on opressing natives and draining resources.

And holding onto territories is imperialistic, then Britian is still imperialistic for holding onto just Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, N. Ireland, Gibralter....and just about any current country is also guilty. The US should lack Texas, The South should be seperate, Russia would lose Chechneya, Turkey loses its Kurds....Where would it end? We held on adn slowly let go almost all our ex-colonies, try naming just the colonies we still hold and then consider how many want to be British, the world is decided today(well it should be) by self determination....

OK so we wont help....and then people will complain, just take the amount of aid Britain gives out every year and watch countries suffer! You do of course realise that somewhere like Palestine is almost entirely funded by Europe....Arab countries give a minimum. Then we'll refuse to go to, oh, the Sudan or elsewhere. The British Army is currently in over 50 countries for peacekeeping, aid or similar help. Surely we should help our neighbours? If say America detonated a Nuke in Iran (actually detonating one in the desert is a currently considered plan) wouldnt you want help, or Tsunami aid, or help for the Earthquakes in Pakistan?

American use of British policies is not the fault of Britain, it was a choice of America! Otherwise if i say i will borrow Julius Caesers Divide and Conquer are those hurt or killed the fault of Julius? O course not. And i know Britin wasnt all that nice in America, I admitted that, I just said we werent responsible for the total exterminations of later. Exactly what encouragemen did Britain give America between 1600-1775, i havent heard of any such (bar the obvious financial groups, who are not a represenatative of Britain nationally). Thank you.

When i said Iraq and Iran i meant the Mesopotamian region. If you can blame the United Kingdom of Britain for the British Empire (notice, Queen of Britain, not Empress) i dont see why i cant blame Iraq and Iran for Mesopotamia...its just an attempt to take this to extremes and prove how silly such arguments are.

Iran hasnt been a major power in 250 years, Britain has. Britain didnt start the war with Rome, with the Picts, with the Normans....but it wasnt a  major power.

I have come to terms, my terms, with my nations past. As i have explicetly said Britain has doen many wrong things, but i do not see it as one of the worst Empires ever in that it was not concerned with genocide (Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao just in the 20th Century) or such. It was a financial empire that, as with all empires, had side effects. Bloody side effects but they were side effects, not purposes. It feels to me that you have to come to your terms with my Nation not me.

i cannot believe you just said this. the middle east before imperialism was a great place. muslims, jews, and christians lived side by side.

only two powers controlled the region, which kept wars limited.

everything that is happening the middle east today is the direct fault of britian:

iraq- the situation the british left in iraq after they left was not only unstable, but unpracticle. eventualy saddam got to power because of british policies towards iraq, which caused many of the iraqi's to hate the puppet regimes before saddam.

palestine/israel: direct fault of britian, do i need to say more? i think you know why britian is at fault here. and this one situation has thrown the middle east into war many times, all of those are a direct result to british policy.

iran: overthrow of democratic mossadegh and placement of the puppet shah, which eventually lead to the islamic revolution.

EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE MIDDLE EAST RIGHT NOW IS BRITIANS FAULT, AND I HOPE TO GOD THAT BRITIAN PAYS FOR IT ALL ONE DAY!

british imperialism not only drained africa of its resources, it also created ethnic divisions which didnt exist before.

the british were the first to introduce infighting in order to strengthen their power. they made tribes that used to be friends fight eachother. the weaker the people, the easier it is for britian to take control.

eventually, the french also took up on this british policy, and that is also the direct fault of britain.

all the civil wars today and in the past 50 years are the direct result of british policy in the region!

south africa was horrible! it killed its own people, was racist, had apartheid till the 1990's, etc.. and you are using them as justification for british imperialism?

south africa is a poor nation, the majority of its black population is poor as dirt, and only the minority white are mostly middle class and upper class.

you cannot justify your countries brutal, cruel, blood stained past no matter what you do.

millions died then, and millions are still dying because of britain and its policies.

and no, the suez canal, palestine, and iraq are not the only ones in the middle east, as i have mentioned before.

britian spent over a hundred years weaking governments, making people poor, draining nations of their resources, and killing their people so that they could have a stronger presence in the regions.

that is why today iraq is messed up, zimbabwe is messed up, etc... its a direct result of imperialism. that is what imperialism does, it creates generations of uneducated poor people and puppet loose governments.

how do you expect nations to get on their feet when a country like britian has spent over 100 years destabalising the region, creating an uneducated poor working class, instilling a culture of corruption, and then overthrowing all the good leaders that tried to do something good for their nations?

your argument is breaking down completely now. when you have to use examples from 3000 years ago to justify something that happened 100 to 200 years ago, then you know there is a problem.

then i wonder why britian took control of the island in the first place....

if it had no value like you said.....

holding on to territories that want indpendence and that arent yours is imperialistic. you dont have to necessarily be trying to acquire new terroritories. LOL

i believe that the less "help" britain gives the world the better the world will be.

ok, how about britain, from the 1600's to 1775 encouraging, supplying, and helping the colonists not only to expand, but to exterminate the people or move them, from the areas of expansion.

the british ahd countless wars with the native americans, countless massacres, countless false treaties and lies. and guess what, the americans later used those same exact policies to take control of the whole continent.

please, i would like to see you try to. iraq is a new nation, it had nothing to do with mesopotamia.

sescondly, iran with its 2500 years of existent cannot even come close tot he amount of suffering, pain, and blood the 300 year old british empire has.

iran hasnt even started a war in over 250 years. go ahead, i want to see you try.

YOU HAVE TO COME TO TERMS WITH YOUR COUNTRIES PAST, THE BRITISH EMPIRE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE WORST TO EVER SURFACE ON THE FACE OF THE EART.

@TeleInduz (sorry, didnt see your post before)

Yes colonialism is old fashioned, it no longer works. I totally agree with that. But to many degrees it has worked and their are huge time differences between Britain holding Pakistan and 1947. All I really want to say is that contrary to some board members opinions Britain is not some huge, whiney power, lusting after old colonialism who has left the world drenched in blood.