Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIslamic Entitlement
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Islamic Entitlement
    Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 14:55

Well, there's no way I can double-check the statistics I gave. I can't go out and count it up myself. But I'd like to see your reasons for rejecting the ones I gave (and remember I said that some of the aid received by Middle Eastern countries comes from other Midlle Eastern countries).

You also are avoiding the central issue here which is that in the first half of the last century the Middle East in general was financially destitute. It relied on Western capital , technology and skills to develop the natural physical resources it had: without aid from somewhere it would have been unable to do so, whatever the historical reasons.

That goes for all the oil-producing states including Saudi Arabia and the other currently rich ones.

Incidentally, with regard to Kuwait particularly, it became a British protectorate in 1899, both sides getting advantages - Kuwait because it confirmed its independence from Ottoman rule, and Britain because it was attempting to foil German expansion (the planned Berlin-Baghdad railway had a pencilled in terminus at Kuwait).

But Britain had been collaborating with the Kuwaitis and other Gulf sheikhdoms that were restive under Ottoman rule since the 18th century and the days of the East India Company, which established its first factory there in 1793.

Britain's main interest at that point was of course safeguarding the passage to India as evidenced by, inter alia, this treaty of 1841

In which, notably, there is no reference to Ottoman rule.
Back to Top
Moustafa Pasha View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 133 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 16:03

 

British policy in the Middle East was influenced  after WWI by British Petroleum Company interests in extracting oil from the region.That includes occupying and fomenting revolutioons in a number of countries including Iran,Iraq Koweit and others stealing their natural resources.

For informatio click below

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2299

 



Edited by Moustafa Pasha
Back to Top
Richard XIII View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 651 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 04:09
Islamic Entitlement = who built Kuwait
or stealing their natural resources
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 05:31

thanx richard for the jabbing

to all memebers please stick to the topic which is about "Islamic Entilement".

if off topic sujbects discussion continued, this thread will be closed.

thnx.

 
Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 06:50

Originally posted by gcle2003

You also are avoiding the central issue here which is that in the first half of the last century the Middle East in general was financially destitute. It relied on Western capital , technology and skills to develop the natural physical resources it had: without aid from somewhere it would have been unable to do so, whatever the historical reasons.

Hello gcle2003,

I don't know why you think I'm avoiding some issue.  It's clear:  the Middle East in the "first half of the last century" had to go through a whole "makeover" after the weakening (and subsequently demolishing) of the Muslim caliphate.  The Muslims have always had a caliphate, and the new rising phenomenon (then) of independent nation-states was not seen as appropriate or applicable to the region until "colonialism."  Of course the Middle East was financially exhausted; the Ottoman empire had to fight many wars on different fronts.  Thanks to the colonial powers that fragmented the region that had always depended on its unity for political, social and economic reinforcement.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 09:05
Originally posted by Mira

Originally posted by gcle2003

You also are avoiding the central issue here which is that in the first half of the last century the Middle East in general was financially destitute. It relied on Western capital , technology and skills to develop the natural physical resources it had: without aid from somewhere it would have been unable to do so, whatever the historical reasons.

Hello gcle2003,

I don't know why you think I'm avoiding some issue.  It's clear:  the Middle East in the "first half of the last century" had to go through a whole "makeover" after the weakening (and subsequently demolishing) of the Muslim caliphate.  The Muslims have always had a caliphate, and the new rising phenomenon (then) of independent nation-states was not seen as appropriate or applicable to the region until "colonialism."  Of course the Middle East was financially exhausted;

That's the central issue you were ignoring.

In fact though the Gulf area, apart from the entrepot at Basra, had been poor for centuries. If oil wasn't valuable it would still be poor. That's one reason the Ottomans were happy to see Britain taking over some of the responsibility for the governance of the region in order to keep the Indian trade routes free.

the Ottoman empire had to fight many wars on different fronts. 

But rarely against the British. Certainly for most of the 19th century the Ottoman Empire and Britain were concerned with a common enemy in Russia. Hence the collaboration in the Crimean War and the cession of Cyprus to provide Britain with a support base in the area.

The only significant difference between the two countries was over the independence of Greece. Most of the time the Ottomans and the British were fairly natural allies, even back to Elizabethan times (as someone was pointing out in another thread recently).

Thanks to the colonial powers that fragmented the region that had always depended on its unity for political, social and economic reinforcement.

The idea that the principalities of the area were ever 'united' except under occasional pressure from nominal overlords verges on the laughable. They were no more united than the Barbary States.

 
Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 12:16
Originally posted by gcle2003

That's the central issue you were ignoring.

In fact though the Gulf area, apart from the entrepot at Basra, had been poor for centuries. If oil wasn't valuable it would still be poor. That's one reason the Ottomans were happy to see Britain taking over some of the responsibility for the governance of the region in order to keep the Indian trade routes free.[QUOTE]

I disagree.  I couldn't have deliberately ignored that; not when I'm making a good argument.

The Gulf area was not wealthy as it is today, but the Gulf is not the Middle East.  A few posts earlier you were saying the Middle East in its entirety was "financially distitute," (quoting your exact words.)  Can you make distinction between the two? 

In any case, what you're saying is not entirely true.  As poor as the Gulf region may have been, it was not affected by poverty at any time.  There had always been open trade with India and Persia.  There are British records (I'm sure you trust your Western sources better) relating to primary economic activity in the Persian Gulf before the oil era, and FYI, pearl diving had reached its peak in the mid-20th century.  That should tell you something about the pre-colonial era and how people managed to survive on their own.

How do you think those people survived?  How do you think my parents survived?

Again, I must remind you that the Gulf is not the Middle East.  It is a part of it.  You cannot measure the living standards of a small bloc and apply it to the entire region.  Do you realize that the Middle East lies between two continents?  Our resources and economies differ, you know.  To say that the region would have remained poor without oil is an understatement.

In fact, the only reason people are relying on oil and not inventing any new income sources is because it's readily available.  When Dubai, for instance, realized that it is running out of oil, it quicly developed other sources of income.  See where we are today?  It would be short-sighted of you to believe that the other states cannot compete with Dubai.  The only reason they're not is because they still have enough oil.

Necessity is the mother of invention.  The Gulf would have survived, with or without the oil.  I'm sure the living standards wouldn't have been the same as they are today, but they surely wouldn't have got worse than what they were in the pre-oil era.

Originally posted by gcle2003

But rarely against the British. Certainly for most of the 19th century the Ottoman Empire and Britain were concerned with a common enemy in Russia. Hence the collaboration in the Crimean War and the cession of Cyprus to provide Britain with a support base in the area.

The only significant difference between the two countries was over the independence of Greece. Most of the time the Ottomans and the British were fairly natural allies, even back to Elizabethan times (as someone was pointing out in another thread recently).

[QUOTE]

Thanks to the colonial powers that fragmented the region that had always depended on its unity for political, social and economic reinforcement.

The idea that the principalities of the area were ever 'united' except under occasional pressure from nominal overlords verges on the laughable. They were no more united than the Barbary States.


They were united under one Caliphate. 

As for the British-Ottoman collaboration; it was short-lived.  As soon as Sultan Abdulhamid II was dethroned, the Ottomans allied the Germans.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 08:29
Originally posted by Mira

Originally posted by gcle2003

The idea that the principalities of the area were ever 'united' except under occasional pressure from nominal overlords verges on the laughable. They were no more united than the Barbary States.


They were united under one Caliphate. 

Funny definition of 'united' you are using. That they came under the theoretcial suzerainty of the Sultan, but ignored it whenever they could, would be a more accurate statement.

As for the British-Ottoman collaboration; it was short-lived.  As soon as Sultan Abdulhamid II was dethroned, the Ottomans allied the Germans.

Well, I don't see you can blame the British for that.  It was the Sultan who declared a jihad (really) against Britain, France and Russia in October-November 1914. Enver Pasha made a bad miscalculation, that's all - a fatal one for the Ottoman Empire if not for Turkey as a nation state.

I also don't know where you got 'short-lived' from. They were natural allies at least from the Reformation on, against Spain, against Napoleon, against Russia, and in things like the diplomacy surrounding the Treaty of Berlin and putting down the Egyptian revolution in 1881.

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 09:37
GCLE: you look more British than Luxemburger.

Britain wasn't particularly pro-Ottoman and actually it was France the most natural and historical ally of Turkey (before the creation of a unified Germany). Britain took from Turkey succesively the Ionian islands, Greece and Cyprus in the Med, and several bases in Arabia, most notably Kuwait. Britain also supported very actively the creation of a Zionist colony in Palestine, something that was totally against Ottoman interests. Britain played cat and mice all the time with the Ottoman Empire and eventually got most of it, while making sure that neither Russia nor France could get too much, specially the strategic Egyptian passage.

I estimate that virtually all what Ottoman Empire lost in the 19th and 20th centuries was lost to Britain and British allies such as Greece, Saudi Arabia, France and Italy. Most of it went directly to Britain: Egypt, Cyprus, Kuwait, Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq, Mosul Territory...

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 01:32

ok Closed

now plz open a new thread in what you are talking about. this thread gone off topic enough.

 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.