Osama bin Laden and top aides are hiding in Sabzevar, Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis June 8, 2010, 12:16 AM (GMT+02:00)
What does the group think about this
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28476
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 03:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What does the group think about this
Posted By: Night Crawler
Subject: What does the group think about this
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2010 at 19:36
|
I don't know if I believe it or not but, What does the group think about this:
Tags: http://www.debka.com/search/tag/Iran/ - Iran  Osama bin Laden stayed out of sight for years Osama bin Laden's hiding place was pinned down for the first time Monday, June 7, by the Kuwaiti Al-Siyassa Monday, June 7, as the mountainous town of Savzevar, a small town of about a quarter of a million inhabitants, is connected by road to On May 13, American intelligence sources reported in detail that senior al Qaeda operatives living in debkafile's counter-terror sources disclose that the purpose of airing their precise whereabouts at this time, aside from implicating the Turkish leader, was first, to warn al Qaeda's leaders that their hideout was blown and they had better move on - which would make them easier to catch; and, second, to nudge US president Barak Obama into a decision to go after them. |
http://www.debka.com/search/tag/Osama%20bin%20Laden/ - Osama bin Laden Replies:
Posted By: Patrinos
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2010 at 03:20
What a nice excuse to invade Iran...
------------- "Hellenes are crazy but they have a wise God" Kolokotronis |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2010 at 11:22
|
I would think that it is unlikely, but not beyond the realm of believeability!
Certainly a powerful Iman would have to be involved? But, which ones have such power? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: azmo
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 06:59
Well, do they have ``valid`` excuses at all?  When it comes to war, everyone go take a nap. Much easier. GO USA!  |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 10:52
|
Is Osama Shia or Sunni?
------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 14:44
|
Being from the Royal house of the Saudi, I would immediately suggest Sunni!
Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 05:23
|
So something to consider when hiding in Shia Iran then.
------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 09:54
That excellent point and the fact that Iran has a functioning government which would love to execute him.
IMHO the only viable places for Ben Ladin to hide are Sunni areas without a functioning government or where the government is very weak. That leaves:
-Northwest frontier area of Pakistan
-Some parts of Somalia
-Some parts of Sudan
-Maybe Ambon area of Indonesia
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 11:28
|
Palestinians are also Sunni Muslims, but they are also strongly supported by Iranian government. ------------- 
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 11:30
|
Honestly, is Osama really who the West made him out to be, is he real? Does Al Qaeda truly exist? These are questions to consider as well.
------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 12:41
You forgot pumping gas in Jersey City.  ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 16:12
|
I thought it was in Hoboken?
But, people seem to forget, he may still be a billionare? That kind of money and his successes (against the infidel), may get a lot of forgiveness from many Mullah's? I am certainly not sure (weird combination what?) that Sunni or Shia means a whole lot to the terrorist groups? Mpstly they might well be first "Defenders of the Word?", and other differences may well be either ignored or forgotten? But, like all things, I could be wrong? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 17:51
|
Osama bin Laden considers Shia's as infidels.
------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 17:58
|
TGS wrote;
"Osama bin Laden considers Shia's as infidels." HALT THE PRESSES! CALL IN THE TALKING HEADS! NEW PERSONAL INFORMATION HAS JUST BEEN RELEASED FROM A CLOSE CONFIDANT TO OSAMA bIN-LADEN!
A real news-breaker! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 03:50
Israel, enemy of my enemy after all. That said its not like other Middle Eastern nations dont support the Palestinians and then forget when its convenient. Its not that Osama couldnt be in Iran, but given the mindsets of both sides, if the above is true, it would seem unlikely. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 13:56
|
Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that Shia and Sunni can agree when a "fatwah" is issued! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 14:43
|
We arent talking about ordinary Shia's and ordinary Sunnis, we are talking about Al Qaeda (which doesnt even consider Shia's as Muslims) and Iran (Shia dominated and vehemently against Sunni extremists). If Osama was ever in Iran and the Iranian government found him, hes surely not alive anymore. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2010 at 05:16
|
Greetings! This is my first post here.
I think we need to consider many variables and personal relationships here.
1. True, Iran is the home of heretical Shiism and OBL is a champion of orthodox sunniism. But No Muslims have an interest in seeing a member of the Ulema (Islamic Scholar) killed or captured by infidels. Better keep him under house-arrest than grant a victory to the Crusaders.
2. It is Kuwaiti which broke the story. Kuwait is a tiny country sandwiched in between 3 big countries: Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The Kuwaitis are generally terrified of all three. They don't like Saudi's religious zealotry. They are bitter against the Iraqis (hence giving the Crusaders a base in Kuwait to attack other Muslims), and of course they are terrified of 70 million NON-Arabic- Speaking Persians about 50KM (30 miles) away. The Kuwaitis may want to find a reason to keep the US interested in Kuwait after the Iraq war finishes next summer (for the US anyway). The departure of US troops will leave Kuwait vulnerable -- particularily from the north.
3. Turkey is split. A leak such as this about Turkey being close to Iran could also be a red herring. The Turkish military is Pro-Western and Pro-Israeli while Erdogan is not. The Turkish generals are embarrassed by Erdogan's Islamism (most recently displayed in their Gaza Flotilla). This could be planted information that is aimed at undermining the Islamists and garnering support for the Generals if they want to stage yet another coup.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2010 at 08:16
If the United States invaded Iran, most Sunni's would not come to Iran's aid whatsoever. You think Sunni governments are helping the Shia's in Iraq? Absolutely not, they are helping the Sunni's in Iraq fight the Shia's. And same for Iran, Iran helps the Shia's in Iraq fight the Sunni's. Extremist Shia's and extremist Sunni's hate each other, and they will kill each other, or help someone else kill them.
It appears as though there has been a shift in Turkey. Most Turks actually support Erdogans government. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2010 at 04:48
|
I agree with your comments fully.
Arab as well as Middle Eastern in general (Turks and Persians included) have multiple levels of loyalties. They may be competing and even contradictory at any given moment. Saudis will at once support the Iraqi Sunni insurgents against the US while supporting the US against Iran. It is OUR FAULT (I am an American) that we don't understand or see these layers. I believe it is a trait of Western Christians to be rather 2-Dimensional and linear in our thinking. It is good in that our objectives are usually plan to see. It is bad in that we project this habit on to others who are more secretive and furtive with their actions, and we endager ourselves and our civilization by our naivite.
This happened during the Crusades. There were points when the Kingdom of Jerusalem fought for the emir in Damascus against other Muslims and when Latin Christians fought Greek Christians. It is a trait of the West to be clear about one's intentions -- not a Middle Eastern trait. I have no problem in believing that Iran will, with one hand, strike out at the Sunnis in Iraq while giving refuge to a Sunni fighter against the West with the other hand. Muslims are commanded to fight for Allah. They will see no conflict in fighting Sunni enemies of God while helping another Sunni fight infidel enemies of God at the same time.
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2010 at 13:00
|
Patryk, it seems that we agree?
A bunch of very good posts by all! Prosit! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2010 at 18:27
Good points for any Sunni but Ben Ladin and his immediate Al Queda loyalists. Providing low level shelter to Sunnis who attack NATO in Afghanistan is one thing, sheltering Ben Ladin as an individual is quite another.
Also, the younger Iranian generation has gotten very tired of endless confrontations with the "Great Satans", coming Holy Wars and martyrdom oppurtunities. If the Iranian leadership were to shelter Ben Ladin and recklessly risk a conflict with the USA, it might be the "straw that broke the Mullah's backs".
|
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2010 at 18:53
We can only hope ...
I am hopeful for a day way Persian's ancient ancient Zoroastrian roots are once allowed to rise to the surface. If so, Iran would be as prosperous today as the Parsis of India are (think Freddy Mercury and Tata). Instead, this once glorious ancient empire barely exists under a sclerotic Arab-centric culture that it imported 1300 years ago.
Yes, many young Persians are sick of the Islamic Revolution but I don't know of any Islamic Revolution that has been reversed once "institutionalized" as it has been in Iran. I fear the regime will make a wasteland of the country rather than allow infidels to ever rule it.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2010 at 05:27
Neither do I , but other entrenched moverments have been reversed. For example, communism in the Soviet Union and Maoist communism in China (a quasi religion) faded. On a less intense and less entrenched level, neo conservatism has declined in the USA.
Me to. Though the Soviet communists and Maoist true believers faded with out an "all or nothing" confrontation with their rivals, fundamentalist religion is more absolute than socio-economic systems. Hopefully, support of the Mullahs is collapsing even amongst the older generation. There cannot be an "all or nothing confrontation" with out a certain number of marchers.
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2010 at 11:06
I agree with you here but I do believe Al Qaeda does exist. I wonder who really created them! This is more of a statement than a question. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2010 at 11:17
|
Cryptic wrote;
"neo conservatism has declined in the USA.!" Can you not read? Just what do you call the "Tea party" movement if not "neo-conservative?" It seems your hate of the "conservatives" of America is great! We will see in the upcoming elections if your ideas or mine win? BTY, just what do you consider the "old conservative" movement? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2010 at 23:14
|
I don't see the Tea Party as being a "neo-con" grouping. To the contrary, they seem much more alligned with the paleo-conservative faction that was out of favour during a lot of George Bush's tenure.
What's the difference? Neo-Conservatives tend to take a positive view of the role of government in terms of its ability to regulate the market as well as government's ability to undertake nation-building activities overseas. The Paleo-cons, on the other hand are rooted in Classical Economics and a dim view of government's ability to do much more than its basic, core responsibilities. The Tea Party, in my view, is a reation to both the Neo-Cons and the Fabian Socialists who are in power now.
|
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2010 at 23:23
I saw an interview with Niall Ferguson, whom I think is great, and he said that we CONTINUALLY re-apply the language of WWI/II (the Great Wars) to the current "war on terrorism." I agree with him. We continually look at the current situation in terms of Axis vs. Allies, appeasement versus confrontation, of Churchillian versus Hilterian. This is wrong.
At the risk of being attacked; I actually believe the language of the Crusades is more appropriate, not least of all because THAT is the language that our adversaries make use of. They (Al-Qaida and their sympathisers) see us as Frankish Crusaders and Israel as the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Crusades colours THIER perception but it has largely disappeared from our collective memories.
Bin Laden is REAL. Al-Qaida is REAL. But not in the way we envision them now. I see them more as the Jihadis of Damascus and Baghdad of the mid 12th Century who first began to create an army to challenged the Christians' previously undisputed hold on Jerusalem and Antioch.
|
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2010 at 04:17
|
Though it may be fine for them to rant and rave and use the language of the Crusads it would be unwise for the West to do so. Far too much cultural baggae attached, and if one does, one might soon find moderates turning away.
------------- |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2010 at 06:23
Well, we know who helped train and fund them...Pakistan and the United States. This is why I am skeptically with everything regarding this issue, because from the very beginning our government was the architect, therefore, our government can make up whatever it wants regarding Osama and "his" organization. Osama has already been used to start two wars to expand the American Empire. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2010 at 13:46
|
Great Simba wrote;
"Osama has already been used to start two wars to expand the American Empire." The American Empire! You've gone into the deep end with that one! You've gone over the edge! You've gone outa yo mind! As Desi used to ask Lucy; "Splain something to me Simba?" Just whom would want Iraq and or the Afgan, in their Empire? What the USA wants is for us to stablize the areas and then get out! I, for one, would turn the control of the Oil Fields to the Kurds and let them dole out the profits! The rest of this bastardized nation, is helpless left to its own devices! I really see no nation existing before our participation in the Gulf Wars and in reality, I cannot forsee any nation existing for long after we are gone! It would be better to deport existing peoples living within these created confines, to areas already inhabited with their own majority, and create a new "Balkans" than to see these people still fighting with each other for the next 100 years! Segregation, seems the only worthwile policy! There you go, Simba! I have used the infamous word "segregation", but I did not say "Segregation now, and segregation always!" You may now proceed to call me a racist! But, I really don't care what other wild rants you write! "An American Empire!", indeed! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2010 at 14:05
You dont know? I think you know very well why we wanted Iraq and Afghanistan. This has already been made clear.
No, what the USA wants is to establish puppet government from which it can still profit. All one has to do is understand America's history of intervention in other nations.
What? You do know that there is oil in the South of Iraq as well right?
Interesting analysis. What about when the United States paid them to fight each other, and encouraged them? Who do you think put Saddam in power? The USA Who do you think encouraged the Kurds to fight Saddam? The USA. Whose invasion started civil war in Iraq? The USA.
Believe me, I know what you're beliefs are, and I am not surprised whatsoever by your statement. Lets see, you said the Kurds should be given all the oil in Iraq, the bastardized Arabs should be deported, and the Middle East should be segregated according to race/religion. Let me guess, you're also probably one of those conservatives who believes that America has never done anything wrong and that anyone who hates us is just jealous, and they have no legitimate reason for wanting to do us harm. Is that correct? You also oppose the building of Mosques do you not (especially in New York)? And I'm sure you were completely for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Are all of these assumptions correct? Please answer honestly, you are, after all, a Christian, right? You would be the first person to protest against a Chinese or Russian invasion of another country. Lets not be hypocritical and start being realistic. America is no better than any other country in the world. We are a country run by humans, and humans will do anything to survive and be superior to their neighbors. This is natural, its not something one should deny.
Then dont respond. ---------------------------------- The facts are quite clear, Bush came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq and he gave orders to make it happen. Than 9/11 happens and Bush was more than ready to go to war. Than the Bush administration fabricated evidence to engage us in an illegal war in Iraq for their own profit. Illegal war? Yes. War for profit? Yes. War for political and economic control of the developing world? Yes. I agree with Ron Paul on one issue, our military budget is too big, and our armed forces are in too many countries. The pentagon and the Republicans cannot convince us that our large armed forces and our enormous military budget are for defensive purposes. Do I think Osama is in Iran? Hell no. Do I think the military wants us to think he is? Yes. Do I think American is an exception? Nope. When it comes to military dominance, all governments are evil and ruthless, and willing to do anything to gain and maintain power. We are no better than any other country in this respect. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2010 at 18:02
|
The US does not "make a profit" since our government doesn't sell anything. Governments are parasitical bodies (my Tea Party side is showing through there). The US government only has interest in creating an environment of stability that will allow the various corporations and businesses to exist and carry out business -- that's good for everyone. There are no US oil refineries or petrol stations, so they are not making any money on this war.
To the claim that WE (the Americans/British) trained OBL -- YES, we did. So what? That's how Realpolitiken works! Your enemy's enemy is YOUR FRIEND. OBL and the Saudis decided to launch a Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. If the Western Christendom had still been in the habit of launching Crusades, we might have done the same. As it were, we haven't done that least since Lapento (1571) amd maybe against th Turks at Vienna (1683 -- but I'm not sure). It's not our style anymore.
The aim of the Jihad was to destroy the Soviets. It worked. They were bled in Afghanistn while in the West we built up our forces while theirs were being worn down and their weaknesses exposed. Our economies grew while theirs contracted. And most importantly, we offered a convincing alternative to their Worldview, that of Leninist Socialism. We offered Classical Liberal Democracy and Capitalism which, by 1989, looked VASTLY superior (and still does).
The Afghan Jihad was peripheral. It was a side show. To the 10,000 poor Russians who died there, it wasn't to be sure. To the 3 million Afghans who died, it was yet another disaster for them. But to the Muslims, this was a splendid opportunity to become a "shadeed" (martyr for Islam) and to obtain a lot of girls in the afterlife. In the West, we just had to flush a lot of money down the Star Wars toilet so that th Soviets decided the gig was up by the 1986.
In the popular narratives now, Afghanistan was a CIA triumph. It was Charlie Wilson's War. It victory on a global Cold War battlefield that included Cuba, Angola, Grenada, French Indochina, Czech Rupublic, Hungary, Suez, Poland, The Horn of Africa, and the Cone of South America. To the Muslims, it was the Call of Allah who filled the hearts of the believers and sent them to do battle against Non-Believers and won for them a spectacular victory on a level with the Battle of Badr. And that the Jihad in Afghanistan was the beginning of the end for the secularization and laxity of Islam that had developed since the fall of the last Caliph in Istanbul in 1922. It was a re-awakening of Islam.
Those two visions, the Islomo-centric and the Western-centric are exclusive of each other. Neither really was paying any serious attention to the other.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2010 at 20:28
You dont have to sell anything to profit from something. A profit is simply a positive gain from an endeavor. You're thinking of the word profit in a literal economic term.
Not true.
The United states' only interest is not creating an environment of stability that will allow corporations and businesses to exist and carry out business, its interest is creating an environment of stability, by its own measure, that will allow American (and US allies) corporations and businesses carry out business. There was no need for "stability" when Iraq was a US ally and the US was encouraging and helping Iraq fight Iran for 8 years. Suddenly there was a need for "stability" in 2003?
Exactly, I agree with you, thats why it amazes me that Americans do not understand the concept of "blowback". We have to deal with the consequences of our actions. The US overthrows a democratically elected government in Iran and supports a brutal dictator for decades, then Americans wonder why the current Iranian regime is so distrustful and angry at the US. Get with it Tea Partier! Do you agree that there are reasons why the US is so despised in much of the world, and do you understand why some people may have a legitimate reason for hating our countries government? Do you know who the largest funder of terrorism and Islamic extremism in the world is? Its Saudi Arabia, a US ally, a country that our politicians, ESPECIALLY the Republicans, are close with. So why did we invade Iraq, a country which was no threat to us? Oh yea, because Saudi Arabia, the most authoritarian state in the world, is "stable", right? Is it a coincidence that Osama always seems to pop up when we need him to? Bush wanted a war in Iraq, and he got the perfect opportunity, and guess what, all Saudi's with any connection to Bin Laden were protected by the Bush administration so investigators could not get to them. Interesting huh? You dont trust the government? Then why can you not for one second imagine that the government manipulated us (by us, I do not mean me or any of the other anti-Iraq war Americans)? With regards to Iran, once again, I hope that you, Patryk, do not make the same mistake you made with Iraq in 2003. Dont be duped by propaganda like this. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 03:34
|
Pax Americana
------------- |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 06:57
|
Unless you live in the developing world, where its either war or dictatorship, encouraged and funded by the "Pax Americana".Ofcourse, this doesnt matter to Westerners does it? ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 14:13
|
Besides you needing a course in anger management, you should have understood that I meant the Oil Fields, now in the area that is mostly Kurd!
I would be very happy for a Kurd state to be established! It seems in the insainity that is explained as the State of Iraq, cannot live with each other, now or in the forseeable future! And, yes, for the last 200 or so years, we have been "better" than most of the world! We even tried to isolate ourselves from the worlds problems! But, in these words; "When in the course of human events, it become necessary for a Free Nation...Etc." We did try to take the "best" course for both us and the world in general! No decent American can deny it! And I do not really consider you as a "decent" American in any manner! You are an America hater! But, I will support your right to act like a fool, with every gun in my home! 
------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 14:22
You're the only person on this forum that I have seen get angry. I certainly am not, nor do I need "anger management". And no, you did not mean the oil fields in Northern Iraq, you are simply back tracking in an effort to save face. Regarding the Kurds, let me flip your own argument around on you, since you obviously know nothing about Iraq or its history. What about the Turkmens in Northern Iraq? Should they get their own country too? Shouldnt they get some control of the oil?
On the contrary, me and people like me actually care about this country and about the American people. We love this country and its constitution more than people like you. We want to see this country prosper and continue to flourish, whereas some people simply want to use it for their own benefit. You calling me an "America hater" goes to show how un-American you are. You can call me an "America hater" but considering its not coming from a real American, your words mean nothing to me. And I want to stress once again, those who simply wish to use American for their own benefit will spread propaganda about Iran, such as Osama is being hidden there, in order to achieve their own agenda. Regarding the Iranian nuclear program, the NIE, since 2007, has consistently maintained that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. No one has been able to prove Iran has a nuclear weapons program. So why are we consistently being told that Iran is a threat? Its not, this is all propaganda to keep military spending high and start another war for power and resources. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 16:16
|
The Petite Simba wrote; "What about the Turkmens in Northern Iraq? Should they get their own country too? Shouldnt they get some control of the oil?"
Well? (note the word play?) maybe you should ask Turkey? Does Turkey consider these "Turkmen" as Turks? And, it is most obvious that since hundreds of thousands of Kurds seem to reside in Turkey (perhaps my numbers are incorrect?) then certainly those resident Turks, should be maintained by the Kurds, etc.! Or maybe Turkey should turn over a portion of its Western frontier to the Kurds, and then accept the "Turkmen" into Turkey proper? All things are possible! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 16:24
|
You have no idea what you're talking about. Middle Eastern ethnic politics is far more complicated that you think. You, as a westerner whose probably never been to the Middle East and who probably doesnt know much about the Middle Easts' recent history (past 200 years or so), would certainly think it was so easy as you suggest, now wouldnt you? How about the West stays our of Middle Eastern politics for once, and give them a shot at it? Opuslola, do you understand the concept of blowback? Do you know why 9/11 happened? Do you know why the Iranian revolution happened? Do you know why there is ethnic civil war in Iraq? Do you know why Hezbollah was created? etc... ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 16:42
|
So you are an Easterner? How surprising! Have you ever considered becoming an American?
You know, like a child, you give up your childish ways,etc.? Throw away all of those old and outmoded models of the world that it seems your family or your school filled you with! You now, it seems, live in an adopted nation? Since we adopted you, why won't you adopt us? It seems that you tend to "bite the hand that feeds you?" Did you hate both your mother and your father? Certainly the very nation that gave you and/or your family refuge from some place or some thing, deservs a better treatment than you seem able to provide? Just get it clear, we, meaning Americans, tend to love and covet and protect, other Americans! You do not seem able to be one of us? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 16:57
Who said I was an Easterner? Furthermore, yes I am a Western with an Eastern background, like millions of other Americans.
Once again, you have shown your prejudice and how un-American you are. What do you consider an American? A White person of European descent? Are Asian Americans not Americans to you?
My family was never the type to force anything on me, and my school was below average, like most American schools. What I know is what I have read and what I have studied personally, something most Americans dont do (study and read).
Again, which "we" are you referring too? Who is this "us" that I have to adopt? Its no wonder you're a Tea Partier.
Actually, its my tax dollars that feeds you. Funny isnt it? Tell your fellow Mississippians to quit being so lazy and actually contribute something to the countrys economy? I mean, isnt that your way of thinking? That people who are worse off are so because they are lazy?
Nope, love them dearly, more than many "Christian" children, or children of other faiths.
I did not gain "refuge" from anything by living my life here in the states, and believe me, me and my family as a whole have probably contributed more to this country than several generations of yours. Members of my family have been involved in some of the first innovations in this country, as well as in institutions of higher learning educating the future of America and have been very successful in business.
You are not American. You do not represent America. Your ideals are definitely not American. Deep down inside, you hate America, and you know this. Everything you stand for calls for the destruction of this great nation. Somewhere down the line, you stopped being an American, and started being a Tea Partier, and we all know what it means to be a Tea Partier, and you have have made it very clear. You hate the freedom of speech that millions of Americans enjoy. You hate the diversity which has made this country what it is. And most of all, you hate the fact that millions of Americans dont think the way you do, and actually voted in a person like Obama. I dont blame you though, its the way you have been brought up and the environment you were raised in. Hell, you say you were born in the late 1940's right, in the South? I cant imagine what its like to have been a White male growing up in the deep south during the 1950's and 1960's. To have all of that power and privilege and then to have it taken away from you with the Civil Rights Act. Hell, its understandable why you think and feel the way you do. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:06
This is the price of being an imperial power. If we left Mosadegh in Power, Iran could have ended up more Cuba-ish. The US isn't Luxembourg. We can effect change. Sometimes the moves we make pay off BIG TIME -- Occupation of Germany, Japan, South Korea and including Taiwan in our "empire". Others don't go so well -- Iraq, Iran under the Shah, Afghanistan any time since the early 19th Century.
Chalmers' book wasn't very good, BTW. He overstates things and treats hindsight as though it were as clear as foresight.
I wish he would "pop up" then we could get him! No, he doesn't really "pop up" when we need him. There is no grand conspiracy. "W" protected members of the Bin Laden family because they are allies of the Bush family. Nothing wrong with that. Osama was cut-off from his family and divested by them. He chose to make war on the Custodian of the Two Holy Sites, upon whose teat the bin Laden clan all sucks, and so they disowned him. The bin Laden family is huge and their business interests outweigh that one kooky member.
I didn't make any mistakes with Iraq in 2003. I was just a lowly SPC in the Army. Nobody asked my opinion. If they did, I would have told them to pull out by Christmas becuase:
1. Muslims don't like Infidels with guns ruling over them. Weapons are ONLY for Muslims according to the Treaty of Dhimma. That is the Word of Allah!
2. Islam as a ideology is anti-democratic so the best we can hope for in the Islamic world is a friendly dictator like the Saud family.
|
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:10
I live in the 3rd World -- and in part of the actual US Empire. I am in the Philippines (but only for the moment). This place would have been WAAAAAY more messed up if it weren't for the Americans. Firstly, we built a lot of the infrastructure they all still use. They have a weak but American-inspired democracy that they are trying to make work. And, they have reasonable English skills which allow them access to much of the world. Without the US, the Philippines would be Indonesia.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:11
This is not true. This was propaganda spread by the British and the US at the time to justify Mossadegh's overthrow. He had no relations with the communists, and in fact he was allied to the religious parties. Mossadegh was anti-Communist. Seriously, are you still clinging to 1950's era propaganda?
Hm, its interesting how a Tea Partier who "distrusts government" comes to the defense of George Bush and makes up some ridiculous reasons why he was justified in doing what he did...and to think that you guys had legitimate concerns. I personally think Osama has been dead for years. Again, you do know that the Saudi government is the largest sponsor of terrorism and Islamic extremism, right?
What I meant was that you probably supported the war in 2003. Did you?
The Islamic religion is ridiculous, is that news to anyone? All religions are ridiculous.
Whose to say the Philippines is better off? Do you know what would have happend had the US nor the West interfered? Maybe, like Japan, they would have adopted modernization on their own (which Japan did between 1880-1930's). What do you think would happen to the Philippines, lets say, if they decided to go a different path than the one the US wants them to? Fact of the matter is, and this is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people, is that the US government, just like any other government in the world, has done some horrible things. For the entirety of the Cold War, the US supported brutal dictators and funded devastating wars. Was that for the good of those countries you think? Look at China, did the US have to invade China for that country to evolve on its own? No. Now China is one of our biggest trading partners, one of the largest holders of our debt, and is a country thats very business friendly. All without the need for US intervention. There is no reason for us to be interfering everywhere, its only going to cause more problems for us. BLOWBACK. PS how is it over there? have you had a chance to check out the country, site seeing, things like that? ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:17
Heaven forbid that we should remove their own democracy (or the closest Iran could get at the time) and impose some sort of repressive autocrat on them. Oh no...............wait............we did. We made the rod for our own back there. ------------- |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:21
We left the Middle East alone after the Fall of Acre in 1291 until the Fall of Jerusalem to Allenby in 1917 and they made a mess of it.
Don't say we caused 9/11. Go learn Arabic, read the Koran, go to the Middle East for a couple years, and THEN report back (it's easier if you are in the US/British/Australian armies but its not necessary). 9/11 was going to happen at some point. Maybe not THAT attack, but an attack. Islam is a militant, imperialist ideology and the West has power. We are their natural enemies. Just like the Arabs attacked Byzantium, Persia, and Gupta India -- the Arabs were going to attack the West. That's what they do. They converted the Turks and they constantly attacked the west from 1389 onwards until 1683.
9/11 wasn't blowback from Mosadegh or from our support of Israel. Bet real! It's blow back from the Treaty of Dhimma, from the Battle of Badr, and from the Rise of Mohammad as Caliph of Madina. You listen to too much Arab-Muslim propaganda
|
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:28
|
No Muslim country will be DEMOCRATIC as long as it is Muslim. Turkey's "democracy" is a sham and the State heavily restricts the Ulemat there. That's how Attaturk's people kept control these last 80 years.
Mosadegh was no democrat. He was a communist and would have soon enough become a Persian Castro. This is the way of the region no matter who is in power. For the last 1400 years, it has been tyrant after tyrant and you think Mosadegh was finally going to break that cycle!?!?! Yes, and all the World will be as one, dogs and cats will set aside their differences, and little children's smiles will glow from Karachi to Marakesh.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:37
Really? Jews, Kurds, Turks, Arabs, etc... lived in peace side by side for almost the entirety of Ottoman rule. Please tell me how they had made a mess of it. And by the way, the British started interfering in the Middle East in the 19th century. Learn Middle Eastern history before you come here to discuss it.
Your argument makes no sense. You think we got attacked on 9/11 because it was bound to happen and because of Middle Eastern culture and religion? So you think that they have no reason why they would want to attack us? Is this really what you believe?
Nope. Here we go, more of this racist Tea Party garbage about "its them", not "us". So you are blaming Arab culture and society for the way things turned out? Not the decades of Western interference and harassment? Did the Arabs hate the British and the US when they were our allies during WWI, helping us defeat the Ottomans, or did they hate us afterwards, when instead of giving them their freedom, we oppressed them, supported dictators, continuously interfered in their affairs, etc... Imagine if a foreign country did that to Americans and to America for decades.
Sure buddy, keep believing that.
No he was not, he was anti-Communist. You know nothing about Mossadegh or the political climate in Iran in the 1950's, why are you still talking? Not only was Mossadegh not Communist, he wanted to lessen British control over Iran by becoming allies with the United States. He wanted to be an ally of the United States. You shouldnt waste my time when you have the internet right in front of you. Go read about Mossadegh on Wikipedia and go read about the National Front Party of Iran, also on Wikipedia.
Are you serious? Really, its because you think they are inferior right? The "white man" has to go over there and teach them how to be civilized right? This is imperialist mentality.
Every region was tyrant after tyrant. Democracy is a new phenomenon, not more than a couple hundred years old, and those old Democracies could barely even qualify as Democratic by todays standards.
He did break the cycle. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:38
Thats justfactually untrue. Please see Napoleon 1798, or the Suez Canal 1869, Algiers 1830, Tunisia, the fall of the Safavids 1722, Dardanelles 1807, British Egypt 1882. The West has been active in the Middle East long before Allenby. And I must agree with TGS here, 200 years (and especially the last 80 years) of shafting the region is bound to have an effect sooner or later. As I said above, we made a rod for our own backs. Undoubtedly the more militaristic, agressive and imperialist philosophies that one may find or take from Islam played their part, but the situation has been massively exacerbated by Western duplicity, hipocrisy, and selfishness for the past several centuries. ------------- |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:44
|
The Islamic radicalism that we see today is a byproduct of United States actions in the region. Who are these Islamic radicals that want to kill us? They are taught in religious schools funded by Saudi Arabia (one of our best allies). Who trained these killers? The US did. Who encouraged the Islamic radicalization of the war in Afghanistan? The United States did. And Patryk has the nerve to say that the US didnt do anything which would have lead to 9/11. Like you said Patryk, its the cost of being an imperialistic power, deal with it, and stop making excuses. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:50
The British/French expeditions arounds 1798 were short-lived and fleeting. Western involvement didn't get going in Egypt until the building of the Suez Canal. As for Algeria in 1830 -- that's NOT the Middle East, that's Al-Maghrib or North West Africa. That's why I didn't mention it but I admit to splitting hairs by leaving that out. The main thrust of Western Imperialism didn't strike the region until 1917, once the Ottomans were finally removed. Before that, it was just nibbling at the edges.
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:50
|
I just guess that Patryk and I should just place our heads on a chopping block, and let all of those loving people of the Middle East have a piece of us?
NOt! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:52
The British were heavily involved in the region in the 19th century, especially in Egypt and the Persian Gulf region, which they dominated. Furthermore, both France and Britain had extended their influence into Lebanon and Palestine respectively. Lets also not forget about Russia. We are not only talking about military domination, but economic as well. The British, French, and Russians began interfering with the ethnic politics of the region long before 1917, and made many unfair treaties with entities in the Middle East prior to 1917 which devastated the region economically. This is all historical fact, we're not making this up buddy, just because you dont know doesnt mean its not true. Seriously, you have the entire internet right infront of you, go to Wikipedia, and do some reading. Surely, if you have enough time to waste my time with this, then you have enough time to go read about the subject. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:56
|
Patryk, it seems knight Simba, has smitten your cheek with his glove!
There must be a good response for the insult given by said knight? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 17:59
Was the US at fault for the Omar's conquest of Jerusalem in AD 638? or the conquest of Visogoth Spain in AD 711? Or the sack and plunder of the Persian Empire circa AD 700? Was it the Neo-cons who pushed the Arabs to butcher thousands and thousands of Buddhists in Afghanistan? Was British/American imperialism the cause of the Arab conquest of Sindh? And how about the Turkish attack on Kosovo Polje in 1389? The Battle of Mohac is 1526? The Seige of Vienna in 1683 -- all just "blowback" from what!?!? The Salem Witch Trials? The Glorious Revolution? What?
Islam has been attacking the West since Omar in AD 638 continuously. The Muslims only stopped in the early 19th Century because their power had declined so much relative to the West that they were no longer able to field serious armies or navies. They were reduced to being pirates on the Barbery Coast -- like the Somalis today.
200 years of NOT attacking the West is not due to their generosity but due to their inability. Believe me, they will again when the opportunity arrises -- as it has since 1979.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 18:04
What the hell are you talking about? Everyone fought wars back then, it was the way of life. Do you not know how many western wars there have been? You are not even being rational anymore. This is getting ridiculous. And yes, I agree with you, if they could they would also conquer, that is why I have been very clear in saying that the United States' actions are not unique and that every government does the same thing. Jesus Christ! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. All I want you to understand is that every action has a consequence, and because history turned out the way it did, what we see going on in the modern middle east today is in many ways the result of the events of the past 200 years. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 18:08
The LATE 19th Century, my friend. It was only around the 1880s that the unequal treaties with teh Ottomans became the norm. I read my Bernard Lews. You can go back to Wikipedia if that's where your comprehension level is.
Was Lord Byron interferring in Greece? Maybe. If by interfere you mean "stop the anti-Christian and Armenian pogroms of Syria and Labanon in the 1860s" then SURE, we "interfered." Fighting for Greek Independence in the 1820s! Sure -- Guilty as charged. We're horrible.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 18:24
Ok, so now I'm glad we got you to admit that Europeans did interfere in the Middle East prior to 1917. Now, lets see if we can get you to understand that the British dominated the Persian Gulf region in the 19th century, and began interfering not only in the Ottoman Empire but also in Persia. And once again, lets not forget about Russia's role.
Nope, Wikipedia is simply a place I refer people where they can get quick information so they dont waste everyones time with foolish comments, such as Mossadegh being a communist. And I am so happy that you mentioned Bernard Lewis. Remember when you said that its Middle Eastern culture and religion thats the problem, that terrorism just happend, that radicalism just happened? Well here is what Bernard Lewis has to say about that (again, if you would've checked Wikipedia, you wouldnt have said something so foolish):
Thats what Bernard Lewis says, if you really do respect him as a history and read his work, than you will know that you are WRONG in your assertions. And let me refer you to a quote by Eisenhower:
Well, what do you think about that Patryk? Being wrong is not a problem (everyone is wrong about something, me included), being wrong, knowing youre wrong, and yet refusing to admit it is a problem. The facts are against you, why not just admit it and move on, everyone learns, especially from their own mistakes and misconceptions. I'm not hear to bicker with you, its a history forum, if you want to discuss facts, I'm all in, but if you want to discuss "alternative history" go do it in that section. I think enough has been said tonight. Good night. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 18:48
Algeria was the first attempt to really colonize the region. That was 1830, 180 years ago AND the French left in 1962. Before the Suez Canal, there wasn't much direct Western involvement since the Ottomans kept us out. But as Ottoman power declined, Western power intruded. Again, go back to Lewis. The Ottomans want to modernize and contracted the Europeans to build roads, telegraph systems, weapons factories and even astronomical observatories. The Ottomans actually didn't have any money to pay for all this and as their defaults mounted, the Europeans took more and more direct control of the empire. By 1900, the empire had lost a lot of it autonomy SLOWLY to Germans, French, and British investors with their respective governments acting as agents.
Allenby in 1917 was the culmination of Ottoman decline. Only then did the British and French take actual control of much of the region.
Now, I would argue, along with Niall Ferguson, that much of these imperial efforts actually benefited the locals more than it harmed them. That British rule in Egypt from the 1880s onward was a vast improvement over the Mamluks and their various home-grown tyrants. Many Berbers also look back on French colonial rule as less oppressive and chauvanistic than the Algerian rulers who replaced the French.
The Middle East was no Utopia 200 years ago. If it had been strong, it would have resisted Western influence and, in tern, influenced the West instead -- as India did in the 17th and 18th Centuries. But it didn't because it was weak, autocratic, and under-developed. The West didn't do that to them. They did it to themselves!
|
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 19:05
|
We can continue this in a couple days. I am returning to the States. I am in the Philippines now but returning to the States tomorrow. I will once again have my library at my disposal.
I like Bernard Lewis. He is a good historian but he is also a Rommantic Orientalist. His specialties are Turkey and Persia. I think he is often too kind to them. Ibn Warraq has a well research, albeit highly polemical, volumn on Islam in the Middle East. He is highly critical of the region.
Perhaps the worst thing the West did in the Middle East was give them Technology. We offered them SCIENCE but they took only technology -- guns, military organizational methods, and the tool of repression. They did not accept the rest. They did not accept SCIENCE, free-inquiry, the notion of Civil Society. In China and Japan, they took the helpful bits of Western Civilization and fused it with their own to make a better society. The Islamic world was weak, autocratic, and economically backward 200 years ago. They took the tools of repression from the West only to strengthen their autocracies. As we saw in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1991 and 2003 -- the Middle East is STILL weak. But it's autocrats from Assad to Mubarak to the Sauds are INTERNALLY unchallenged!
Is that "blowback", sure. But this has been a disaster for THEM more than us. The Middle East adopted the tools of modernity without adopting the mentality of modernity. They remain in the 7th Century --- where we found them.
|
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2010 at 19:36
SERIOUSLY, you are clinging to 1960s era propaganda!
Yeah I know. I used to be a military contractor in the Kingdom. We trained the Saudi army. One of my "students" was clearly a terrorist. His name was Fayez. He used tell me that he couldn't wait to drink some American blood. Fun guy. I just smiled. The other students didn't like him because he always "narced" on them for their un-islamic behaviour.
What I meant was that you probably supported the war in 2003. Did you?[/quote] Soldiers often want to see some action. Being a soldier in peace time is boring, believe me! A lot of guys HATE not being deployed. Some become pacifists.
The Islamic religion is ridiculous, is that news to anyone? All religions are ridiculous. [/QUOTE] Obviously to you. Islam colours EVERYTHING in the Middle East. It isn't just a religion like in the West or even East Asia. It's not something you just do at the temple or when somebody dies. It's a total life system. That's why the Middle East is different. Islam is different. Stop looking at it the way we look at Christianity or even Buddhism or Hinduism.
Japan was forced open by the US and borrowed heavily from England, Germany, and France. They did a great job! I respect the Japanese tremendously.
Again, they would have been Indonesia ... and not Java either. They would be Suluwesi or Ambon. One of the poorer more remote islands. But are you also adding NO SPANISH imperialism to the equation? Because if it was JUST Spanish colonialism until, oh, 1920 or so ... the place would be more like Peru or Bolivia today.
And that will have a blowback of its own! Isolationism of that sort will mean somebody else will take the reigns as global superpower. Would you prefer China? Would you like regional powers like Iran and Venezuela to reign supreme? How about the Saudis? "Blowback" isn't JUST something that happens to Conservatives? It happens to "progressives" and Isolationists as well.
It's poor and we have water for 1/2 the day. Electricity comes and goes. My wife and child are here. My wife resists going to the US though I don't understand why. I think she opposes US Imperialism.
 |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2010 at 07:58
|
Ahhh Bernard Lewis, perhaps thats the problem.
------------- |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2010 at 08:16
Right, in the 19th century, like what I have been trying to tell you this whole time.
If you're going to use Lewis, than you have to accept everything he says, not pick and choose, and he clearly contradicts your views on Islam. So if you want to use Lewis, than admit that your prejudices against Islam were incorrect.
I wouldnt say that imperialism benefited locals more than it harmed them, but I agree with you that there were benefits. But this is not the point of our discussion, stop changing the subject, we are talking about the roots hatred and distrust of the West in the Middle East.
Agreed. And then Western interference in the regions politics, economy, and society increased hatred for the West.
I would take anything Bernard Lewis says with a grain of salt. I wouldnt rely on him as a source, but you do, so either accept everything he says or none of it, and he clearly contradicts some of your views.
The West never "gave" nor "offered" anything to the Middle East. Whatever they did do was for their own benefit, not the benefit of those regions. They did the same in Africa and China.
Not true, China was very slow in modernizing and only did to a very minimal extent, along the lines of Persia. Japan did everything on its own, without help from the West. The Americans forced the Japanese to open trade, but that was it. Everything the Japanese did they did on their own and with private contractors, without the help of Western Empires.
Agreed, although the Ottoman Empire was no weaker or economically backwards as most European nations. Persia, however, declined quickly under the Qajar dynasty.
Not true at all. The Middle East gained its independence from the West after WWII, prior to that, it was Western autocracy and western repression. After independence, it was Western backed dictators who controlled the region. Again, you seem to not know anything about Middle Eastern history.
Mubarak is internally challenged, he clings on to power through US support. The Saudi family is allowed to do everything it does because of US support. Saddam was allowed to rule because of US support. The Shah was allowed to rule because of US support... Whats the common denominator? And on the contrary, there are powers rising in the Middle East, notably Iran, which has made many scientific and technological advancements, which is an amazing achievement for a country under constant sanctions with relatively little outside cooperation.
I dont get what you're saying. Are you implying some sort of superiority/inferiority? This is imperialist mentality. "The superior white civilization" has to go and "civilize the barbaric Native Americans, Africans, and Asians". Is that what you believe? Since your historic knowledge is obviously lacking, let me remind you that history goes up and down, Islam had its golden age for hundreds of years, where they created and preserved the mathematical and scientific advancements which led to the rise of the west and our modern world.
1960's propaganda? Its accepted fact. Prove to me Mossadegh was a communist.
Yet the noble United States is the biggest supporter of the Saudi royal family. Interesting huh?
I'm very well aware of that, but you're not answering my question. Did you believe what the Bush administration said about Iraq? Did you think it was right to go into Iraq? Did you support that decision?
Excuse me, but who does like people with weapons ruling over them?
Interesting, so you do believe that the United States should support terrorism. Funny how things come full circle. Like I said before, the same Saudi family that we support is the one that is the biggest funder of terrorism and Islamic extremism.
Christianity is the same as Islam. Where ever you have crazy radicals in society, they will do the same thing. In the Middle East, it just so happened that the radicals took over in SOME places, partly because of Western actions in those areas. Even in the US you have crazy radical Christians (Evangelicals) who believe the United States should become a theocracy.
Yes, but they did everything else on their own. They didnt have a conquering Western power rule over them for them to develop, everything they did after accepting openness was their own. And Japans motives to develop were simply, if they hadnt developed they would have been ravaged like China and the rest of Asia. They wanted to prevent that from happening. Coincidence that the only Asia nation not harassed by the West ended up being the only non-European world power? I think not.
Perhaps, perhaps not, we'll never know now will we?
I'm not proposing isolationism, I'm proposing not interfering in other countries internal and economic affairs. If they want us there, we'll stay, if they dont, we'll get the hell out. The Japanese dont want us in Japan anymore, so why the hell wont we just leave and save ourselves a hell of a lot of money?
Is your wife Phillipino? ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2010 at 08:26
|
edit, double posted. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2010 at 08:33
|
Seriously the problem may be putting too much faith in Bernard Lewis. He is goof but he has some serious flaws. Get a little more Edward Said in there to balance it up. Perhaps dash of Robert Fisk. Now let the fisking continue. ------------- |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2010 at 08:39
|
I agree with DreamWeaver, Lewis definetly has some flaws. Also, Patryk, do you know how history has turned out for every empire that over extended itself and attempted to control too much? They all collapsed, and at this rate, we're well on our way. To survive you have to adapt. Holding on to and practice old backwards ideas will only doom us all. We have to change with the world, and accept that the world isnt the way it was in the 1950's, or 1900's, or 1850's, etc... ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2010 at 22:31
|
TGS, you and I are going around in circles partly because we never defined out terms.
Imperialism is a polylithic force. There is direct and indirect forms. Japan was opened and modernized because of Imperialism. The Japanese didn't "modernized themselves" they pre-emptively Westernized for two reasons, first not to get colonized themselves and secondly, to join in the imperialism game themselves. Without Dewey forcing his way into Tokyo Bay, there would have been no Meiji.
Now, on to Arab/Islamic autocracy: That's their deal. Starting with the mild but endearing Umayyads and going all the way to the Ottomans, Islam has never been pluralistic, democratic, or tolerant of dissent. Don't EVEN try to tell me that Caliphs who made giant pillars of human skulls and who depopulated Bihar were enlightened rulers. Even in Spain, Jews and Christians were constantly persecuted and subject to capricious rulers who could take their property, their labour, their women, and even their lives at will. We didn't make Mubarak any more than we made Assad. This was the template. We just bought one off in order to make him friendly to DEMOCRATIC and MODERN Israel.
You make it seem like if you remove the US or UK from the Middle East equation, a slightly dark-skinned version of Danmark will pop up. That's just not true. Read the Hadith and the Koran. Then read Tacitus and Julius Ceasar's work on the Germanic tribes. You will see that the patters we see today were all in existence more than 1500 years ago.
TGS asked, "Patryk, do you know how history has turned out for every empire that over extended itself and attempted to control too much? They all collapsed, and at this rate, we're well on our way."
I love the grade school interpretation of history. Pretty much EVERY empire that ever existed has since collapsed. China is still an Empire, the Persian Empire still exists in much degraded state. The US and UK have, to a large part, fused their empires -- a process I would like to see continue. Russia's ancient empire has withered since 1989 and may wither a little more still. France and Belgium co-ordinate a bit with their rump empires too. Other than my little list here, all the empires are gone.
Oh, and TGS, don't toss the race-card if you disagree with people. My racial credentials are intact as my son is bi-racial and my wife of Austronesian origin. I spent several years in the Middle East so I know it well. I was even deported for being an Israeli spy. I wasn't spying, of course, but the region is deeply paranoid. I just failed to publically show contempt for al-Yahud a number of times and that was enough get me put on a plane.
OK, my time in the Philippines is done for now. I have to go to the airport. Back to the States for a month then back to Hong Kong. I must say goodbye to my Pinay wife and Fil-Am son as I will not see them for at least 8 to 10 weeks now.
|
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2010 at 05:36
|
Wow you really do back the Bernard Lewis line dont you. It would also appear that you have spent more time the the Middle East than Lewis has for the last 50 years, to paraphrase Said a little. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2010 at 18:08
|
I seem to be lost in a haze?
You guys seem to be on a roll? Certainly as a complete idiot, I cannot add or substract anything from the above posts! Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2010 at 10:43
Makes sense.
Yes, but Japan's case shows that a nation does not have to be colonized for it to modernize. Your argument was that had the West not colonized the world, everyone else would be backwards today. That is simply not true. For all you know, other nations, like Japan, would have also taken it upon themselves to modernize in order to join the game.
This is not true whatsoever. Islam had been, until the modern era and the West adoption of SECULARISM, far more pluralistic and tolerant than Christianity. Islamic scholars created the foundation for our modern world, from everything to science, medicine, astronomy, philosophy, etc... Islamic scholars also preserved Roman and Greek works, which is in many cases the only reason we still know of them. Intolerance in Islam is a new phenomenon no more than a few centuries old. Like I said before and I will repeat: You are ignorant on the subject of Islam and Middle Eastern history, and you are obviously prejudiced against Islam and Middle Eastern civilization, which for much of history, has been superior to that of the West in many ways.
Those Caliphs were no more enlightened than the brutal Christian autocrats.
Once again, yet another ignorant comment. Minorities under Islamic Spanish rule enjoyed more tolerance than in any other location in Europe at the time. Christianity was far less pluralistic and accepting. Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived side by side peacefully and Islamic Spain was the most advanced civilization in Europe.
Israel is only Democratic for Jews. Israel is also a racist apartheid state founded on the notion that Jews are superior to all other people and that god has chosen them to go to heaven while everyone else is doomed to suffer.
I'm saying had the US and the UK not interfered in the Middle East, things would have been drastically different, for the better in my opinion. Democracy was already forming in Iran, for example, until the US and the UK snuffed it out.
Read the Bible. You seem to forget that the West is as modern and "civilized" as it is because of Secularism. Christianity is just as bad as Islam. The only difference is that history worked out in such a way that while Europe distanced itself from religion and adopted secularism, the Middle East took a different root, which can be attributed to many different things.
Not at all, its a very simple and truthful analysis.
Exactly, all the empires are gone, and the few ones still remaining will also collapse. Why are all the other empires gone Patryk? We know why the Roman Empire collapsed, we know why the Sassanid Persian Empire collapsed, and the US is following the same pattern.
I pulled the race card? Who said Arab civilization, culture, and religion were inherently evil? You did. I dont care who you marry or whatever else you have to say about your opinions on race, but the fact of the matter is that you are prejudiced again Islamic and Middle Eastern culture, and I think unfairly. Most of what you are saying is purely non-sense and screams ignorance regarding the subject. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2010 at 19:31
I think that had Dewey NOT entered Tokyo harbour, than NOTHING would have happened and Japan would have happily continued being generally isolated and only trading with the Dutch through Nagasaki. We might have a Japan today the resembles North Korea. But that's a "what-if" and it's not useful. My point is simply that Dewey forced Japan to modernize and without that event, there would not have been a crash-course in modernazation for some time.
This is not true whatsoever. Islam had been, until the modern era and the West adoption of SECULARISM, far more pluralistic and tolerant than Christianity. Islamic scholars created the foundation for our modern world, from everything to science, medicine, astronomy, philosophy, etc... Islamic scholars also preserved Roman and Greek works, which is in many cases the only reason we still know of them. Intolerance in Islam is a new phenomenon no more than a few centuries old. Like I said before and I will repeat: You are ignorant on the subject of Islam and Middle Eastern history, and you are obviously prejudiced against Islam and Middle Eastern civilization, which for much of history, has been superior to that of the West in many ways.[/quote] Thank you for reading your brochure from CAIR and the books of John Esposito whose institute receives money from Saudi Prince Talal. Admittedly, Prince Talal is probably the best the Saud family has to offer but he is still pushing pro-Arab propaganda that you are obviously swallowing because it IS NOT from the West and ipso facto more valid.
Those Caliphs were no more enlightened than the brutal Christian autocrats.[/quote] That may be but it doesn't help your case. We are not discussing Christian autocrats.
Once again, yet another ignorant comment. Minorities under Islamic Spanish rule enjoyed more tolerance than in any other location in Europe at the time. Christianity was far less pluralistic and accepting. Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived side by side peacefully and Islamic Spain was the most advanced civilization in Europe. [/quote] More propaganda. Much of your nostalgia for Andalusia comes from 17th and 18th Century Jews who concocted the myth in order to shame Western Europeans into lifting restrictions on Jews there. The Europeans were indeed mistreating Jews, as were the Arabs. Both were subjected to pogroms and horrible discrimination. Both societies were wrong to do it. But what you are repeating is simply a 18th Century myth. Go read Andrew Wheatcroft's book "infidel" (I don't know if it was released in the US, I bought my copy in Bahrain) or even read Philip Hitti's (an Arab himself) classic work which does not glamourise Islamic culture the way you do. You can also read Ibn Warraq though he is a bit polemical like myself.
Israel is only Democratic for Jews. Israel is also a racist apartheid state founded on the notion that Jews are superior to all other people and that god has chosen them to go to heaven while everyone else is doomed to suffer.[/quote] When was the last time you were in Israel? When was the last time you were in any of the Occupied Territories. It almost seems as though you are getting your information straight from either your local mosque of from Jimmy Carter.
Democracy was already forming in Iran, for example, until the US and the UK snuffed it out. [/quote] And I believe the Mullah's would have snuffed it out eventually as well since they or the Sheikhs have snuffed it out everywhere else. Turkey and Malaysia are partially democratic and that's the best the Islamic world has to offer. Lebanon is unique case since religious communities vote there.
Read the Bible. [/quote] I have! And being an agnostic I am not bound to it. But Muslims are bound to their book on pain of death for apostacy and herasy. You also need to understand biblical criticism. It is highly developed in the West and has been so for the last several hundred years now. There is no such close reading of the Koran.
Could you remind us all when the last person was put to death for herasy, witchcraft, or apostasy in the West? Could you tell us?
We do?!!?! Then why to historians keep writing books about why Rome fell is "we know why it collapsed." Sounds like an exercise in futility. No, my friend, two different empires and two different trajectories.
I pulled the race card? Who said Arab civilization, culture, and religion were inherently evil? [/QUOTE] That's right! But Islam is not a RACE and Arabs in the Hijaz are -- more or less -- white people. (You get a lot of blacks around Jizan and Jeddah but that's due to centuries of slaving across the Red Sea in Africa). Islam is, however, a vehicle of Arab-supremacy. It preaches Arab supremacy to Persians, Turks, and Malays. It encourages them to forget their languages and all culture that is non-Islamic (the term is min Al-Jahaliyya -- of from ignorance). It attempts to wipe out everything non-Islamic which is to say, everything not said or done by Mohammad, a wandering epileptic merchant from Mecca with a thin-skin for criticism and penchant for under-aged girls.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2010 at 20:23
Exactly, its a "what if" scenario, neither you nor I know what would have happened, so its pointless bringing it up.
No, Dewey did not force Japan to modernize, he simply forced them to trade. Everything else the Japanese did they did on their own.
Nope, I have never read anything produced by CAIR
I have no idea who John Esposito is. Furthermore, you have a problem with Saudi money? The Saudi royal family owns a huge chunk of the US.
Assumptions assumptions, this is coming for the Tea Partier.
And you are talking about rulers who ruled hundreds of years ago, when such atrocities were common, not only in the Middle East, but everywhere in the world. I'm trying to show you that you are unjustly criticizing Arabic civilization for things that were common place back then.
Oh ok, now everything is Jewish propaganda? More Tea Party logic huh?
Jews were far more tolerated in the Islamic world than in the Christian world, this is fact.
No thanks, I'd rather stick to neutral, reliable sources.
I dont make it a habit to visit apartheid states.
You keep wanting to bring up Iran, and I will gladly take down your arguments, over and over again, because they are not based in fact whatsoever. The democratic movement in Iran was allied with the Mullahs and the religious parties. The Mullahs of the 1950's did not have the power that they did by 1979. The Mullahs were able to gain power throughout the Shah's reign because most Iranians felt that secularism had failed them and had only brought about suffering and Western rule. Please, stop embarrassing yourself, nothing is as simple as you like to think it is.
Have you not heard of Evangelical Christians (they number more than 50 million here in the US) and their aim is to turn this country into a theocracy. Christianity is no different than Islam, and radically religious Christians are no different than radically religious Muslims.
In the secular west? No, I cannot think of any, but then again, the West doesnt consist of any theocracies. However, I do know that pedophilia is condoned in the Catholic Church and very rampant.
We do know, what you are talking about is which factor in particular led to the final collapse, but it is accepted that it was over extension of its forces, corruption, economic decline, etc...
No it does not. Like I said before, through most of Islamic history, the rulers and ruling classes had not been Arabs but Persians and Turks. Get your facts straight and stop spewing anti-Arabic hate.
No it does not. Tell me, what do you think about Judaism and Jews? Judaism does specifically preach Jewish superiority to all others, what do you think about them? ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2010 at 23:11
No, Dewey did not force Japan to modernize, he simply forced them to trade. Everything else the Japanese did they did on their own. [/quote] We are splitting hairs here. If Dewey DIDN'T force his way into Tokyo harbour, all the evidence indicates that Japan would have just continued the status quo studying Dutch.
I have no idea who John Esposito is. Furthermore, you have a problem with Saudi money? The Saudi royal family owns a huge chunk of the US. Esposito is one of the leading historians writing on Islam in the US today. Thanks for playing! He heads some ridiculous center at Georgetown called the Center for East-West understanding of something like that which includes, Jimmy Carter and is funding by the Saudi Royal Family.
Maybe you are getting your information from Karen Armstrong ...
Assumptions assumptions, this is coming for the Tea Partier. [/quote] So you match my assumption with an assumption of your own about the nature of the Tea Party. Very classy.
And you are talking about rulers who ruled hundreds of years ago, when such atrocities were common, not only in the Middle East, but everywhere in the world. [/quote] The Arab leaders today -- and more than a few other Muslim leaders -- are little better than their predecessors. Saddam's rule was marked by classic Easter despotism and brutality. Assad in Syria was similarly vile and the US had nothing to do with putting him or his son on the Syrian throne. Check with the poor inhabitant of southern Sudan and see how they are treated by the Arabs of the North -- of course maybe you support slavery. Shiites are persecuted in Saudi Arabia. Sunnis are persecuted in Iran.
Oh ok, now everything is Jewish propaganda? More Tea Party logic huh? [/quote] Ironically, YES, it was Jewish propaganda. The Jews are great writers and academics. They know how to make their case. I respect them heaps for that. If only the Armenians and the Parsis were as good as the Jews.
No thanks, I'd rather stick to neutral, reliable sources. [/quote] If you believe history is "neutral" you have less formal training in history than I thought. BTW, Hitti's book is considered a classic and has been used as a textbook on Arab history since the 1960s.
I dont make it a habit to visit apartheid states. [/quote]
So, you admit that you are just making stuff up about Israel. You have never been there but you know it's an "apartheid state" because some joker like Ariana Huffington or /wiki/Markos_Moulitsas - Markos Moulitsas told you it is. SHEESH! I guess you are comfortable in your ignorance. No need to change. It's nice there.
But I've got news for you. The lukiest Arabs and Muslims in the region are the ones who live in Israel.
Have you not heard of Evangelical Christians (they number more than 50 million here in the US) and their aim is to turn this country into a theocracy. Christianity is no different than Islam, and radically religious Christians are no different than radically religious Muslims.[/quote] Nice strawman. I have seen no theocratic political parties and I really don't think anything Sarah Palin supports approaches chopping the heads off apostates. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is HARDLY theocratic.
In the secular west? No, I cannot think of any, but then again, the West doesnt consist of any theocracies. However, I do know that pedophilia is condoned in the Catholic Church and very rampant. [/quote]
I haven't been to mass in quite a few years but I have no recollection of any priest ever giving pedophilia a "thumbs-up" to the congregation. Again, you are just making stuff up and you have enough strawmen to go into the scarecrow manufacturing business. Pedophilia is illegal and raping little boys is against Catholic principles of priestly celebacy. Often the Church has tried to be quiet about these abuses and it has been to their discredit. But they have never "condoned." Here, you are showing a profound anti-Christian bias that I think informs your attitude toward the middle east and Islam.
We do know, what you are talking about is which factor in particular led to the final collapse, but it is accepted that it was over extension of its forces, corruption, economic decline, etc... [/quote] Historians are still dueling over this. My favourite theory is lead poisoning in Roman cutlery causing decreasing IQs among the ruling class. NO, the book isn't closed on the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. Classics Departments are still killing trees and spilling ink over the causes. Enviromental issue are popular now. There is some talk about a cooling enviroment that cut into their crop yields.
The descendents of the Prophet to this day retain a special title. They have traditionally formed the ruling class everywhere the Arabs went on account of their blood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid
The title "sayyid" means a descendent of the Prophet. Of course, he had a lot of off-spring since he grabbed every woman he saw, including the 6 year old daughter of one of his friends (Aisha) and the wife of his adopted son, Ziad. The king of Jordan also claims his athority to rule because he is from Banu Hashem.
No it does not. Tell me, what do you think about Judaism and Jews? Judaism does specifically preach Jewish superiority to all others, what do you think about them? [/QUOTE] Hebrews are totally different. They actually tend toward the Henotheistic. "Our God is the best of all -- but your gods are just fine for YOU." Jews have never been evangelical and have never sought to convert large numbers of people -- though they will take in new members usually through marriage. Israel is THEIR LAND and they make no claims on other distant lands. Muslims, on the other hand, lay claim to the entire world. AGAIN -- READ THE KORAN AND THE HADITH!!!
Islam also banishes all that is from Jahaliyya. Why do you think the Taliban blew up those Buddha statues!??! Those were among the last that remained. Everything else had already been destroyed. The Pakistanis also did the same to all the Hindu and Zoroastrian sites in their country. Of course, your Left Wing sources probably blamed Bush for that ...
|
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 04:44
|
To be fair gentlemen I suggest that you might wish to stop use of the Spanish/Andalusian question. It is still a matter fiercely debated by historians, and use of it as an example in both your various arguments will ammount to little I fear. A seperate thread will be better for that. Historians will always debate the fall of Rome and everything else, because we all have our theories and opinions, nothing is for certain. Old ideas and notions are replaced by new ones. There are few so niggardly and precise as Historians. TGS though I too would recommend Phillip K Hitti's books, it is a classic and a very good one. Perhaps a little dated (thats the effect of time though) bus still a good read. Alber Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples is a little more up to date. Hourani though is a British Lebanese and his leaning are a bit more leftwards. Still a good book though. Out of interest Patryk when did you last visit Israel? I for one am planning a research venture next March/April time. Actually Patryk, Judaism, used to be a rather prolific in it conversion of others, long ago. It hasnt for a very very long time, but it did once. Thw whole marriage into it etc ia a relatively modern occurrance. Goes hand in handwith the whole persecution thing. On a hair splitting side note, what was Christianity, but once a sect of judaism that out grew it? ------------- |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 05:07
|
Andrew Wheatcroft's work and Ibn Warraq's both take a dim view of Islam's excesses. Warraq is an ex-Muslim living in hiding because of his work. Hitti is pretty neutral and even-handed. As much as I like Bernard Lewis' insight, I think he romantisizes the East a bit at times. I have read excerpts of Churchill's The River War and actually find his discription of Islam to be very close to what I experienced while over there.
DreamWeaver, I made several visits to Jordan and Israel in 2006 and 2007. It is easy to hire a car and drive around Israel. In Jordan, just hire a driver to take you around. Most drivers will gladly drive you from Aqaba to Irbid on any given day. In Israel, I was mostly hitting early Christian sites -- or at least the ones that Helena decided where Christian. The greatest tension seemed to be in Jerusalem. I was in some Arab towns in the Galilee that seemed calm.
As for the Jews converting people; YES, I remember reading that they did that up until circa AD 1200 and that some Turkic tribes from the Steppes and the Ethiopians were likely converts. The practiced stopped ages ago. Jews are pretty flexible people.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 15:28
|
Pretty flexible, which is why they stopped in 1200AD? What do you think about the superiority of the Jews, as preached in Judaism? ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 16:04
|
Technically, to an Orthodox Conservative Jew, one cannot really become a Jew, one has to be born from a Jewish mother!
Thus, even if Jesus was a product of a Roman father, which has been proposed by some, he was still born of a Jewish mother, which automatically made him a Jew! At least that is my memory of the process! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 16:28
I sense a lot of anti-semitism in your posts. Your talk about Israel as an "apartheid state" though you admit you have never been there. You are now on about some Jewish Supremacy Plot bit that sounds absurd to anybody who has any familiarity with Jewish history. Maybe you would like discussing your ideas better here:
http://www.stormfront.org - www.stormfront.org
I am sure you will find a lot of others foaming at the mouth with hatred of "The International Jew."
As for the ancient Hebrews, there bit about "The Chosen People" marked them as being Henotheistic, in my view. There law to place no other gods before Him implied that there were other gods but only He was the superior god of the Hebrews. This, I would say, is an early movement in the direction of monotheism but it is not actually monotheistism yet.
The Christians are more idiologically monotheistic although through Hellenism they make many accommodations to lesser deities -- demigods (Saints) and the Cult of Mary. It is only the Muslims who are militantly monotheistic when they pronounce the Shahada; "there is no god but God and Mohammad is the messenger of God."
|
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 16:42
I have heard of this changing from time-to-time as need arose, with Jews become patrilineal. The world wide Jewish population is around 15 million today, given all of the pogroms they have withstood on three continents, it's a miracle that there are any Jews at all today. It is a testement to their flexibility and tenacity as a People.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 16:49
I am against all of religion and all religions. You brought up a claim about Islam being about "Arab supremacy" and you criticized Arab culture and religion for it. Yet you and I both know that Judaism is based on the idea that Jews are gods chosen peoples, and that only Jews will be saved while everyone else is doomed to suffering. So what do you think about that? Are you as passionately anti-Judaism as you are anti-Islam? I brought up this question in an effort to show you how ridiculous your statements are. So are you a hypocrit?
No, I'm not, its you who is on some "Arab supremacy plot bit" that sounds absurd to anybody who has any familiarity with Islamic history.
Like your hatred of "The International Arab"?
Oh, how convenient for you, your interpretation of Judaism is far kinder to the Jewish faith than your interpretation of Islam, which does not preach superiority of a particular ethnic group, unlike the former.
Islamophobia at its finest. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 16:57
|
The concept of an 'elect' or chosen people is a common theme in religions, especially of Judeo-Christian origins. Jehovas Witnesses, Mormons, Calvanists etc. 'Supremacy' doesnt neccessarily stem from this, though the frameworks for such an ideolgy exists there, that can then be built upon later, of course depending on the history/progression of said religion.
------------- |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 18:13
|
I know of no religion that descibes its self as "no better or no worse than any other religion -- just one group of people trying to make their way in the cosmos". Really, there isn't much spiritual appeal there. However, there is a secular religion that holds that very position. Socialism holds that everyone is equal, particularily within their social classes. A German peasant or urban factory worker is equal and just as valuable as a Russian peasant of urban factory worker. A member of the British burgeoisie is just as disgusting and contemptible as a member of the Brazilian burgeoisie.
The idea of radical egalitarianism is modern, having its origins in the French Revolution and Karl Marx. We must resist the temptation to project it backwards 20 centuries.
|
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 18:30
Except Islam which you have somehow conflated with "race."
Like your hatred of "The International Arab"? [/quote] I have no problem with Arabs. I have a problem with Islam. If you don't understand, start by reading Sura 4 and imagine you are a woman. The read Sura 9 and remember that YOU are a "mushrik". I have no problem with Arabs. I have a problem with people who say that contained in surat 4 and 9 is the Law of God and all are bound by it and that it trumps "man-made laws."
Oh, how convenient for you, your interpretation of Judaism is far kinder to the Jewish faith than your interpretation of Islam, which does not preach superiority of a particular ethnic group, unlike the former. [/QUOTE] Becasue the two are different. The Jews' covenant with god applied to Jews and Jews alone. Islam is for all people and all time. There is a profound difference in the way Jews view themselves relative to the "other" and the way the Muslims view themselves to the "other." Simply put, one is imperialistic and the other isn't. While both maybe a bit chauvinistic, only one looks to convert all of humanity.
And YES, as Bertrand Russel pointed out -- Christians have a similar aim. However, I consider them much more benign. If you don't agree FINE but judge only after reading sura 4.
Islamophobia at its finest. [/QUOTE] I am not really sure how quoting the Shahada is Islamophobic. Muslims repeat this daily in salat. Are you saying that 1.4 billion muslims are Islamophobic too?
 |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2010 at 18:14
|
Dear Minor Simba!
Did Patrik cut your tounge? I notice no response to his last post! Are you well? Do you need any Christian help, like the Red Cross, or even any Islamic help, like the Red Crescent? Come back to us, please! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2010 at 15:27
|
The forums have been down for a while.
I think our discussion here has anticipated the current controversy surrounding the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.
I think a discussion of Koranic critique is warrented. Christians have been applying techniques of literary criticism to the bible for several centuries now. Jews have been doing it since Spinoza in the middle ages. But there remains a faction who will shut down any debate on Islam as being blasphemous (Muslims) or Islamophobic/racist (Western Progressives).
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2010 at 17:26
I also dispise Western Progressives! Or as I would rather refer to them "regressives!" 
Here, Here! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2010 at 04:38
| The notion of "progress" is very 19th Century, having its origins in Darwin. "Progressive" movements have brought some good but we need to be cautious with them because the very notion of "progress" can easily turn into nihilism. Once things that needed change ARE changed, progressive forces will start changing that which doesn't require changing. China during the Cultural Revolution is an example of Progressivism run amok. The New Left in the West today seems to have been influence deeply by the Cultural Revolution and the idea of continual revolution. |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2010 at 07:25
|
As an example of how not to do it?
------------- |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2010 at 08:21
Vote Tory or for other conservative political parties. That's a way to avoid excessive "progress." The Cultural Revolution really put China BACKWARDS many years. The "progress" in places like Cuba, North Korea, and now Venezuela are hurridly making people poorer and less advanced. Even in Africa, the "progress" promised by the African-Socialism experiments of the 1960s to the 1990s has been a disaster from Algeria to Zimbabwe. Many African countries had higher per capita incomes during Colonialism. How's that for "progress"!?
|
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2010 at 17:48
|
fortunately I voted Tory. lol
------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2010 at 20:27
|
Since both of you "Liberally" used the word "progressive" in somewhat differing circumstances, I woud suggest that we return to my definition, of it, as "regressionism?"
But, as a mere "bell boy", just what do I know? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2010 at 03:34
|
By its nature, "Progressivism" seeks to make progress toward perfecting society. This is dangerous because it requires ever increasing government intervention and coercion to achieve the desired ends. Of course, all "progressives" claim that excess belongs to some other movement -- never theirs. But whether Progressives choose to identify themselves with that moniker or another, "liberal" or "socialist", or even "revolutionary enviromentalist", the result is the same.
Rather than creating an safe and tolerant enviroment in which change can occur organically if it is desired, "progressives" seek to seize the reins of power to force their desires on others. Almost in every case, this has been disasterous: Lenin's Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, and even Nyrere's Tanzania. In each case, minorities of elitists attempted to enforce their ideas on a mass of people who grew progressively disenchanted with the changes of this minority. And as oppoisition to "socialism/progressivism/revolution" intensified, so to did government supression of any form of opposition eventually leading to bald-face tyrany.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2010 at 12:52
There are different forms of progressivism and aiming to perfect something, anything, is never a bad thing. In fact, our entire civilizations have been based on perfecting something to make it more useful. Anytime you make a change to something which makes it better, thats one step towards perfecting it (reaching perfection is impossible however). For example, an athlete trains to make his body more perfect for the sport he is participating in. The same thing with society. We have been working to prefect our society since the beginning of written history.
That is your opinion, and certainly not true for many.
As opposed to conservatism, which has led to fascism? Every movement has extremes, however, it seems as though the progressives of today have learned from their past mistakes, while conservatives have not, and are poised to repeat them.
In the United States, things arent occurring organically? Please explain. If the government had not enacted the Civil Rights Act, would things have changed organically? If the government does not defend the right of human beings to get married if they wish, would things change organically?
Every case you mentioned above involved destitute underdeveloped countries. And on the contrary, in China and the Soviet Union, these "progressive" movements greatly developed those nations according to many. Progressivism is flourishing in Europe, and every other developed country in the world. It appears that its only in the US which it seems to be a problem, why?
The same is true on the other side of the spectrum, which is only natural. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2010 at 13:49
Improving society but the notion that it can be "perfected" is relatively new. My concern is with a notion of continual "progress" will lead to a form of nihilism in which everything is changed for the sake of change. In many cases, such as China in the 1960s, this quickly turned into a destructive social canibalism. Traditionally, most societies have held a view that they were already "perfect" and sought NOT to change. From the ancient Egyptians all the way to Czarist Russia, most societies tended toward conservatism and a cautiousness about any change.
As opposed to conservatism, which has led to fascism? Every movement has extremes, however, it seems as though the progressives of today have learned from their past mistakes, while conservatives have not, and are poised to repeat them. [/QUOTE] To the contrary, fascism did not grow out of conservatism. It is a great misconception of the fascist movemnet, particularily Nazism. Fascism is a variant of socialism which has its roots in the ideas of "progress" starting with Darwin. It is NOT "conservative" by its nature. Indeed, it was Conservatives from the the old Prussian elites and the Lutheran Church who tried to assasinate Hitler in 1944.
In the case of NAZI Germany, the Reich sought racial perfection through eugenics and selected "deportations." It sought to "perfect" the economy through the gleichschaltung of industry and central planning. It also promoted a pagan revival at the expense of Christianity. Hitler's ruling ruling circle were smitten with the old Norse gods but moved cautiously because a total rejection of Christianity would have caused a severe backlash. But the NAZIs clearly dreamt of creating a Neo-Pagan future and of radically re-organizing society along more martial lines. This IS NOT a trait of conservatism.
In the United States, things arent occurring organically? Please explain. If the government had not enacted the Civil Rights Act, would things have changed organically? If the government does not defend the right of human beings to get married if they wish, would things change organically? [/QUOTE] The Democrats' take-over of healthcare and the same-sex marriage issue in California are two examples of the government running rough-shod over the will of the people. Although there were HUGE demonstrations against a government take-over of the healthcare industry, Obama and Pelosi went ahead and did it anyway, contemptuously snearing are those who objected. Same-sex marriage in California was voted down but ONE JUDGE decided that the government had the right to impose its own arbitrary definition of marriage on the people.
These are the actions of a State that believes it is empowered to drag the people toward an enlighted future that only IT (the State) can clearly see.
The Civil Rights Act is an anomoly in that it addressed the injustices of the local governments against a minority. State governments enacted repressive and discriminatory laws against African-Americans which usually placed an unfair burden in business and industry which resented the unfunded mandates. In this, I would argue that the last "movement" of the Left to have any validity was probably the Civil Rights Movement. Other "movements" since then have been either destructive or superfluous (Al Gore's AGW hysteria and the gay-marriage movements).
Every case you mentioned above involved destitute underdeveloped countries. And on the contrary, in China and the Soviet Union, these "progressive" movements greatly developed those nations according to many. Progressivism is flourishing in Europe, and every other developed country in the world. It appears that its only in the US which it seems to be a problem, why? [/QUOTE] 1. I suggest you check the news. The Progressives have recently been routed in both Australia and the UK. Even in Denmark and the Netherlands, there has been a concerted effort to move BACK to a more politically sustainable model. The US is next.
2. Russia in 1917 and China in 1949 were indeed poor but I would not use the term "destitute." Indeed, both had considerable economic growth on the eves of their revolutions. It was the growning middle classes that sought to leap-frog over the normal economic evolution of their respective countries by instituting socialist revolutions. The result, in reality, was not to improve those countries but to set them back decades. Had it not been for their socialists revolutions, I postulate, that China would be on a par with Taiwan today and Russia would be on a par with southern European countries like Spain or Portugal -- though much bigger versions thereof. Instead, 30-70 years of efforts by so-called elites to command the economy produced the impoverishment we all saw in those places.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2010 at 10:01
I disagree. The desire for change in China and Russia went far beyond socialist activists. Even ancien regime elites and other conservatives in both countries were deserting the traditional systems. The Imperial leaders of China and Russia refused all but the most token socio- political changes. This prevented a controled change like the British Imperial system towards a closed democracy and led to revolutionary catastrophes.
Good point. The first to advocate change against the Mandate of Heaven or Holy Mother Russia were leftist revolutionaries. Change oriented, right wing counter movements appeared only after the collapse of the ancien regimes (Hitler, Mussolini, Ataturk, Chinese warlords). The only possible exception is Franco, who maintained close ties to the ancien regime.
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2010 at 17:18
|
Cryptic wrote this above;
"Good point. The first to advocate change against the Mandate of Heaven or Holy Mother Russia were leftist revolutionaries. Change oriented, right wing counter movements appeared only after the collapse of the ancien regimes (Hitler, Mussolini, Ataturk, Chinese warlords). The only possible exception is Franco, who maintained close ties to the ancien regime." But, for some reason he failed to mention that a large percentage of these "Leftist Revolutionaries" (as well as those writing the propaganda) were first and foremost, Jews! Did you merely "forget" this fact? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2010 at 20:44
The ethnicity of the revolutionaries was not truly material to the point. But now that you brought it up....
"Large percentage" is far to broad a term. Jews were more likely to be attracted to socialism, but they still were a minority of the movement.
Under the Czarist system, the Jews were victims of pogroms and individual lynchings when ever the local cowards got drunk and wanted easy, out numbered targets. In addition, Jews were restricted as to where they could live and prohibited from holding many professions.
Mistreat anybody and they are going to want change. Then consider that Jews were better educated than average and could read the leftist material.
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2010 at 21:05
|
But Cryptic, I am not talking about after the revolution, but before it and during it! And actually the writers and evolvers of it!
But, as you say, they were soon considered as expendable! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2010 at 21:34
This is the groups that I was refering to as well. I do not think that a large percentage of the early socialist writers, leaders agitators etc were Jews. Jews, though more likely to become socialists due to mis treatment, were still a minority in the movement.
|