Any Serious Ideas on The Middle East?

[krotchdog]

Boy this thread is moving awfully fast, I feel like I am chasing a car.

Jillian, I was going much deeper with my post then what you picked up.

Mash107, I like your post, only problem I find is this one part.

had no right to be created from Arab land prior to 1948

I dont understand how this statement is accurate. How do you define the land as Arab.

It was populated mostly by Arabs and had been for quite some time. The Arab language, culture, and ethnicity were the most prevalent in the area in question, making it rightfully Arab land rather than land rightfully belonging to recent non-Arab immigrants.

This is were I get confused, Arabs are from Arabia, right.

Mash107, I like your post, only problem I find is this one part.

had no right to be created from Arab land prior to 1948

I dont understand how this statement is accurate. How do you define the land as Arab.

I meant, original inhabitants. The people that owned the land prior to 1948. I didn't mean to associate land with a race, as that seems to be the problem in the conflict. Land only belongs to the person that owns it, and that can't be deprived through force, under any circumstance.

I like the point you make about land belongs to the person who owns it, of course that is not a concept all people practice. The indians of north america being one example (not disagreeing just a bit of history). Its a very valid point in regard to Palestine.

 

[mash107]

There was a middle east. But the statement is an extradordinary lie. one might remind him of the Arabs who fought with the nazis..... which is why, when they L-O-S-T because they backed the wrong horse, their land got cut up and divided by the victors.... and given to those Arabs who supported the Allies.

THAT is why there was an IRAQ, a UAE, etc....

There were Nazis in WWI? Never knew that....

Their land got cut up by the victors after collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

i

The land didn't get cut up after WWI. Only Transjordan got "cut up," meaning states taht already existed within Transjordan became countries. Iraq, Iran and Transjordan were all British mandates following WWI.

Both Iran and Iraq tried to broker deals with the Nazis during WWII, as did the "Head Hoo-ya-in-Chief" of Jerusalem. The Axis powers occupied Lybia and most of Egypt for part of the war.

When WWII ended, the "Big Three" divided up the ME. Syria went to France, Iran the US, Transjordan and Iraq to the UK.

Only Saudi Arabia was a staunch US ally throughout WWII because King Saud was buddies with FDR.

I thought Egypt was dominated by Britain for the entire duration of the war. Rommel took his tanks within a few hundred miles of Cairo, but that was it.

I love history, if it isn't obvious.

Be that as it may, propping up socialist dictators still doesn't benefit us. All those leaders that are subsidized by the tax payers need to go. We need to end foreign aid to Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel and let freer Republics take their place.

As far as Bin Laden, terrorists and pirates, let's catch/kill them, and not involve the entire region or nations that they happen to escape to. Blaming the entire nation or region Bin Laden was born or lives in does little to solve our problems. We can't afford invading every country in the world trying to look for criminals. It's inefficient and counter-productive. We can do what the Constitution allows to catch criminals/pirates/terrorists/etc in foreign countries... allow private funded militias/armies to go in abroad after them.

 

[Gunny]

There were Nazis in WWI? Never knew that....

Their land got cut up by the victors after collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

i

The land didn't get cut up after WWI. Only Transjordan got "cut up," meaning states taht already existed within Transjordan became countries. Iraq, Iran and Transjordan were all British mandates following WWI.

Both Iran and Iraq tried to broker deals with the Nazis during WWII, as did the "Head Hoo-ya-in-Chief" of Jerusalem. The Axis powers occupied Lybia and most of Egypt for part of the war.

When WWII ended, the "Big Three" divided up the ME. Syria went to France, Iran the US, Transjordan and Iraq to the UK.

Only Saudi Arabia was a staunch US ally throughout WWII because King Saud was buddies with FDR.

I thought Egypt was dominated by Britain for the entire duration of the war. Rommel took his tanks within a few hundred miles of Cairo, but that was it.

I love history, if it isn't obvious.

Be that as it may, propping up socialist dictators still doesn't benefit us. All those leaders that are subsidized by the tax payers need to go. We need to end foreign aid to Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel and let freer Republics take their place.

As far as Bin Laden, terrorists and pirates, let's catch/kill them, and not involve the entire region or nations that they happen to escape to. Blaming the entire nation or region Bin Laden was born or lives in does little to solve our problems. We can't afford invading every country in the world trying to look for criminals. It's inefficient and counter-productive. We can do what the Constitution allows to catch criminals/pirates/terrorists/etc in foreign countries... allow private funded militias/armies to go in abroad after them.

Correct. Rommel was stopped at el Alamein 150 miles from Cairo. He still occupied a good chunk of Egypt for a period of time. That was my only point. IIRC, Italy occupied Tunisia, Libya and Somalia, and Vichy France occupied Algiers and Syria. Germany entered Africa to bail out Mussolini after the ass-whipping the Brits gave the Italians.

The problem with piracy is the same problem we have with terrorists. Yes, they are criminals. However, they are criminals using military weapons and tactics. As I have stated elsewhere, I have ZERO problem with arming the crews of the ships, or providing armed security, or putting US Navy/Marine Corps personnel aboard US ships.

Engaging in yet another war that would have no foreseeable end with a Nation that while is a criminal haven is not criminal itself is a bad idea.

 

[krotchdog]

There were Nazis in WWI? Never knew that....

Their land got cut up by the victors after collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

i

The land didn't get cut up after WWI. Only Transjordan got "cut up," meaning states taht already existed within Transjordan became countries. Iraq, Iran and Transjordan were all British mandates following WWI.

Both Iran and Iraq tried to broker deals with the Nazis during WWII, as did the "Head Hoo-ya-in-Chief" of Jerusalem. The Axis powers occupied Lybia and most of Egypt for part of the war.

When WWII ended, the "Big Three" divided up the ME. Syria went to France, Iran the US, Transjordan and Iraq to the UK.

Only Saudi Arabia was a staunch US ally throughout WWII because King Saud was buddies with FDR.

I thought Egypt was dominated by Britain for the entire duration of the war. Rommel took his tanks within a few hundred miles of Cairo, but that was it.

I love history, if it isn't obvious.

Be that as it may, propping up socialist dictators still doesn't benefit us. All those leaders that are subsidized by the tax payers need to go. We need to end foreign aid to Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel and let freer Republics take their place.

As far as Bin Laden, terrorists and pirates, let's catch/kill them, and not involve the entire region or nations that they happen to escape to. Blaming the entire nation or region Bin Laden was born or lives in does little to solve our problems. We can't afford invading every country in the world trying to look for criminals. It's inefficient and counter-productive. We can do what the Constitution allows to catch criminals/pirates/terrorists/etc in foreign countries... allow private funded militias/armies to go in abroad after them.

You make a lot of sense, the only thing I disagree with and maybe if you look at it my way it may make sense is I dont believe we always run from fights, thats just the nature of people, I got pushed around as a kid and always it came down to a point where I had to defend myself. So without debating which fights we should of fought, the ones we did fight and I guess that is Iraq we should of fought with much more force and fury, much more strength, not so much killing more but controling more. No looting, just a strong arm of law. If we fight we cannot afford to get bogged down, thats what I am saying. I think there does come a time when we must fight, cant always run.

 

[Gunny]

The land didn't get cut up after WWI. Only Transjordan got "cut up," meaning states taht already existed within Transjordan became countries. Iraq, Iran and Transjordan were all British mandates following WWI.

Both Iran and Iraq tried to broker deals with the Nazis during WWII, as did the "Head Hoo-ya-in-Chief" of Jerusalem. The Axis powers occupied Lybia and most of Egypt for part of the war.

When WWII ended, the "Big Three" divided up the ME. Syria went to France, Iran the US, Transjordan and Iraq to the UK.

Only Saudi Arabia was a staunch US ally throughout WWII because King Saud was buddies with FDR.

I thought Egypt was dominated by Britain for the entire duration of the war. Rommel took his tanks within a few hundred miles of Cairo, but that was it.

I love history, if it isn't obvious.

Be that as it may, propping up socialist dictators still doesn't benefit us. All those leaders that are subsidized by the tax payers need to go. We need to end foreign aid to Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel and let freer Republics take their place.

As far as Bin Laden, terrorists and pirates, let's catch/kill them, and not involve the entire region or nations that they happen to escape to. Blaming the entire nation or region Bin Laden was born or lives in does little to solve our problems. We can't afford invading every country in the world trying to look for criminals. It's inefficient and counter-productive. We can do what the Constitution allows to catch criminals/pirates/terrorists/etc in foreign countries... allow private funded militias/armies to go in abroad after them.

You make a lot of sense, the only thing I disagree with and maybe if you look at it my way it may make sense is I dont believe we always run from fights, thats just the nature of people, I got pushed around as a kid and always it came down to a point where I had to defend myself. So without debating which fights we should of fought, the ones we did fight and I guess that is Iraq we should of fought with much more force and fury, much more strength, not so much killing more but controling more. No looting, just a strong arm of law. If we fight we cannot afford to get bogged down, thats what I am saying. I think there does come a time when we must fight, cant always run.

What we're guilty of is drawing the gun and waving it in the air instead of shooting. If we engage in war, we need to engage in war to win. Period. If we aren't willing to do what it takes to win, one it's only a matter of time until we are altogether lost, and two we need to not engage in the war.

These pirates are attacking in what amounts basically to pleasurecraft and/or fishing boats. A .50 could sink them. That's a lot less expensive and more expedient that hauling a ship of war out to run down a 22' Bayliner.

 

[Avatar4321]

Start our domestic oil production and leave them settle things amongst themselves.

 

[Peejay]

The pirate thing.....shit, several have been caught, disarmed and let go. WTF?

But the ME? The sooner we can get out, the better. Two things: Get off the oil dependance and tell the fundies that if they are so convinced that Jesus wants them to defend Israel, fucking go there. We ain't paying for it anymore.

 

[neurosport]

At the rate they are doing what you claim, the birth rate insures it simply will never happen, in fact the Arabs will continue to multiple.

you have a point. they are multiplying like rabbits. Israel doesn't seem to be able to kill them fast enough.

however their territory is dwindling. they can't keep increasing in population indefinitely at the same time as they are running out of living space.

Malthusian catastrophe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and the exploding population is probably due to increasing life expectancy - but that trend doesn't go on forever either.

once Israel has them properly compacted to the point of 50 people living in 1 room life expectancy trend will reverse.

i don't know what is the endgame plan Israel has for Palestinians. only one thing certain is that Israel will take the very last inch of land from them. what will happen to Palestinians in the process and how is up to Israel.

http://www.911missinglinks.com/

did you watch my movie about the wonderful Jews ? ( link above )

 

[Gunny]

The pirate thing.....shit, several have been caught, disarmed and let go. WTF?

But the ME? The sooner we can get out, the better. Two things: Get off the oil dependance and tell the fundies that if they are so convinced that Jesus wants them to defend Israel, fucking go there. We ain't paying for it anymore.

Nice rhetoric. No substance. You're about as "fundy" as it gets.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

ItsFairmont

Registered User
Member #18984
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 156
Thanks: 0
Thanked 21 Times in 15 Posts
Rep Power: 2

Quote: Originally Posted by Evangelical
I got disgusted when Reverend Wright began to use an impression he got from the Holy Spirit was that we should reflect upon ourselves in regards to 9/11. What a veiled claim that Bush did it or that our bad policies caused such hatred.

Muslims hate us because we're Christian. No other reason needs be given.



I disagree.

First, we got along famously well with the Middle East throughout most of our nation's history. Prior to 1948, we were doing great with them. Oil was discovered in the Middle East, and U.S. Standard Oil got a lot of contracts with Arabia. Things were fine.

Then came the creation of Israel (led by the British), and since we joined sides with Israel (not saying whether that was a good or bad decision), then the Middle East started becoming more hostile toward the USA.

Terrorist activities against the USA by extremist Muslims began after the first Persian Gulf War.

Saudi Arabia let us mobilize troops and equipment in their land along the Iraqi border because the Saudis were worried that Saddam would invade and because we needed the strategic placement in order to more easily get into Kuwait and Iraq to defeat Hussein's army.

After the war, we kept troops in Saudi Arabia, both out of national interest and per their request. Osama bin Laden, having defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan (with US help, since he was our ally), wanted the U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has the holiest city in Islam, and bin Laden (and many others) felt it was a travesty for U.S. troops to be in their holy land.

So, they started striking out at Americans (Kenya, Yemen, WTC twice), etc.


I'm of the firm belief that if we withdrew all our troops from the Middle East, and let the UN handle the Israel situation, then the Muslim world would leave us alone.


Consider this: The nation with the most Muslims is actually Indonesia. We get along with them fairly well.

India has the second largest population of Muslims, and they are a democracy.

The United States has 10,000,000 Muslims, many of whom live in your town, and they aren't attacking anybody.


The problem isn't Muslims. It's politics and empire, just like it's always been.

+++
[Above is from another thread.]

Agree the point about politics and empire. Sometimes I wonder how the world would have turned out if Wilson had been assinated instead of the Archduke.

But we are stuck with Israel. Frankly I would like nothing better than to walk away from that area but the genie is out of the bottle.

Does anyone have any (serious) ideas as to what our strategy for the middle east should be?

What all this boils down to is you think we should withdraw completely from the Middle East because Osama bin Laden thinks we shouldn't be there.

All I want to know is do you carry lunch money? And where do you live?

Not sure if this is addressed to me. In the event it is:

Recognize the history of why we are where we are with Israel, see no practical way to withdraw from the region or from supporting Israel, and don't give a f*f* what OBL thinks. Although I would love to have the opportunity to, shall we say, meet him.

What I keep seeing is this veiled hate-Israel thing everywhere which uses every excuse and tactic available to endorse our leaving and abandoning Israel and by implication the middle east, leaving it to its own devices, and presumably to muslim-induced chaos. Hence the question whether anyone has any practical ideas.

Thus far, nothing practical has come out of any adminstration I can remember, unless one counts dealing with the conflict there on the basis that Israel gives things away - presumably to appease our oil interests. That kind of thing is simple power politics, maintenance of empire and kicking the can down the road.

If I were to have a voice in Israel, at this point, as was said in Carre's Tinker, Sailor, Soldier, Spy, in a different context, "..they have had enough. In fact they have a had a belly full". As I see it, the can that was kicked down the road is resting by our foot.

I think something is going to pop.

 

[cbi0090]

Serious ideas?? I think it's seriously screwed up and always has been.

 

[krotchdog]

Umm... that's almost entirely wrong. Most of the Middle East was partitioned by colonial European powers after World War I, not World War II. Iraq gained independence in the early 30's. The UAE was formed after several sheikhdoms, who had created maritime peace treaties with the UK, decided to form a union after the expiration of those treaties (in the 1970's.) Their sheikhs had never been appointed by any foreign power. The formation of Iraq and the UAE had nothing to do with World War II or "Nazis." Your imagined history of the Middle East in which countries were "given" to the enemies of Nazi-supporting Arabs explains your undying devotion to Israel. Somebody's gotta kill those Nazi Muslims, right?

Why do you draw a distinction between Arab and non-Arab immigrants.

So only Arabs can immigrate to Arab land.

Further recent Arab immigrants are okay, but recent non-Arab immigrants are not okay.

Language, culture, and ethnicity, that makes sense as well.
Language, Palestine, that dont sound Arabic, how come. If tradition is important why use the name palestine, if language is important why use the name palestine. So Arabs do not have an Arabic name for a land you claim rightfully belongs to Arabs.

Culture, that to me dont matter much, the center of Arabic culture I think is Mecca, or Medina. The center of culture for christianity is Palestine, center for Judiasm is Palestine. Archealogists have been digging up the culture of many different peoples in Palestine, but not any Muslim culture. Hell, as Charles Dougherty wrote in Arabia Deserta when asking Arabs about ancient ruins the Arabs refered to the ruins as being built "by those whom came before us". And that in Arabia!!

Ethnicity, I thought Jews and Arabs both came from Abraham and that is why they fight over Abrahams tomb? They are the same race, so you discriminate over religion. There are many people of Palestine, you would have us exclude them all to have a pure moslem state.

The land thing, being Arab land the Arabs can do what they want with thier land, right. 1948 is your starting point so lets give it to you for one last point. Prior to 1948 all lands occupied by non-moslems (non-moslems is easier to state than listing the dozens of ethnicities and peoples that lived for centuries in palestine) was land legally owned. That is the people lived on the land for centuries, in the case of new immigrants, prior to 1948 Arabs sold the land to the Jews and all others.

That is one reason 1948 is so important, so much history and culture thats relevant prior to that period. Simple points like Arabs selling land to Jews. The British during there rule actually passed a law do forbid the sale of land to Jews.

Georgraphy and physical size is important, Palestine has always been considered seperate from the Arabia pennisula, I forget which desert but it was not crossed until the 1800's, it was considered in possible, than there was mountains that seperated Palestine from Arabian pennisula. Historically Palestine refered to an area, not a country, in much of history Palestine was considered a part of Syria, never a part of the Arabian pennisula. Jordan is in Palestine, Palestine was partioned after the Great War, WW I, more than half of Palestine was given to the Arabs, its called Jordan, was Trans-Jordan, or East Jordan and in east of the Jordan river.

And what of the Jews and other non christians forced from thier homes in Mecca and Medina, forced into exile, finding refuge in Palestine, I guess one the were put in exile they should not of stopped in Palestine? What of the property they left behind. What about the tens of thousands of Yemen jews that were forced to flee, same for them, they were not to find refuge in Palestine. I guess Yemen should of made it clear that the Jews were not to find refuge in the Middle East. Should I go on, what of the Jews of Damascus, were they not to find refuge in Palestine.

Lets change tact, what of the Arabs who fled the tyranny of Arabia and the fanatical religion and found refuge in Palestine, are they to find themselves again ruled by fanatical moslems. Not all Arabs in Palestine want to be ruled by the same tyranny they fled. Whats the comments on that fact.

More off the top of my head that bugs me.

How about all the hospitals the Jews built in the late 1800's and 1900's, these were magnets attracting Arabs who brought there children to be cured of blindness. Many of these Arabs remained in Palestine, so would assert they are the rightful owners of the land as well, it is prior to 1948 and these paticular fled simply because the Arabs never built a modern medical facility in Arabia.

More, many Arabs fled the Arab lands simply because of the oppurtunity of a better life with the Jews in Palestine. The feld Cairo, Mecca, the UAE, Kuwait, Syria, etc, etc. Theres books and if I was home I would quote.

Bottom line is the Arabs found a better life with the Jews. Many would come to work, make money and then go back to Arabia.

Anyhow I guess I gave you too much to work on.

If I had the time and thought this wasnt too long already I would post more facts. If I was at home with my library I would list several books as a source for each individual fact.

 

[Kalam]

Umm... that's almost entirely wrong. Most of the Middle East was partitioned by colonial European powers after World War I, not World War II. Iraq gained independence in the early 30's. The UAE was formed after several sheikhdoms, who had created maritime peace treaties with the UK, decided to form a union after the expiration of those treaties (in the 1970's.) Their sheikhs had never been appointed by any foreign power. The formation of Iraq and the UAE had nothing to do with World War II or "Nazis." Your imagined history of the Middle East in which countries were "given" to the enemies of Nazi-supporting Arabs explains your undying devotion to Israel. Somebody's gotta kill those Nazi Muslims, right?

Why do you draw a distinction between Arab and non-Arab immigrants.

So only Arabs can immigrate to Arab land.

Further recent Arab immigrants are okay, but recent non-Arab immigrants are not okay.

I've never made those statements. I don't give a damn who immigrates where as long as the immigrant assimilates himself or herself into the society of the area to which he or she has immigrated. For example, I couldn't return to the home country of my antecedents and demand the creation of a state based on American culture for myself and other immigrants. I'd have to assimilate, learn their language, and abide by their culture's folkways and customs. It's the duty of the immigrant to adapt to his or her country, not the other way around.

Language, culture, and ethnicity, that makes sense as well.
Language, Palestine, that dont sound Arabic, how come. If tradition is important why use the name palestine, if language is important why use the name palestine. So Arabs do not have an Arabic name for a land you claim rightfully belongs to Arabs.

Umm... Palestine is and always has been called "Filastin" in Arabic. The etymology of "Palestine" can be traced back to an ancient Semitic word. The Philistines spoke Aramaic. They're welcome to live there if any are still around.

Culture, that to me dont matter much, the center of Arabic culture I think is Mecca, or Medina. The center of culture for christianity is Palestine, center for Judiasm is Palestine.

There is no single center of culture for any religion. Each geographical area is a center of culture for those who inhabit it. Most of the inhabitants of Palestine were not Jews or Christians.

Archealogists have been digging up the culture of many different peoples in Palestine, but not any Muslim culture. Hell, as Charles Dougherty wrote in Arabia Deserta when asking Arabs about ancient ruins the Arabs refered to the ruins as being built "by those whom came before us". And that in Arabia!!

What are you even talking about?

Ethnicity, I thought Jews and Arabs both came from Abraham and that is why they fight over Abrahams tomb? They are the same race, so you discriminate over religion. There are many people of Palestine, you would have us exclude them all to have a pure moslem state.

Strawman. Never said that.

The land thing, being Arab land the Arabs can do what they want with thier land, right. 1948 is your starting point so lets give it to you for one last point. Prior to 1948 all lands occupied by non-moslems (non-moslems is easier to state than listing the dozens of ethnicities and peoples that lived for centuries in palestine) was land legally owned. That is the people lived on the land for centuries, in the case of new immigrants, prior to 1948 Arabs sold the land to the Jews and all others.

So? If I sell a house to a guy from Mongolia, that doesn't mean that he and his friends are free to establish a Khanate in my backyard.

Georgraphy and physical size is important, Palestine has always been considered seperate from the Arabia pennisula, I forget which desert but it was not crossed until the 1800's, it was considered in possible, than there was mountains that seperated Palestine from Arabian pennisula. Historically Palestine refered to an area, not a country, in much of history Palestine was considered a part of Syria, never a part of the Arabian pennisula. Jordan is in Palestine, Palestine was partioned after the Great War, WW I, more than half of Palestine was given to the Arabs, its called Jordan, was Trans-Jordan, or East Jordan and in east of the Jordan river.

What does this have to do with anything?

I'll ignore the rest of your post because it consists of you attempting to argue against something that I never posted.

Anyhow I guess I gave you too much to work on.

Don't flatter yourself.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, pirates are criminals, so that's not warfare between two nations. You can't declare war on criminals anymore than you can declare war on theft. All you can do is kill them if they try taking your property. Too bad the U.S. forbids ships from carrying weapons, huh? Seems like Somalian piracy would vanish just like Barbary piracy if ships carried weapons.

And yeah, I know the Ottoman Turks were predominately Muslim, hence why I said prior to 1914. The division of that land upon the Turks' defeat is what led to many of the dictatorships we have today, and the resulting anger.

Pirates are NOT CRIMINALS... Pirates are a scourge on humanity... Piracy is a form of terrorism... Piracy is a crime against humanity.

Piracy IS an Act of War and where piracy can be isolated to a sovereign nation, the act is a demonstration of war against what flag is offended.

The US considered the German sinking of the RMS Lusitania as an act of Piracy and used it as the basis of the US entering WW1...

Where any nation fails to recognize Priacy as an act of war and to destroy such as it would ANY OTHER THREAT TO ITS VERY SURVIVAL, that nation threatens the existance of ALL NATIONS.

Those who today, are attempting to legitimize Piracy by considering it criminality, threaten the very fiber of liberty by so doing.

That's fucking stupid. Piracy, by definition, is robbery or hijacking that occurs at sea. A political motivation or a desire to instill fear is not necessary as it is in "terrorism."

By definition, Piracy is crime against humanity. Why is that? Because it usurps the rights of MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE... just as terrorism targets massive numbers of people.

Piracy usurps the rights of the crew, the owner(s) of the ship, the owers of the cargo and the buyers of the cargo, along with their customers... and that is just the list of people immeditely effected by piracy; a list which grows exponentially s one considers those indirectly effected.

To even CONSIDER treating priacy as a crime is to succumb to it. Pirates are sub-human who have forfeited any form of rights; they should be sought out and destroyed as one would destroy a rabid animal.

There is absolutely no need for a trial for the teenage pirate presently being set up for a show trial by the Hussein 'justice' dept..., his guilt is certain... he should have been executed on the brainbridge with his body discarded overboard and there should be troops pouring over Somalian seaports, laying waste to anyone that resists.

Of course leftism seeks to undermine sustainble cultures; so given that leftist will 'try' this sub-human, what will happen now is that various absurd rationalizations will be entertained towards excusing the inexcusable crime against humanity which can and will only serve to undermine humanity and promote additional Piracy, which will result in the usurpation of more rights, of more people and a less stable world...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Israel sovereignty is valid, it's not going anywhere...

 

[Kalam]

By definition, Piracy is crime against humanity.

That's where you're wrong, Pubes.

You're inventing your own definition for piracy. Pirates aren't blood-drinking minions from the depths of hell; they're fucking robbers with boats.

 

[Kalam]

Israel sovereignty is valid, it's not going anywhere...

Israel, a religious/ethnic state, shouldn't have been created. A secular, multi-ethnic state should exist in its place. Will that happen? No, but Israel needs to learn to adapt to its surroundings if it expects to survive. Oh, wait, I forgot... we fund their bullshit with the blank check policy we've extended to them. The Cold War is over. Israel has outlived its usefulness to us. Time for them to learn to wipe their own ass.

 

[krotchdog]

Mash107, I like your post, only problem I find is this one part.

had no right to be created from Arab land prior to 1948

I dont understand how this statement is accurate. How do you define the land as Arab.

It was populated mostly by Arabs and had been for quite some time. The Arab language, culture, and ethnicity were the most prevalent in the area in question, making it rightfully Arab land rather than land rightfully belonging to recent non-Arab immigrants.

I've never made those statements

Nope, that was not the statement you made, I dont see how your statement can be interpetted any other way. I know in my words it sounded bad, if you wish to clarify go ahead, I should of quoted directly as so there would be no confusion as to what I drew my conclusion from.

So you state "rightfully arab land". Pretty specific as to what you mean, its arab land, not "recent non-arab immigrants". You specifically state recent non-arab so seeing how you are educated on this subject its not speculation on my part to assume you know of recent Arab immigrants. You did make a distinction, if you made that distinction unwittingly so be it but now you know in the time we are speaking give or take, there are two types of immigrants, Arab and non Arab. Actually for if we take into account "recent" for non "recent" immigrants which are discounted by your statement (intentional or non-intentional is your choice_ are Arab and non-Arab as well.

The distintion is made, if you did not intend to make a distinction is fine, I forgive you and we can move on.

You also comeback with

I don't give a damn who immigrates where as long as the immigrant assimilates himself or herself into the society of the area to which he or she has immigrated

I disagree, I dont think the Arabs should have to assimilate into the Jewish society, you used an example which I see as obfucating, you do not need to use a example, not in this case we can look at the history. Jerusalem was always a Jewish town, the jews never forced the Arabs that immigrated into Jerusalem to assimilate, hence the protection of the Mosque that was built on Solemens temple or the protection of everyones right to worship at abrahams tomb or to worship at the wailing wall, the Jews never forced the Arabs to assimilate, and Jerusalem was a and is a and always has been a majority Jewish town.

I believe you are asserting that Jews are recent immigrants, that there is no Jewish culture or society and that Jews should assimilate into Arab culture.

Arab culture, sure there is Arab culture and society in palestine but at this time it was much different than the culture of Saud and the Wahabbies or even of Ibn Rashid, being a student of history you cannot disagree with that. Not all people will follow the strict rules of an oppresive culture and the Arabs of Palestine choosed to flee the society and culture of Arabia to live in prosperty with the Jews. If I was home I could quote directly from Moshe Dayan's biography, he speaks of this. Unfortunately my library is not behind me.

customs. It's the duty of the immigrant to adapt to his or her country, not the other way around.

I could not disagree more with this statement, further in palestine the debate must focus on cities and towns, the culture and customs varied greatly, in such an inhospitable land culture, society, and citys grew around the water, in between was pretty much nothing, so we have very distinct pockets of society or whatever you want to call it. Look at the UN partition map and the crazy boundaries trying to seperate Arabs and Jews proves this fact.

Its actually the other way around, man should accept man, man should accept others religous beliefs, we do in the USA, the Jews do in Palestine. Many Arabs live and work in Jewish society to include in the IDF.

Umm... Palestine is and always has been called "Filastin" in Arabic. The etymology of "Palestine" can be traced back to an ancient Semitic word. The Philistines spoke Aramaic. They're welcome to live there if any are still around

Ha, ha, you make funny, still around. The Philistines did not come from Arabia, they came from the mediteranean, Aramaic, your counting on me not knowing my subject, the Philistines adopted Aramaic later as in after they had adopted the Canaanite language first and later Aramaic.

Either way there is no disputing the Philistines are not Arabs, the word Palestine came from the Philistines, no scholar disputes this. Even Arabs admitted this.

There is no single center of culture for any religion. Each geographical area is a center of culture for those who inhabit it. Most of the inhabitants of Palestine were not Jews or Christians

Yes each geographical area, Palestine is defined geographically by the mediteranian on the west, mountains to the north and east, desert to the east and south. Historically Palesine was a part of Syria, water also defines centers of culture in the harsh arid lands, hence the geographical area of most significance had a source of water, so we must speak of areas where there is water. Again the UN partition map make it clear where the people inhabitated, around town and water, some were jewish some were arab, some were mixed. So thiere are centesr of culture and religion. Very specifically defined by having source for water, you lose the arguement, towns were specific and very isolated, lack of water and difficulty in travel created defined areas of specific groups

Quote: Originally Posted by krotchdog
Archealogists have been digging up the culture of many different peoples in Palestine, but not any Muslim culture. Hell, as Charles Dougherty wrote in Arabia Deserta when asking Arabs about ancient ruins the Arabs refered to the ruins as being built "by those whom came before us". And that in Arabia!!

What are you even talking about?

Okay you dont know this history, Europeans interested in history would go to the holy land or palestine and dig in the ground, they uncovered whole cities, tombs, all kinds of stuff, if I had my Thomoson chain bible I would quote directly from the appendix, you see the europeans dug looking for stuff or evidence that would prove the bibles stories and they actually found a lot. So what I refer to is the people who dig and find ancient culture, none of which is Arab, mostly because Palestine is not Arabia.

Dougherty, nobody who studies the middle east does not know dougherty, he traveled through arabia, from damascus to mecca with a caravan (short story) was interested in ancient inscriptions, many of the ruins he came across when dougherty asked who built them the arabs replied they were built by "those who came before us". So even in Arabia proper Arabs refer to a people who came before. Arabs are recent immigrants depending on which time periods you compare.

Originally Posted by krotchdog
Ethnicity, I thought Jews and Arabs both came from Abraham and that is why they fight over Abrahams tomb? They are the same race, so you discriminate over religion. There are many people of Palestine, you would have us exclude them all to have a pure moslem state.
Strawman. Never said that.

Not so fast, you specifically made the distinction between arab and non-arabs, You should be stating moslem and non-moslem (I purposely use a spelling of moslem from the 1800's) or even semitic or non-semitic. Jews and Moslems both claim to be deciendants from Abraham. So you purposely avoid connecting the religion or maybe not but either way that is the only difference. Both semitic peoples, both from abraham, so what is it. Different people or not different. Religion yes or no.

So? If I sell a house to a guy from Mongolia, that doesn't mean that he and his friends are free to establish a Khanate in my backyard

We aint talking mongolia, you can come up with an example in palestine, but I understand and yes, if you sell me a property I am free to do what I want with that property. Once you sold it, the property is gone. So the arabs sold land, every bit of the land the jews lived on they bought, prior to 1948, sold to em by arabs and other people.

Thank god you gave up, I am tired, everything I posted was fact. The last bit is significant because geography isolated palistine from arabia further lessoning any claim on palestine by arabs. Anyhow you skipped over the last point dismissing it because i was not responding directly to a quote of yours at that point but its significant point, I can bring up how you felt a need to mention geography so my post at the end is relevant. You bring up geography t make a point as follows.

There is no single center of culture for any religion. Each geographical area is a center of culture for those who inhabit it. Most of the inhabitants of Palestine were not Jews or Christians.

Geography obviously important. you just forget by the end my thread.

Anyhow I will have to come back and lesson all the bullshit and specifically point out your contradictions.

 

[Kalam]

Nope, that was not the statement you made,

No, it wasn't. Nowhere in my statement did I suggest that non-Arab immigration should be forbidden. Thus, 60% of your previous post consisted of strawman arguments.

So you state "rightfully arab land". Pretty specific as to what you mean, its arab land, not "recent non-arab immigrants". You specifically state recent non-arab so seeing how you are educated on this subject its not speculation on my part to assume you know of recent Arab immigrants.

Arab immigration to Jerusalem was negligible. As I've said in other threads on the subject, most non-natural Arab population increase can be attributed to the sedentarization of Bedouin nomads.

I disagree, I dont think the Arabs should have to assimilate into the Jewish society,

Completely different. The Jewish society that currently has political power in Palestine was created by those who refused to assimilate into an existing society. There is no obligation to assimilate into a society that was itself created by refusing to assimilate.

and Jerusalem was a and is a and always has been a majority Jewish town.

No, dude. The majority of Jerusalem's citizens were not Jewish for a long-ass time. Most of the Jewish majority in Jerusalem were exiled or forced to flee when Nebuchadnezzar conquered the city in the 500's BC (see Jeremiah 52.) They returned under Cyrus and Persian rule much later in the century.

Centuries later, Jews were expelled again after Hadrian put down a Jewish revolt (destroying Solomon's temple) in the 2nd century AD. The city was Christianized under Byzantine rule and remained forbidden to Jews for the next 400 years, except for a brief 15-year period of Persian rule. Jews were allowed to return only after Muslims took the city from Babylonian control in 638 (permitting freedom of religion and fostering growth and prosperity.) When the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem, they wantonly slaughtered most of the Muslim, Jewish, and indigenous Christian populations. It isn't likely that Jews became a majority in Jerusalem until some point during Ottoman rule, probably during the 19th century.

JewishEncyclopedia.com - JERUSALEM
History of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (A.D. 71-1099)

I believe you are asserting that Jews are recent immigrants, that there is no Jewish culture or society and that Jews should assimilate into Arab culture.
Arab culture, sure there is Arab culture and society in palestine but at this time it was much different than the culture of Saud and the Wahabbies or even of Ibn Rashid, being a student of history you cannot disagree with that. Not all people will follow the strict rules of an oppresive culture and the Arabs of Palestine choosed to flee the society and culture of Arabia to live in prosperty with the Jews. If I was home I could quote directly from Moshe Dayan's biography, he speaks of this. Unfortunately my library is not behind me.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Historically, Jews and Muslims have nearly always cooperated well. That only became untrue somewhat recently.

I could not disagree more with this statement, further in palestine the debate must focus on cities and towns, the culture and customs varied greatly, in such an inhospitable land culture, society, and citys grew around the water, in between was pretty much nothing, so we have very distinct pockets of society or whatever you want to call it. Look at the UN partition map and the crazy boundaries trying to seperate Arabs and Jews proves this fact.

Its actually the other way around, man should accept man, man should accept others religous beliefs, we do in the USA,

We don't permit immigrants to form their own political entities and live by their own laws. They must adapt to our customs, laws, and culture if they want to be successful. Consequently, they do.

the Jews do in Palestine.

Herding Muslims into Gaza and sealing that area and the West Bank off with apartheid walls isn't quite what I'd call "acceptance." Being forced to live as a second-class citizen is a form of domination; not acceptance, coexistence, or tolerance.

Many Arabs live and work in Jewish society to include in the IDF.

Arabs living in Gaza lost their jobs in Israel when Israel imposed a blockade on the area a couple of years ago. Most of them are unemployed and, due to the blockade, are unable to receive adequate amounts of basic necessities. Arabs living in Israel are slightly better off, but they're still second-class citizens. And no, Arab Muslims don't serve in the IDF. Small numbers of Bedouins and Druze (who serve in segregated units) may, but Arab Muslims do not.

Ha, ha, you make funny, still around. The Philistines did not come from Arabia,

Who said they did? You have a serious strawman fetish.

the Philistines adopted Aramaic later as in after they had adopted the Canaanite language first and later Aramaic.

Yeah. Your point?

Either way there is no disputing the Philistines are not Arabs, the word Palestine came from the Philistines, no scholar disputes this. Even Arabs admitted this.

Yeah. I never said anything different. Your point?

Yes each geographical area, Palestine is defined geographically by the mediteranian on the west, mountains to the north and east, desert to the east and south. Historically Palesine was a part of Syria,

That would be Jordan.

Okay you dont know this history, Europeans interested in history would go to the holy land or palestine and dig in the ground, they uncovered whole cities, tombs, all kinds of stuff, if I had my Thomoson chain bible I would quote directly from the appendix, you see the europeans dug looking for stuff or evidence that would prove the bibles stories and they actually found a lot. So what I refer to is the people who dig and find ancient culture, none of which is Arab.

Umm... that's because Arabs didn't inhabit the area in "ancient" times, buddy.

So even in Arabia proper Arabs refer to a people who came before. Arabs are recent immigrants depending on which time periods you compare.

~1,500 years ago isn't exactly recent.

Not so fast, you specifically made the distinction between arab and non-arabs, You should be stating moslem and non-moslem (I purposely use a spelling of moslem from the 1800's) or even semitic or non-semitic. Jews and Moslems both claim to be deciendants from Abraham. So you purposely avoid connecting the religion or maybe not but either way that is the only difference. Both semitic peoples, both from abraham, so what is it. Different people or not different. Religion yes or no.

Who gives a fuck? According to tradition, we're all descendants of Noah. That didn't prevent the development of distinct ethnicities, did it? If you believe that religion is the only difference between Jews and Arabs, you're completely ignorant. Uh... language differences? Cultural differences? Any of this ring a bell?

Thank god you gave up, I am tired, everything I posted was fact.

Your posts are jumbles of strawman arguments, irrelevant historical references, strawman arguments, egregious inaccuracies, and strawman arguments. Half of the time I'm not even sure of what you're attempting to say. I'm not going to continue this for much longer if you're unable to type a post without including entire paragraphs of completely irrelevant and nonsensical bullshit.

Geography obviously important. you just forget by the end my thread.

So is syntax.

 

[amiam*]

any serious ideas on the middle east?

View attachment 7287

Well now than there...Consider President Nixon as the "Savior of Damascus". By the rapid resupply of the Zionist he prevented the first use of nuclear weapons (and WW3) in the middle east during the war of 73. The Arabs were pissed and imposed the 2nd oil embargo ( the first was by the US against Japan) the world has seen.

Oddly enough, the Arabs have done (are doing) a service to the Earth (as well as themselves). We now have a new foe....ourselves. Thats going to be a hell of battle.