Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

PLO and Nazi Connection.

Page 6 of 6 [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 Sep 2015, 2:09 am

0_equals_true wrote:
glebel wrote:
Yeah, Ataturk set a grand example for ethnic cleansing years before the term was invented. What he did to the Greeks in what used to be Ionia was absolutely barbaric.


He also used the term Jihad in reference to this.

However legacy wise Turkey has been more contained than the Ottomans were.

It has also produced some great thinker and Atheists such as Turan Dursun.

Going down hill now.


That what happens when islamists rule (the AKP deny they're so but who are they kidding)- and they proved to be corrupted to teeth while at first claimed to be anti-corruption (check the corruption scandal 2013).

I work for a company that does business with Turkey, and all I can tell you that corruption among the highest positions there is no less than the other countries of the region.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

18 Sep 2015, 12:27 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You are simplifying things far too much, for instance in what eventually became Lebanon and Syria the Turks favored the Sunni tribes. Tribal has always dominated and still does.

The idea of universal support of anything, implies these tribes are getting along. That is what need to happen, but hasn't yet.


Hmm not any more than other colonialist. The Ottomans were very smart, Pashas were often local, there even were Christian Pashas in some places. I'm not saying there wasn't an elite, but the was an elite within the tribes they used too. Ottoman were very good at using the existing political landscape in their favour and playing group off each other.

The British and Frech tried to do this in the Middle East with less success.

I don't think for instance that the Fatmids were any better than the Ottomans or the other Emirates.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 Sep 2015, 4:26 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You are simplifying things far too much, for instance in what eventually became Lebanon and Syria the Turks favored the Sunni tribes. Tribal has always dominated and still does.

The idea of universal support of anything, implies these tribes are getting along. That is what need to happen, but hasn't yet.


Hmm not any more than other colonialist. The Ottomans were very smart, Pashas were often local, there even were Christian Pashas in some places. I'm not saying there wasn't an elite, but the was an elite within the tribes they used too. Ottoman were very good at using the existing political landscape in their favour and playing group off each other.

The British and Frech tried to do this in the Middle East with less success.

I don't think for instance that the Fatmids were any better than the Ottomans or the other Emirates.


They managed to keep an empire for over 600 years - surely not a sign of stupidity.

If I recall right, they assigned a Christian mutasarif on Mount Lebanon only after European pressure and Mount Lebanon civil war.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

18 Sep 2015, 4:47 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
If I recall right, they assigned a Christian mutasarif on Mount Lebanon only after European pressure and Mount Lebanon civil war.


They didn't do it out of egalitarianism, they did it when it suited.

It wasn't really in their interest to do it earlier in Lebanon.