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

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,813
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Sep 2015, 9:49 am

blauSamstag wrote:
Yeah there's an internationally recognized thing called right of return.

Image



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... ian_exodus

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/alj ... 71933.html

It's a 47 minutes video - but you have to watch it to understand the scale of the land-stealing that happened back then.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,813
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Sep 2015, 9:55 am

Ana, most Arabs were actually pro-Allies in WWII.

The Ottomans were friends of Hitler after all.

You should check this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Responses-Fa ... 1477307575



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

16 Sep 2015, 12:48 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Ana, most Arabs were actually pro-Allies in WWII.

The Ottomans were friends of Hitler after all.

Ottoman Empire ended in 1922, Hitler was a nobody then.

Turkey was neutral in WWII, Turkey cut all diplomatic ties with Germany around 1944, and actually declared war on in in 1945, and became a founder member of NATO.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

16 Sep 2015, 12:55 pm

Just a shame that the secular state that Ataturk founded is being eroded.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,813
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

17 Sep 2015, 1:24 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Ana, most Arabs were actually pro-Allies in WWII.

The Ottomans were friends of Hitler after all.

Ottoman Empire ended in 1922, Hitler was a nobody then.

Turkey was neutral in WWII, Turkey cut all diplomatic ties with Germany around 1944, and actually declared war on in in 1945, and became a founder member of NATO.


I meant the Turks, I stood corrected - but the collective memory of 5 centuries of Ottoman rule wouldn't disappear in mere 22 years; Arabs always feared the Turks; surely they would prefer to side with the former enemies of turks in WWI than with their former allies.

Ataturk was not friend of the West either in any time, and it is said that Hitler was inspired by him and by the ways he dealt with the minorities.



glebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 58
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

17 Sep 2015, 1:29 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Ana, most Arabs were actually pro-Allies in WWII.

The Ottomans were friends of Hitler after all.

Ottoman Empire ended in 1922, Hitler was a nobody then.

Turkey was neutral in WWII, Turkey cut all diplomatic ties with Germany around 1944, and actually declared war on in in 1945, and became a founder member of NATO.


I meant the Turks, I stood corrected - but the collective memory of 5 centuries of Ottoman rule wouldn't disappear in mere 22 years; Arabs always feared the Turks; surely they would prefer to side with the former enemies of turks in WWI than with their former allies.

Ataturk was not friend of the West either in any time, and it is said that Hitler was inspired by him and by the ways he dealt with the minorities.

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.


_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Sep 2015, 4:14 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I meant the Turks, I stood corrected - but the collective memory of 5 centuries of Ottoman rule wouldn't disappear in mere 22 years; Arabs always feared the Turks; surely they would prefer to side with the former enemies of turks in WWI than with their former allies.

Ataturk was not friend of the West either in any time, and it is said that Hitler was inspired by him and by the ways he dealt with the minorities.


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.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Sep 2015, 4:16 pm

Back on the question of antisemitism in the middle east and north Africa, the Nazis directly influenced this, as did the USSR.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Sep 2015, 4:25 pm

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.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,813
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 Sep 2015, 2:01 am

0_equals_true wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I meant the Turks, I stood corrected - but the collective memory of 5 centuries of Ottoman rule wouldn't disappear in mere 22 years; Arabs always feared the Turks; surely they would prefer to side with the former enemies of turks in WWI than with their former allies.

Ataturk was not friend of the West either in any time, and it is said that Hitler was inspired by him and by the ways he dealt with the minorities.


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.


Favoring in term of viewing them as bit higher cattle, while others as lower cattle...



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,813
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: 38
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: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,813
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: 38
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.