Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 174 (315705)
05-28-2006 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
05-22-2006 10:22 PM


Re: Whitwashing The Islamic Ottoman Turks
Jar writes:
I'd say that is up to you buz, there were only 5 messages total and you should be able to read them and see if I whitewashed the Ottoman Empire in any of them.
I've been doing some research on my own and see that Modulous has it about as my research shows so far as he went into the Empire.
What neither of you have alluded to is:
1. The fact that the reason those centuries of Ottoman occupation of the nations around them produced a peaceful empire is that the empire (Turkey and all of Turkey's conquered lands, including other Muslim nations) was a very tightly run Muslim dictatorship, so tightly run in the first two centuries or so that even the Sultan' (dictator's) own brothers and their sons had to be executed in order to insure the peace and the dictatorial absolute rule of the Sultan.
2. All conquered nations became the property of the Sultans who annexed all conquered nations into the empire.
3. The goal of most of the Sultans, including the most powerful and prestigious one, Suleyman (named after the Biblical Solomon) aspired to conquer all of Europe and eventually the whole world for the empire. Suleyman believed the blessings and assurance of divinity inspired and supported his aspirations.
4. So before you go at Europe and the West for aggression of the Mid East, you need to recognize who started this aggression in the first place. It was the Islamic Ottomans and when they began to falter, a power grab by European nations ensued in order to, (1)contain the advance of the Ottomans who had already conquered European nations and (2) for each nation to protect itself from becoming overrun by any one among themselves which might swallow up the entire crumbling Ottoman empire. Russia, for example became the most dangerous threat, yearning to move in and overtake the trade routes, including the very strategic Constanople (Istanbul).
5. Had the Europeans and Britain not all scrambled and squabbled so as to insure the balance of power, which included defeat and control of the pieces of the Ottoman Empire, Islam's ambitious aspirations might have succeed in conquering Europe and eventually the planet. This was, of course the aspirations of Mohammed himself For Islam and his god, Allah.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 05-22-2006 10:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2006 9:03 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 110 by jar, posted 05-28-2006 9:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 107 of 174 (315707)
05-28-2006 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
05-27-2006 8:02 PM


Re: You know jar, you need to stop smearing your opponents
You slam the true Christians jar, in extremely nasty terms, so you get no apologies from me for telling the truth that you aren't a Christian. Your calling yourself a Christian doesn't impress me any more than the beliefs of Bible Christians impress you. Yours is the perversion of Christianity. We can keep this up all day you know.
in the end, my father will judge you for your hate and your presumption to judge those he has called to his side.
i've had enough. i demand that faith be prevented from further proclaiming who is and isn't any given thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 8:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by AdminNWR, posted 05-28-2006 1:55 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 174 (315715)
05-28-2006 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by macaroniandcheese
05-28-2006 1:13 AM


Stay on topic
Let's try to keep personal issues out of the remainder of this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 1:13 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 109 of 174 (315737)
05-28-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Buzsaw
05-28-2006 12:51 AM


but why is the Islamic world annoyed at the west
So before you go at Europe and the West for aggression of the Mid East, you need to recognize who started this aggression in the first place
The Romans? Perhaps we should blame the failing Roman empire for the ascendancy of Islam and the strengthening of the Ottomans.
It doesn't matter though - I don't think the reason the Islamic world might be annoyed is because of this...I think it comes later with the start of the fall of the Ottoman Empire...beginning at Vienna.
Whether or not the West is justified in being annoyed at the Middle East is not really important to the discussion, whether or not the ME is justified in being angry is not important. In all reality all that is important to this thread is understanding why they are angry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 05-28-2006 12:51 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 05-28-2006 10:26 AM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 110 of 174 (315740)
05-28-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Buzsaw
05-28-2006 12:51 AM


Re: Whitwashing The Islamic Ottoman Turks
Buz, several points. First all you have provided as usual is bare unsupported asseretions. While I have provided links to the actual documents, correspondence and maps to support my contentions, as usual you have provided no evidence in support of yours. In addition, I have repeated asked that this discussion be limited to from around WWI on. We can start another thread on the earlier history if you want.
Please try to stick with the topic and if at all possible, could you consider supporting some of the allegations you make.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 05-28-2006 12:51 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 05-29-2006 12:23 AM jar has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 174 (315749)
05-28-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Modulous
05-28-2006 9:03 AM


Re: but why is the Islamic world annoyed at the west
Modulous writes:
The Romans? Perhaps we should blame the failing Roman empire for the ascendancy of Islam and the strengthening of the Ottomans.
I don't think so. The expansionist aspirations of Suleyman and other notable Ottoman dictators seemed to be inspired by Mohammed and his successors whose ambitions and motivations were to (1) grow Islam into the global religion and (2) totally secure the strategic and lucrative trade routes connecting the east with the west. The Roman Empire perse had little to do with the rise of Islam as I understand the history. Islam appeared to originate from the inspirations of one relatively nobody man who married into wealth, got a vision and via the trade routes and the sword, et al eliminated all political, commercial and religious competition to begin and grow the Islamic block in the region.
Modulous writes:
It doesn't matter though - I don't think the reason the Islamic world might be annoyed is because of this...I think it comes later with the start of the fall of the Ottoman Empire...beginning at Vienna.
Like Jar, you're sweeping under the rug, the fact that it was the expansionist ambitions of Saleyman and other notable Ottoman dictarors who began to invade and conquer Europe that first required defensive involvement by Europe with the aggressive Ottomans.
Modulous writes:
Whether or not the West is justified in being annoyed at the Middle East is not really important to the discussion,.......
Say what?? Europe gets invaded and you question justification of annoyance/action??
Modulous writes:
whether or not the ME is justified in being angry is not important. In all reality all that is important to this thread is understanding why they are angry.
The anger of many of these Islamic nations likely began when the Ottomans by the sword annexed them into the Ottoman empire, subjecting them to the Turk absolute dictators. Then when the expansionism of the Ottomans into Europe failed, they were further angered by the necessity of the West to intervene in order to save themselves from one another via intervention in the region of the original aggressors who initiated all the annoyance and unrest.
This, my friends, is not all as simple as you are trying to make it. You need to get over your dogged bias against the West and your seeming need to coddle aggressive Islam as so many of you people appear to do so consistently here at EvC. Both have their faults, but, come on, does Islam always have to be the good guys with white hats for you?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2006 9:03 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by nwr, posted 05-28-2006 10:36 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2006 7:59 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 112 of 174 (315752)
05-28-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
05-28-2006 10:26 AM


Re: but why is the Islamic world annoyed at the west
The anger of many of these Islamic nations likely began when the Ottomans by the sword annexed them into the Ottoman empire, subjecting them to the Turk absolute dictators.
That was a long time ago. The people who might have been angry then are long since dead.
The question is, why are present day residents of the middle east angry at the west?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 05-28-2006 10:26 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 1:09 PM nwr has replied
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 05-28-2006 11:52 PM nwr has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 113 of 174 (315780)
05-28-2006 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by nwr
05-28-2006 10:36 AM


Re: but why is the Islamic world annoyed at the west
That was a long time ago. The people who might have been angry then are long since dead.
The question is, why are present day residents of the middle east angry at the west?
of course i was told discussion of old things was off topic, but the point is that they have told their children and their children's children and so forth until anger at such things has become part of their identity. that is why the 'ancient history' is relevant. we can solve all the 'new' problems and we will never fix it until we solve the 'old' problems.
but there was a book we discussed in my ir class last fall that suggested that conflict (under the level of dyadic war but possibly resulting in it) is due in whole to lack of necessities. i.e. because palestine doesn't have clean water and because palestine is in rubbles and because palestine has limited food and no infrastructure to speak of, they are rebelling. the book proposes that if there was no need, that excuses such as religion and other similar things would not have a foothold. think about it this way. generally it is those who have nothing to lose who are involved in rebellion. if an entire people has nothing to lose, you're going to have quite a fight on your hands. bah'rain is reasonably well off. do they have conflict? no. but they have islam. columbia has terrorist type revolts all the time. but they aren't islamic. but they have need.
now if only i could find my syllabus and the title of that book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by nwr, posted 05-28-2006 10:36 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by nwr, posted 05-28-2006 2:10 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 4:24 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 114 of 174 (315782)
05-28-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by jar
05-27-2006 9:33 PM


Re: From big back to small, from Iraq to Kuwait.
jar writes:
Kuwait though made it quite clear that their relationship with Great Britain was no more than political reality. They realized they were small fish surrounded by larger predators and saw the relationship with Great Britain as not by choice, but necessity.
The first Gulf War was, as I recall, instigated in Aspen Colorado when Maggie Thatcher appealed to George Bush Sr.
Was Britain mainly dependent on Kuwaiti oil? And...also...were not the Kuwaiti people married to the economic opportunities that the West stimulated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 05-27-2006 9:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 05-28-2006 1:41 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 115 of 174 (315788)
05-28-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Phat
05-28-2006 1:15 PM


Re: From big back to small, from Iraq to Kuwait.
The First Gulf war is a subject that deserves a thread of it's own. So far we have not even covered the historical basics that would allow us to discuss it intellegently.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Phat, posted 05-28-2006 1:15 PM Phat has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 116 of 174 (315795)
05-28-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by macaroniandcheese
05-28-2006 1:09 PM


Re: but why is the Islamic world annoyed at the west
of course i was told discussion of old things was off topic, but the point is that they have told their children and their children's children and so forth until anger at such things has become part of their identity.
Past history is always somewhat distant and somewhat abstract. What happens in your own lifetime is far more vivid, and raises stronger passions.
When a Palestinian child sees his house being demolished by an Israeli bulldozer, why would he not have strong passions and a lifetime hatred of Israel and of nations that he perceives as supporters of Israel?
Note that I am not talking about right or wrong here. I am talking about psychology. If Bush & Co. had properly considered psychology, we wouldn't be mired down in an unwinnable war in Iraq.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 1:09 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 4:57 PM nwr has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 117 of 174 (315805)
05-28-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by macaroniandcheese
05-28-2006 1:09 PM


No it's not about neediness, & they create their own problems
Perfect example of how the propaganda comes through college courses. The reason the Palestinians are poor is that the Arab world refuses to help them, preferring to let them appear to be Israel's responsibility. But they left Israel because the Arabs attacked Israel and warned them to leave. They are the Arab nations' responsibility. Most of them are also not native Palestinians, but Arabs who had moved into the area from the surrounding nations, to work for Israel when it was developing.
They've been given all kinds of aid from the west too, and where did that go? Into Arafat's pockets. They could have had a state many times over by now plus aid from Israel to help them develop, but their leaders have refused time after time over paltry points of contention, really because they don't want to negotiate with Israel at all. They don't want Israel to exist, and being an impoverished thorn in Israel's side is strategy by their leaders, who aren't concerned about the general wellbeing of their own people either.
Certainly it's no fun getting your house bulldozed, but I'm sure it's common knowledge among the Palestinians that Israel bulldozes houses because there are tunnels and arsenals under many of them, from which Palestinians attack Israel. It's all a complex hoax supported by Leftist propaganda and you all buy it.
Edit: You all project your own feelings onto them, not recognizing the completely different culture and mindset they live in. Their motives are ideological completely.

Off topic content hidden. Suspensions are the next step.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : typo
Edited by AdminAsgara, : hide off topic contnet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 1:09 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 5:01 PM Faith has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 118 of 174 (315810)
05-28-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by nwr
05-28-2006 2:10 PM


Re: but why is the Islamic world annoyed at the west
true enough. doesn't help that the historical dislike is reinforced everyday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by nwr, posted 05-28-2006 2:10 PM nwr has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 119 of 174 (315811)
05-28-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Faith
05-28-2006 4:24 PM


Re: No it's not about neediness, & they create their own problems
you and the crazy jewish lady in my class who claimed that "we evolved [and they didn't] need to stop for half a moment. we will never know if the problem is actually need. no one would ever bother to give the appropriate aid. giving people free money isn't the solution. giving them places to have jobs and giving them ways to live healthfully like water and sanitation infrastructure will help. giving them free money and suggesting they buy our products won't help. yes they have a different culture than we do. this isn't a crime. lots of places have different cultures. that doesn't mean we should wipe them from the earth.

Off topic comments hidden. If this continues suspensions are the next step.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : hide off topic content

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 4:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 5:18 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 120 of 174 (315813)
05-28-2006 5:14 PM


Qatar
Earlier I discussed Bahrain and Bahrain and Qatar (pronounced similar to cutter but not like guitar) are both culturally and politically linked. Qatar is a penninsula that juts into the Persain Gulf like a thumb. It is flat, barren and mostly covered by sand and gravel, less that 2% of the land being ariable. For most of it's history it had no unified government, the people lived by fishing, pearling and piracy. It did have several harbors, pricipaly, Doha on the eastern coast. One of the families vying for control was the Al-Khalifa and shortly before the start of the 18th. century they moved to Bahrain. They still maintained some control over the northwest parts of the penninsula, and claimed control over more of it, but in reality left a power vacuum where a series of sheiks arose to claim control only to be overthrown.
Sticking out into the Persian Gulf, having several small ports, it was a major piracy problem to the British. Since it seemed to have no economic resources, the only real concern that the British had was strategic, it should not interrupt trade or transit. As we approached the end of the 18th. century the British decided that the best course was to promote one of the local warlords and establish a government. The British select a local family, Al-Thani, and signed an agreement with him that both supported him as ruler, but also separated and denied any claims to Qatar by the Al-Khalifa clan in Bahrain (remember at the same time Great Britain was also allied with Bahrain).
Not much over two years later Sheikh Mohammed Bin Thani died and his son Jasim rose to power. Jasim invited the Ottomans to enter Qatar, and he constantly played the two Great Powers off against one another until 1913 when the Ottomans withdrew realizing how exposed their position was. Jasims succesor was Sheik Abdullah bin Thani, and in 1916 he signed a treaty with the British similar to those in the other areas we've discussed. In return for protection from the Turks, other local arabs, Bahrain and particularly Al-Saud who we have not yet discussed, he agreed that he would have no dealings with any other foriegn power with the express permissions of the British.
Before leaving Qatar, I need to note that the Al-Thani family has remained the rulers of Qatar since they were first installed by the British.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024