Political Crossfire Forums

[ForestGump]

If the ottoman empire hadnt sided with the Central Powers, then Israel wouldnt exist today.

If Iraq hadnt invaded Kuwait, we wouldnt be in Iraq today.

The western world isnt the one initiating all this crap.

[pharaoh]

ForestGump wrote: If the ottoman empire hadnt sided with the Central Powers, then Israel wouldnt exist today.

If Iraq hadnt invaded Kuwait, we wouldnt be in Iraq today.

The western world isnt the one initiating all this crap.

Israel would have been created anyway,whether the Ottoman empire entered the war or not.
Zionism was already there and the pressure of the zionists on the British empire was mounting.
The creation of Israel was only a matter of time.
Britian is very much responsible for whats going on here and also in other parts of the world such as in India and Pakistan due to its harsh foreign policy and double standards.

[ForestGump]

pharaoh wrote: ForestGump wrote: If the ottoman empire hadnt sided with the Central Powers, then Israel wouldnt exist today.

If Iraq hadnt invaded Kuwait, we wouldnt be in Iraq today.

The western world isnt the one initiating all this crap.

Israel would have been created anyway,whether the Ottoman empire entered the war or not.


Dishonest statement. The British Empire used The Great War as an opportunity to create a puppet state. If no opportunity existed, then Israel would still be a figment of the imagination of a couple wacked out Zionists.

[pharaoh]

ForestGump wrote: pharaoh wrote: ForestGump wrote: If the ottoman empire hadnt sided with the Central Powers, then Israel wouldnt exist today.

If Iraq hadnt invaded Kuwait, we wouldnt be in Iraq today.

The western world isnt the one initiating all this crap.

Israel would have been created anyway,whether the Ottoman empire entered the war or not.


Dishonest statement. The British Empire used The Great War as an opportunity to create a puppet state. If no opportunity existed, then Israel would still be a figment of the imagination of a couple wacked out Zionists.

No its not a dishonest statement.Turkey lost the war in 1919 and Israel was created After WW2 in 1948.
The Ottoman empire was already crumbling and falling apart when WW1 started.Its leaders decided to enter the war as a desperate act to save the empire.So even if the Ottoman empire didnt enter the war it would have perished anyway which would have left Britian and France in control of the middle east.

[ForestGump]

pharaoh wrote: ForestGump wrote: pharaoh wrote: ForestGump wrote: If the ottoman empire hadnt sided with the Central Powers, then Israel wouldnt exist today.

If Iraq hadnt invaded Kuwait, we wouldnt be in Iraq today.

The western world isnt the one initiating all this crap.

Israel would have been created anyway,whether the Ottoman empire entered the war or not.


Dishonest statement. The British Empire used The Great War as an opportunity to create a puppet state. If no opportunity existed, then Israel would still be a figment of the imagination of a couple wacked out Zionists.

No its not a dishonest statement.Turkey lost the war in 1919 and Israel was created After WW2 in 1948.
The Ottoman empire was already crumbling and falling apart when WW1 started.Its leaders decided to enter the war as a desperate act to save the empire.So even if the Ottoman empire didnt enter the war it would have perished anyway which would have left Britian and France in control of the middle east.



Betrayal, plus ‘divide and rule’

This promise was callously betrayed. Playing their long-practised imperialist game of divide and rule, Britain and France secretly signed a promise to the Zionists to ‘establish a national home for the Jews in Palestine’, and shortly afterwards secretly signed the ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement’ promising Palestine to the Arabs in return for a revolutionary Arab liberation war against the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), which war in fact largely won the war in the Middle East for the Allied Powers.

What became Palestine was actually only a part of the original territory. The newly-formed ‘League of Nations’ divided that territory between Britain and France, the latter getting Syria and Lebanon while Britain got Iraq, Palestine and semi-colonial rule over Jordan. The so-called ‘mandates’ handed by the League to Britain and France over these lands were simply the transfer of colonial rule from Turkey to Britain and France. These were the spoils of the imperialist world war. The Arab peoples got absolutely nothing except lies.

In Palestine, Britain played up to both Jews and Arabs. In 1924 Sir Alfred Mond, head of the armaments combine Brunner Mond, (later to become Imperial Chemical Industries) wrote to the British Government promising that Britain would have a loyal ally in Zionism in the Middle East.

Growth of the Arab national movement

Britain welcomed this with the ‘Balfour Declaration’, knowingly inflaming Arab nationalism by its promise of a ‘Jewish National Home’. At that time the Arab national movement was a force to be reckoned with in the Middle East. Much of British policy was designed to weaken it in order to hold on to the Suez canal. For that reason, while keeping the Arabs at arm’s length, Britain kept Zionist settlement in Palestine within limits. A right-wing group of Jews took up a ‘terrorist’ struggle against British forces. Ex-premier Shamir was a prominent leader and proudly proclaimed his terrorist past.

They did not at all mind using terrorism to seize Palestine and throw out the British. However, when Palestinians fought against Israel for their land - theirs for centuries past, they were denounced as terrorists.




http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/wpnz/oct8-00zionism.htm


Israel would not never have existed if the Ottoman Empire never sided with the central powers.

[pharaoh]

ForestGump wrote: pharaoh wrote: ForestGump wrote: pharaoh wrote: ForestGump wrote: If the ottoman empire hadnt sided with the Central Powers, then Israel wouldnt exist today.

If Iraq hadnt invaded Kuwait, we wouldnt be in Iraq today.

The western world isnt the one initiating all this crap.

Israel would have been created anyway,whether the Ottoman empire entered the war or not.


Dishonest statement. The British Empire used The Great War as an opportunity to create a puppet state. If no opportunity existed, then Israel would still be a figment of the imagination of a couple wacked out Zionists.

No its not a dishonest statement.Turkey lost the war in 1919 and Israel was created After WW2 in 1948.
The Ottoman empire was already crumbling and falling apart when WW1 started.Its leaders decided to enter the war as a desperate act to save the empire.So even if the Ottoman empire didnt enter the war it would have perished anyway which would have left Britian and France in control of the middle east.



Betrayal, plus ‘divide and rule’

This promise was callously betrayed. Playing their long-practised imperialist game of divide and rule, Britain and France secretly signed a promise to the Zionists to ‘establish a national home for the Jews in Palestine’, and shortly afterwards secretly signed the ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement’ promising Palestine to the Arabs in return for a revolutionary Arab liberation war against the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), which war in fact largely won the war in the Middle East for the Allied Powers.

What became Palestine was actually only a part of the original territory. The newly-formed ‘League of Nations’ divided that territory between Britain and France, the latter getting Syria and Lebanon while Britain got Iraq, Palestine and semi-colonial rule over Jordan. The so-called ‘mandates’ handed by the League to Britain and France over these lands were simply the transfer of colonial rule from Turkey to Britain and France. These were the spoils of the imperialist world war. The Arab peoples got absolutely nothing except lies.

In Palestine, Britain played up to both Jews and Arabs. In 1924 Sir Alfred Mond, head of the armaments combine Brunner Mond, (later to become Imperial Chemical Industries) wrote to the British Government promising that Britain would have a loyal ally in Zionism in the Middle East.

Growth of the Arab national movement

Britain welcomed this with the ‘Balfour Declaration’, knowingly inflaming Arab nationalism by its promise of a ‘Jewish National Home’. At that time the Arab national movement was a force to be reckoned with in the Middle East. Much of British policy was designed to weaken it in order to hold on to the Suez canal. For that reason, while keeping the Arabs at arm’s length, Britain kept Zionist settlement in Palestine within limits. A right-wing group of Jews took up a ‘terrorist’ struggle against British forces. Ex-premier Shamir was a prominent leader and proudly proclaimed his terrorist past.

They did not at all mind using terrorism to seize Palestine and throw out the British. However, when Palestinians fought against Israel for their land - theirs for centuries past, they were denounced as terrorists.




http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/wpnz/oct8-00zionism.htm


Israel would not never have existed if the Ottoman Empire never sided with the central powers.

Actually what you wrote (or quoted) supports my point of view.

[ForestGump]

:lol: D'OH!

[StarsNstripes]

Suleiman the Magnificent wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Why is Islam so totally against the State of Israel?

Muslims can live there too, why not just treat it like any other nation in the area?

Because Israel was stolen from the Palestinian people. The Israeli's kicked out most of the Arab's and terrorized their populations (they still are to this day).

Islam isn't against Israel - most Muslims are.

Israel is the terrorist state? Jeeez..... Skewed view point.

[pharaoh]

StarsNstripes wrote: Suleiman the Magnificent wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Why is Islam so totally against the State of Israel?

Muslims can live there too, why not just treat it like any other nation in the area?

Because Israel was stolen from the Palestinian people. The Israeli's kicked out most of the Arab's and terrorized their populations (they still are to this day).

Islam isn't against Israel - most Muslims are.

Israel is the terrorist state? Jeeez..... Skewed view point.

Actually Israel IS a terrorist state.

[StarsNstripes]

pharaoh wrote: StarsNstripes wrote: Suleiman the Magnificent wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Why is Islam so totally against the State of Israel?

Muslims can live there too, why not just treat it like any other nation in the area?

Because Israel was stolen from the Palestinian people. The Israeli's kicked out most of the Arab's and terrorized their populations (they still are to this day).

Islam isn't against Israel - most Muslims are.

Israel is the terrorist state? Jeeez..... Skewed view point.

Actually Israel IS a terrorist state.

No its an Artificial state just like the rest of the middle east. all of your borders? artificial remains left over from french and english colonialism.

The whole middle east is artificially made, so why call the Israeli's terrorists? They were an afterthought. They didn't one day decide lets go ruin the lives of muslims in the middle east.

They were told that this is their country. They went, and at first the palestinians there didn't mind the new commerce. They didn't mind until they were wholely out numbered in certain regions and then the whole damn region erupted with this that and the other thing.

[ForestGump]

StarsNstripes wrote: pharaoh wrote: StarsNstripes wrote: Suleiman the Magnificent wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Why is Islam so totally against the State of Israel?

Muslims can live there too, why not just treat it like any other nation in the area?

Because Israel was stolen from the Palestinian people. The Israeli's kicked out most of the Arab's and terrorized their populations (they still are to this day).

Islam isn't against Israel - most Muslims are.

Israel is the terrorist state? Jeeez..... Skewed view point.

Actually Israel IS a terrorist state.

No its an Artificial state just like the rest of the middle east. all of your borders? artificial remains left over from french and english colonialism.




What isnt.

America is the artificial remains left over from french, english, spanish, portugese, dutch...........................Russian (alaska) colonialism. Just deal with it, or go CRY TO MAMMA!

And the native tribes that sided with our enemies myseriously dissapeared into the west. Its how things work.

[StarsNstripes]

ForestGump wrote: StarsNstripes wrote: pharaoh wrote: StarsNstripes wrote: Suleiman the Magnificent wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Why is Islam so totally against the State of Israel?

Muslims can live there too, why not just treat it like any other nation in the area?

Because Israel was stolen from the Palestinian people. The Israeli's kicked out most of the Arab's and terrorized their populations (they still are to this day).

Islam isn't against Israel - most Muslims are.

Israel is the terrorist state? Jeeez..... Skewed view point.

Actually Israel IS a terrorist state.

No its an Artificial state just like the rest of the middle east. all of your borders? artificial remains left over from french and english colonialism.




What isnt.

America is the artificial remains left over from french, english, spanish, portugese, dutch...........................Russian (alaska) colonialism. Just deal with it, or go CRY TO MAMMA!

And the native tribes that sided with our enemies myseriously dissapeared into the west. Its how things work.

The United States earned its borders.

The Arab world had a bunch of lines drawn into the sand on a map and that was the new regional division for Arabs. Argue over lines in the sand but that doesn't make israel a terrorist state.

[pharaoh]

StarsNstripes,

Quote: No its an Artificial state just like the rest of the middle east. all of your borders? artificial remains left over from french and english colonialism.


Actually no.
Through out history nations and empires were created in the middle east thousands of years before the english and french colonialism.
There were always the Egyptian and Syrian and Iraqi etc...nations.They had more or less known borders.
The French and English divided the middle east while giving a certain concern on the history of the region.
While on the other hand Israel was created by immigrants in 1948.They based their claims on Palestine that they were once living there more than 3000 years ago!
Do you know that till this very day Israel has no fixed borders?! :shock:

[Locke25]

pharaoh wrote: There were always the Egyptian and Syrian and Iraqi etc...nations.They had more or less known borders.

before the europeans made it a country, i don't think the people of present-day iraq were a nation. aren't there like kurds, sunnis, and shi'ites all in that one country? why would all three of those groups made themselves a nation if they had not been forced to become one?

[StarsNstripes]

Locke25 wrote: pharaoh wrote: There were always the Egyptian and Syrian and Iraqi etc...nations.They had more or less known borders.

before the europeans made it a country, i don't think the people of present-day iraq were a nation. aren't there like kurds, sunnis, and shi'ites all in that one country? why would all three of those groups made themselves a nation if they had not been forced to become one?

If that arguement pharaoh had made was true then there would be a Kurdistan. Ignorance is bliss even in the minds of anti-Israeli proponents.

[pharaoh]

Locke25

Quote: before the europeans made it a country, i don't think the people of present-day iraq were a nation. aren't there like kurds, sunnis, and shi'ites all in that one country? why would all three of those groups made themselves a nation if they had not been forced to become one?

We might consider the Kurds and the Iraqis as different nations.
But as for sunnis and shi'ites,they are the same people with same religion Islam,but what mostly differentiate between shi'ites to the sunnis is their political agenda.
Iraqi people were always united,they formed a nation that lived for hundreds of years under the Babylion empire.
Then they ruled themselves under the Abbaside empire.
Saying that the arabs in general arent made up of nations is just wrong.

Quote: If that arguement pharaoh had made was true then there would be a Kurdistan. Ignorance is bliss even in the minds of anti-Israeli proponents.

Haha actually I dont think I am the ignorant one around here. :roll:
The kurds are indeed a nation and they do want to have their own country.But due to historical and political reasons they cant seem to acomplish their dream.
So how does that contradicts to what im saying??

[StarsNstripes]

Nation- a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state.

I don't think the Kurds qualify.

[Locke25]

Quote: We might consider the Kurds and the Iraqis as different nations.
But as for sunnis and shi'ites,they are the same people with same religion Islam,but what mostly differentiate between shi'ites to the sunnis is their political agenda.
Iraqi people were always united,they formed a nation that lived for hundreds of years under the Babylion empire.
Then they ruled themselves under the Abbaside empire.
Saying that the arabs in general arent made up of nations is just wrong.

there was no shi'ites and sunnis under the Babylonian empire because there was no Islam back then.

and yes, they were united under the abbaside caliphate, but what destroyed that caliphate was the civil war between the shi'ites and the sunnis. obviously the different groups couldn't stand being united with one another...

[pharaoh]

Quote: Nation- a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state.

I don't think the Kurds qualify.

Why not? They speak the same language and they want to have their own country.This is enough according to the UN.
Didnt the UN say that people should be free to decide their own future??
That will ofcourse collides with the interestes of Iraq and Turkey who know that the creation of a new kurdish state will ofcourse be placed on their lands.Thats why the kurds cant acheive their goal till now.

Quote: there was no shi'ites and sunnis under the Babylonian empire because there was no Islam back then.


Yeah I know and the Iraqis were still one nation.so?

Quote: and yes, they were united under the abbaside caliphate, but what destroyed that caliphate was the civil war between the shi'ites and the sunnis. obviously the different groups couldn't stand being united with one another...

NO the Abbaside caliphate was destroyed by the Mongols.

[curisz]

StarsNstripes wrote:

The United States earned its borders.

You make genocide sound like being a businessman! Interesting perspective.

StarsNstripes wrote:
The Arab world had a bunch of lines drawn into the sand on a map and that was the new regional division for Arabs. Argue over lines in the sand but that doesn't make israel a terrorist state.

But those lines in the sand had pretty much been accepted by those in the region for a long time, as well as can be expected in a desert area with few constant landmarks. There was not an awful lot of conflict between the arab nations created at that time, unlike the travesty of the lines drawn in sub-saharan Africa. Its true though that the Israeli's ultimately are not to blame so much as the British are.

Ultimately though, think of it like this: If 3 million Cherokee that had been hiding in China returned to North america and claimed the area you live in, and were knocking on your door telling you to leave as they were claiming your house as their ancestral home, would you just wish them well and move along? If not, and if the U.S. for whatever reason was unable to help you, and the Cherokee had the latest Chinese military equiptment, would you stand and fight, or would you head for the hills and try and take them down by "alternative" methods?