NBVegita Posted January 11, 2007 Author Report Posted January 11, 2007 I have no problems with what the romans did. But you can't say that it is fine that the ottoman empire got the land through imperialism, and then criticize the the British got the land through a pseudo imperialism. Just because there is a 500 year gap doesn't make it any more right or wrong. The reason why things don't happen like that anymore is because the last person to try that kind of imperialism was hitler and that resulted in WWII. And the simple fact is almost the entire area highlighted in brown was what used to be the ottoman empire. Of course they're not going to support it. You overrun a country and tell them you're taking away part of their land and see what anyone does. They lost the land to a stronger military force. If someone took alaska tomorrow, and we couldn't through military means take it back, then we lose alaska. It is the way of the world. And it still happens today. Case in point, Mogadishu.
SeVeR Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 Okay so you have no problem with the Romans and you have no problem with the British Empire.... so would you have a problem if America never gave Iraq back? Or what about if Iran conquered one of their neighboring countries? You wouldn't have a problem with any of this? The only reason i have an indifference to the British empires 25 year acquisition of the Palestinian territory is because there was absolutely no point to it. Britain cannot be attacked from that far away (especially back then). I am against all imperialism. Now the reason i'm less critical of the Ottoman empire is because they were expanding their borders. That is something i can understand as the neighboring forces may be a threat to the empire. Back then it was common place to attack your neighbours because governments did not exist, all you had is kings who regularly pissed eachother off and mobilised their armies. Neighbours were always a threat, better to be safe than sorry, especially in those times. This doesn't apply to Britain's acquisition of Israel/Palestine. For this reason 500 years is significant; Britain is/was a democracy and is not a neighbour of Palestine. The cultural, social, educational development after 500 years also cannot be overlooked, neither can the birth of international law to prevent these things from happening... let alone the lessons of World War 1. The victors dividing up the spoils is nothing more than Hitler would have done. I'm glad we saw sense and gave most of it back, but not until after we'd ruined the Middle East. The area in brown is not the Ottoman empire. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan are all countries that never came under Ottoman rule; Wikipedia is as good a source as any to prove that. Yet the Middle East got about as much say as all those green votes in South America who have absolutely no importance in the region other than to vote on the side of America for economic reasons, what a disgrace. Case in point, Mogadishu. If you want to take one small city in Somalia as an example i'm fine with that. You're right, its changing hands based on the stronger force, in this case Christianity (America) is winning the religious war with its African Christian allies. So... how far back in time would you estimate the social situation in Africa is compared to a time in our history? 200 years? 500 years? 1000 years? I'd expect any estimate to come well before 1920.
NBVegita Posted January 12, 2007 Author Report Posted January 12, 2007 Well notice that no one would support America taking over Iraq. The point of the U.N. is by nominee each country has a say with what happens in the world. Much like a democracy. Certain countries have more pull than others, note the permanent members of the U.N. Because in a regional dispute, the jews would have said they were for it. The British too, they get to be involved being they were occupying the territory. And now the arab territories of the area disagree. Of course they do, noone wants land that they killed for taken away. And that would be a never ending dispute. One side says yes, the other no. So that is why we have the U.N. to settle matters like this and many others. The mojority of the U.N./world was for the creation of israel. Even if only 51% were for it, that is the majority. If you look at the U.N. countries are always settling matters that have no concern to them, or minor concern. But that is what our civilization has come to. The U.N. is the civilized way to solve these disputes rather than having another vietnam where world powers each pick a side and watch the blood pour.
SeVeR Posted January 12, 2007 Report Posted January 12, 2007 Ok, so you trust the post-war UN to have made an unbiased decision... given the power of America at that point in history as the only power on Earth with all other powers crippled by WW2 and begging for America's help. I don't trust any vote made in that economic climate. Remember this is a time when America was giving out billion dollar grants to crippled economies around the world as well as multi-billion dollar loans. Surely its obvious that any decision to put a new country somewhere should be discussed and agreed upon with the neighboring countries. A vote where the side with the most supporters wins regardless of whether its the right thing to do or not is begging for the 60 year conflict that has followed.
Aileron Posted January 18, 2007 Report Posted January 18, 2007 The inadequacy of the U.N. aside, the critical point I would like to make here is that Israel wasn't formed by an actual conquest. It was territory that the UK aquired in WWI, due to Ottoman's involvement. The UK went into WWI to preserve the balance of power in Europe and aquiring territories in the Middle East was the last thing on their mind. They decided to have Israel formed out of part of that territory. It may not have been a well liked decision in the area, but it was not a conquest. I guess under that cir!@#$%^&*stance I might fight the decision, and the arab world did fight the decision. They fought a war. However, eventually that open war ended and treaties were signed. The decision then facing some arabs is to accept the treaty or to give in to hatred and attempt terrorism. When Hamas or Hezbollah blows up a school bus or a theatre, that has nothing to do with liberating territories. That is about fulfilling their hatred. By treaty, Israel's claim to the territory is legitimate. If one has a desire to retake that territory, they may do so, though Israel should not be criticised for stopping such attempts. The murder of civilians however accomplishes nothing. You can't expect Israel to just stand there and take hit after hit. If party A kills the civilians party B, party A has no right to complain if party B takes their !@#$%^&*es out the following week. If Hamas and Hezbollah want to fight, then they want to fight, and therefore should not get protection from the possibility of losing that fight. If you gamble and lose your life savings, its not the casino's fault, but your own.
NBVegita Posted January 18, 2007 Author Report Posted January 18, 2007 Isreal being created had the most supporters (world wide that is).
SeVeR Posted January 20, 2007 Report Posted January 20, 2007 Israel was formed after a British conquest during WW1. Whether they were right or wrong to intially invade does not matter, they probably were right to invade for strategic reasons. Where it becomes wrong is when they gave that land to a people who did not live in the region. Even with the huge influx of Jewish immigrants due to pro-Zionist western governments the region was still 3:1 Arab. Aileron, if you don't want to define that as a conquest i don't really care since that word can have multiple meanings, the British did not sluaghter anyone, they merely conquered the land in the name of the Zionists as that is who they gave this conquered land to, simple as that. I am however glad that you understand the Arabs have a reason to fight. The murder of civilians accomplishes nothing other than to get the attention of the western media, which in turn gets the attention of the western public, which in turn makes the western public think about WHY they're killing people, which is the only card they have to play. Unfortunately they don't understand that killing civilians makes people hate them even more, better to attack to Israeli military.... like what Hezbollah did recently. I don't expect Israel to just stand there, i fully expect the Zionists to defend their land. Just like i fully expect them to portray anti-zionists as anti-semitic racists... to criticise Israel is to be a racist, i just want people to know the difference.
Aileron Posted January 25, 2007 Report Posted January 25, 2007 If someone wants the media's attention, they mount a protest. The problem with hatred is that one needs to have first hand experience with someone who hates in order to understand it. Lets just say I know of such a person in my real life. There are certain rules that followers of hatred follow which are neither rational nor logical, though they do not know they are following them because rule #1 of following hatred is to not regonize the fact that one has suc!@#$%^&*bed to hatred. Rule #2 states that the target of the hatred is always wrong and that the target causes all wrong in the world. If Andrew hates Bill and Charlie walks up and punches Andrew in the face, Andrew will blame Bill for it. Rule #3 states that a hater always has a "justification" for his/her actions. Usually this amounts to some pathetic excuse, though sometimes they can use a valid justification and just overreact. A hypothetical (admittingly extreme) example would be a hater who sees his target jay-walk and "executes" him for it by running him over in his car. Rule #4 is that all acts are tailored to sow as much hate in the target as possible. This rule scares me. While it is ultimately up the the target to decide what to do, what it does demonstrate is that because of the complication of the human mind, our hatred can in many ways behave like a sentient independant lifeform (in this case by having a desire to reproduce by spreading to other people). There are also a few myths attached to hatred Myth #1: Haters can't love. Infact, they can. The hatefull desire will allow love in order to follow Rule #4 in an attempt to recruit nuetrals to the side of the host. Besides, the other base evil desires will appreciate any individual who is beneficial to the host, and thus will allow love out of self interest. Myth #2: Haters are incapable of intelligence. While true logic and reason does indeed escape haters, a level of intelligence in the host allows the hatefull desire to create a facade of reason. Humankind's greater levels of reason abhores hatred, forcing the desire to conceal itself as much as possible. The desire creates the facade in order to preserve the host's social standing and as an attempt to recruit more persons into the hatefull cause. Myth #3: Hate makes the host stronger and more determined. It certainly makes the host feel as such, but in reality it brings euphoria and tunnel-vision. While in some cases it can release adreneline into the blood, that pales in comparison to the level that stronger more righteous desires are capable of releasing, such as a mother's desire to save her baby from a life-threatening situation. Suffice to say terrorists show every sign of hatred that I can think of from my own personal experience. They have their targets who they blame for everything that goes wrong, their excuses, and they use methods not designed to achieve victory or even sympathy, but in attempts to sow hatred into their enemies.
SeVeR Posted January 25, 2007 Report Posted January 25, 2007 Very informative although i'm not sure if you're !@#$%^&*uming that it's wrong to hate. Hate is a natural emotion and has its uses. For example it aids self-preservation as those who disgust us are most likely disgusted by us. Hatred for those who want to kill us may be a healthy emotion to hold onto. Hatred encourages us to bring those we hate to justice, eliminating the threat they may pose. Rule 1: Not realising the dawn of hatred in oneself. If hatred is justified one might call it a determination for justice. Your perception of hatred is only the determined drive of those you disagree with. Rule 2: All wrongs can be traced back to the hated. I may never have experienced hate so wouldn't know if this is true. I have seen the way in which conslusions are drawn from less and less evidence the more we dislike a person. I may be guilty of that to an extent although i will always come back to any previous !@#$%^&*umption and cast doubt. You can doubt everything. You can't know anything. Rule 3: Haters always have a jusitification for their actions. Unquestionably yes, but your definition of what a valid jusitification is will be different from everyone elses. Personally i hate Fox News, i see an agenda behind many of the things they broadcast, yet i believe i am justified. I won't go blowing up Fox News Headquarters but even your defintion of what an over-reaction is should be brought into question. Maybe by criticising them in the ways i do i am over-reacting, maybe my justification is wrong. What i'm trying to say is it's all relative. Hate is relative, we can doubt every premise and all we have, to predict a truth, is the level of doubt we encounter or that we know about in the world. Just define everything: What is hatred? Could be an irrational justification to wish harm on another. What is a irrational justification? ..... A justification i've come to disagree with. THats not a definition.
Recommended Posts