Do you think the World would be as Polarized if we had not, in 1947 Created a Nation in a Land that was already occupied for centuries?
Poll
Israel had been Established Elsewhere would Arabs still Be Terrorist?
| Yes | 52% | 52% - 49 | ||||
| No | 47% | 47% - 44 | ||||
| Total: 93 | ||||||
No. U guys wouldn't have invaded a bunch of countries for no reason, and they wouldn't be angry today. And no jews to piss 'em off.
I do think that the biggest "motivation" muslims have to hate the US and other western countries is our support of Israel.
In all actuality, though, we didn't just "give" Palestine to the Jews. Jews actually started moving to the area before 1900. A lot moved from Russia; they were being massacred there. Then there were major movements by Jews to buy up as much of the land as possible.
After WWII, I think there was a rebellion, so the Brits said "Fuck this" and pulled out. The Jews seized control.
I could be wrong on some of the facts, and welcome anyone who has better information than I.
EDIT: Regardless, I don't think we should back Israel like we do. It just makes matters worse.
In all actuality, though, we didn't just "give" Palestine to the Jews. Jews actually started moving to the area before 1900. A lot moved from Russia; they were being massacred there. Then there were major movements by Jews to buy up as much of the land as possible.
After WWII, I think there was a rebellion, so the Brits said "Fuck this" and pulled out. The Jews seized control.
I could be wrong on some of the facts, and welcome anyone who has better information than I.
EDIT: Regardless, I don't think we should back Israel like we do. It just makes matters worse.
Last edited by atlvolunteer (2006-01-07 18:41:21)
Yeah but Madagascar isn't the "holy land" now the middle east might have had more unity then having a group with different belifes there(that expand and kill Palastinanies all the time). Jewish people have been living there in settlements since BC times but only had colines(spl), they only became a real nation after the WW2. As far as terrorism is conncerned if we didn't have Isreal in the middle east we probably wouldn't have one of the best armies disrupting the contries over there, so one of two things would have happened. They would have been peaceful and contribbed into the world like India, or WW3 would have happened.
I would like to think that it would be peaceful but the countries over there are all full of interanal strife as well, like back in the midevil days of England. From what I can imagine is that it's probably alot like the innercity gangs of our days, lots of people fighting over little differences.
Is there anyone on this site that has lived there(before my country invaded), and could clarify this for us?
I would like to think that it would be peaceful but the countries over there are all full of interanal strife as well, like back in the midevil days of England. From what I can imagine is that it's probably alot like the innercity gangs of our days, lots of people fighting over little differences.
Is there anyone on this site that has lived there(before my country invaded), and could clarify this for us?
I am not a expert in middle east history but I dare say that the so called "holy land" was most likely inhabitated by a large number of different tribes and all sorts of different ethnic groups over the last 4000 years or so. So saying that one specific ethnic group or tribe has a god-given right for some of that land is probably untrue.
It is always difficult when superpowers draw lines and create new nations from scratch ( most often after large military conflicts ). This has been the case on the balcans, in africa and of course the middle east. rivalries that have existed between the various ethnic groups in that region before are bound to go on, especially when different religions come into the mix.
the original post seems to imply that the basis for all middle eastern terrorists today was the creation of israel in 1947. Fair assumption to make, I guess.
Would the security situation in the middle east have developed differently if Israel hadn't been ceated ? maybe, but to an extent where terrorism from the middle east would not exist at all today ? I doubt it.
I believe people from the middle east are generally unhappy with the way the west has been interfering with their "internal" affairs. a lot of that anger is directed against the US, but that is only natural looking at the extent of US involvement in that region.
to me, the single most important factor here is oil. The western democracies depend on it. our economies run on it. that is why we are thoroughly interested in a stable middle east. stability in the middle east means continuous oil support.
Now, is democracy a supposition for stability ? difficult to say. quite some of the oil producing countries in the middle east are not democratic, saudia arabia, UAE, oman, kuwait. the US calles some of them their allies and most likely will never ask them to replace their tribe-based monarchies with western democracy.
the oil situation is as it is. even if israel had not been created, the west would still have had a considerable interest in the middle east, which would have provoked terrorist movements by muslims against the "infidels" anyway. so my guess would be that the answer to the initial question would be yes.
It is always difficult when superpowers draw lines and create new nations from scratch ( most often after large military conflicts ). This has been the case on the balcans, in africa and of course the middle east. rivalries that have existed between the various ethnic groups in that region before are bound to go on, especially when different religions come into the mix.
the original post seems to imply that the basis for all middle eastern terrorists today was the creation of israel in 1947. Fair assumption to make, I guess.
Would the security situation in the middle east have developed differently if Israel hadn't been ceated ? maybe, but to an extent where terrorism from the middle east would not exist at all today ? I doubt it.
I believe people from the middle east are generally unhappy with the way the west has been interfering with their "internal" affairs. a lot of that anger is directed against the US, but that is only natural looking at the extent of US involvement in that region.
to me, the single most important factor here is oil. The western democracies depend on it. our economies run on it. that is why we are thoroughly interested in a stable middle east. stability in the middle east means continuous oil support.
Now, is democracy a supposition for stability ? difficult to say. quite some of the oil producing countries in the middle east are not democratic, saudia arabia, UAE, oman, kuwait. the US calles some of them their allies and most likely will never ask them to replace their tribe-based monarchies with western democracy.
the oil situation is as it is. even if israel had not been created, the west would still have had a considerable interest in the middle east, which would have provoked terrorist movements by muslims against the "infidels" anyway. so my guess would be that the answer to the initial question would be yes.
" the oil situation is as it is. even if israel had not been created, the west would still have had a considerable interest in the middle east, which would have provoked terrorist movements by muslims against the "infidels" anyway. so my guess would be that the answer to the initial question would be yes "
We want to buy their oil, we are the largest consumers of their oil.
They want to sell their oil, it is the only marketable commodidty they posses.
Yet we back there mortal enemy fanicaily and millitarily.
I think if it wasn't for or relationship with Israel. We would be reading about the region in national geographic and liuttle else
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We want to buy their oil, we are the largest consumers of their oil.
They want to sell their oil, it is the only marketable commodidty they posses.
Yet we back there mortal enemy fanicaily and millitarily.
I think if it wasn't for or relationship with Israel. We would be reading about the region in national geographic and liuttle else
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the anthropological definition of war is conflict between maximal societies. when there are powerful interests there will be conflict, and i know some of you might scoff at the notion that the middle east constitutes a maximal society, but they have access to the oil which other maximal societies depend on, so they're maximal by proxy.
in a nutshell, they would just use a different motivator to brainwash their citizens to hate their enemy.
in a nutshell, they would just use a different motivator to brainwash their citizens to hate their enemy.
Except for that fact that without our blind and undying support for Israel, they wouldnt know we exist.Krappyappy wrote:
the anthropological definition of war is conflict between maximal societies. when there are powerful interests there will be conflict, and i know some of you might scoff at the notion that the middle east constitutes a maximal society, but they have access to the oil which other maximal societies depend on, so they're maximal by proxy.
in a nutshell, they would just use a different motivator to brainwash their citizens to hate their enemy.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but the middle east makes up maybe 10% of oil consumption, there is much more in Africa(where things are much worse then the middle east). So why are there no African terrorist? Also it is so much more religion then oil that motivates everyone's love for that area including christian(how many times did our knights try to take that land back).
Also different motivator to brainwash their citizens, I'd have to say majority of there citizens don't really care. And they would have different political powers(gangs) fighting each other for the oil trade and power.
Also different motivator to brainwash their citizens, I'd have to say majority of there citizens don't really care. And they would have different political powers(gangs) fighting each other for the oil trade and power.
lol horseman is also an intellect!!
nice thread
nice thread
Wow man I am flattered, You usaully chase me down the street tossing quart bottles at me ! lolWaGoN_aTTacK wrote:
lol horseman is also an intellect!!
nice thread
I will agree that our support of Israel doesn't help our relations in mid-east but they disliked us in general before Israel was created because we are a largely Christian society and Christians made several Crusades to take back the region (though to be fair the Muslims had there own Crusades against the Christians in Europe). Also, in response to cpt.fass1, there are terrorists in Africa, our news agencies just never report on terrorism (Janjaweed and other groups) or much anything else in Africa (for example, there's a war going on between Chad and Sudan that started on the 23rd, but did that make the news?).
so why are we ( the west ) backing Israel then ? As far as my country is concerned, I can imagine the reason, but why the US ?Horseman 77 wrote:
" the oil situation is as it is. even if israel had not been created, the west would still have had a considerable interest in the middle east, which would have provoked terrorist movements by muslims against the "infidels" anyway. so my guess would be that the answer to the initial question would be yes "
We want to buy their oil, we are the largest consumers of their oil.
They want to sell their oil, it is the only marketable commodidty they posses.
Yet we back there mortal enemy fanicaily and millitarily.
I think if it wasn't for or relationship with Israel. We would be reading about the region in national geographic and liuttle else
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it because of the strong jewish community in America ? Or are we looking for a democratic stronghold in the middle east ?
Pat Robertson wants us to and so we have no choice.B.Schuss wrote:
so why are we ( the west ) backing Israel then ? As far as my country is concerned, I can imagine the reason, but why the US ?Horseman 77 wrote:
" the oil situation is as it is. even if israel had not been created, the west would still have had a considerable interest in the middle east, which would have provoked terrorist movements by muslims against the "infidels" anyway. so my guess would be that the answer to the initial question would be yes "
We want to buy their oil, we are the largest consumers of their oil.
They want to sell their oil, it is the only marketable commodidty they posses.
Yet we back there mortal enemy fanicaily and millitarily.
I think if it wasn't for or relationship with Israel. We would be reading about the region in national geographic and liuttle else
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it because of the strong jewish community in America ? Or are we looking for a democratic stronghold in the middle east ?
This post I can tell is another BULLSHIT poll clearley .. ARABS aren't terriost ..The SHEI MUSLIMS ARE . .and these people are all kind of races . .Even in the USA. born usa citizens . . .and in thier defence all they want it is for the US to stay out of thier bussiness NOT try to change what they know and how they have been for years.THIER COUNTRY, THIER WAYS, THIER LAWS.
So again this is a very midless poll . .
So again this is a very midless poll . .
Folks like Robertson scare me. They are no different from the muslim fanatics they claim to fight. to me, the whole right wing christian movement is a dangerous combination of patriotism and christian fundamentalism.irenicus999 wrote:
Pat Robertson wants us to and so we have no choice.B.Schuss wrote:
so why are we ( the west ) backing Israel then ? As far as my country is concerned, I can imagine the reason, but why the US ?Horseman 77 wrote:
" the oil situation is as it is. even if israel had not been created, the west would still have had a considerable interest in the middle east, which would have provoked terrorist movements by muslims against the "infidels" anyway. so my guess would be that the answer to the initial question would be yes "
We want to buy their oil, we are the largest consumers of their oil.
They want to sell their oil, it is the only marketable commodidty they posses.
Yet we back there mortal enemy fanicaily and millitarily.
I think if it wasn't for or relationship with Israel. We would be reading about the region in national geographic and liuttle else
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it because of the strong jewish community in America ? Or are we looking for a democratic stronghold in the middle east ?
For a debate and serious issues forum, i see a lot of spelling and grammatical errors that i didn't expect.
I don't think Its Pat Robertson who got us invovled there.
Pat Robertson, isn't he the guy that said the Tsuiname(lazy that's y there's not of spelling and grammatical errors mr. teacher) hit the asia cause of there lack of faith?
yours included But who gives a Fcuk? Do you think using a spell checker makes you look smarter?Ikarti wrote:
For a debate and serious issues forum, i see a lot of spelling and grammatical errors that i didn't expect.
Then have at it, other wise.
i thnk u unerstan no ? lol
No, I think he said that about New Orleans and the gulf coast region. As I recall, he was also the one that called for the US to assasinate the Venezualian (sp?) president.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Pat Robertson, isn't he the guy that said the Tsuiname(lazy that's y there's not of spelling and grammatical errors mr. teacher) hit the asia cause of there lack of faith?
Yeah he did. He's a moron. I think he's getting senile. After saying we should assassinate Chavez, he came our and said the media took his comment out of context. How can you take "we should go in there and take out Chavez" out of context? (I know that's not exactly what he said but you get the idea)Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
No, I think he said that about New Orleans and the gulf coast region. As I recall, he was also the one that called for the US to assasinate the Venezualian (sp?) president.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Pat Robertson, isn't he the guy that said the Tsuiname(lazy that's y there's not of spelling and grammatical errors mr. teacher) hit the asia cause of there lack of faith?
Our support of Israel is not the only reason that Muslims don't like us. Hell, they've been fighting amongst themselves between the Sunis, Shiites, and Kurds forever...
If we didn't supply the weapons to Israel, some one else would, but even then all our other medling in the middle east would still have us as targets. While there are some very extreme radicals that believe everyone will be a Muslim or they will dead, we have created our own problems in the Muslim nations.
I also don't see allowing the Jews to be kicked out of, yet another, area and slaughtered as the way to handle it. The Jews have been the red headed stepchildren since the days of their enslavement by Egypt. The Jews would be happy to coexist with the Muslims, but the Muslims don't want to coexist with them.
If we didn't supply the weapons to Israel, some one else would, but even then all our other medling in the middle east would still have us as targets. While there are some very extreme radicals that believe everyone will be a Muslim or they will dead, we have created our own problems in the Muslim nations.
I also don't see allowing the Jews to be kicked out of, yet another, area and slaughtered as the way to handle it. The Jews have been the red headed stepchildren since the days of their enslavement by Egypt. The Jews would be happy to coexist with the Muslims, but the Muslims don't want to coexist with them.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-01-13 11:51:16)
I have very few jewish friends, but from what I gather from the hasidics around here is that they wouldn't be happy to coexist with the Muslims, there's not even happy to coexist with the christins and look down on everybody.
I'm makeing a generalization because it's all I really can do I'm not a racist or anti-semitic cause I also can't stand christians who take there religion too serious AKA good ol' buddy boy Pat. Isreal is a country based around their religion like all the other middle east countries, so I can see how it causes a strife there.
And here's a question for you. If the middle east countries had a modern day army would there be an Isreal?
I'm makeing a generalization because it's all I really can do I'm not a racist or anti-semitic cause I also can't stand christians who take there religion too serious AKA good ol' buddy boy Pat. Isreal is a country based around their religion like all the other middle east countries, so I can see how it causes a strife there.
And here's a question for you. If the middle east countries had a modern day army would there be an Isreal?