Because we all know that the modern Iraq is exactly the same as the Iraq from the past, before the British + French split up the Ottoman Empire, right?



http://www.smm.org/research/Anthropology/cuneiform/images/maps/near_east.jpg

Hmmmm, funny how Mesopotamia (which was renamed Iraq when the Arabs invaded) includes Kuwait. Then again, since when have Western war mongers ever mentioned Mesopotamia, or the lands which constituted Iraq during the Ottoman Empire? I guess it sort of confuses the audience when the Westerners promised the Arabs the 'unity and independence of their lands', and then split them up to nerf the area. Oh well.

Your point?

Yes, kuwait used to be a province of Iraq. That was one of the arguments used by Saddam.

In a way he was right of course. Not to mention the fact that the people in charge of kuwait are ruthless bastards themselves. They are just a little further up the ass of the US then Iraq ever was.

Because we all know that the modern Iraq is exactly the same as the Iraq from the past, before the British + French split up the Ottoman Empire, right?



http://www.smm.org/research/Anthropology/cuneiform/images/maps/near_east.jpg

Hmmmm, funny how Mesopotamia (which was renamed Iraq when the Arabs invaded) includes Kuwait. Then again, since when have Western war mongers ever mentioned Mesopotamia, or the lands which constituted Iraq during the Ottoman Empire? I guess it sort of confuses the audience when the Westerners promised the Arabs the 'unity and independence of their lands', and then split them up to nerf the area. Oh well.

So what? The territories of the world have been divided, reunited, and split apart many times in history. Based on that rather silly idea that you're presenting, we/they should take large chunks of Europe and the U.K. and give it back to the Italians. After all, a very large portion of it once belonged to Rome. :D

Why not? I'd rather like to a reunited Europe, centered on Rome, ruled by an Augustan-esque Emperor.
Anyway, Kuwait was an Iraqi province, the Kuwaitis are ethnically the same thing as Iraqis, so, eh. His invasion was justified, but then again, so was Desert Storm, after he started shootin' SCUDs at our allies (Kuwait and Israel).

Where did you get that biased map? Why isn't the island of CYPRUS named? WTF.. I see this happen so often, it wasn't even named when a map containing it showed up in the movie Alexander The Great! I'm sure it's an American conspiracy to NOT acknowledge that the island even EXISTS! Anyone looking at that map might reasonably think that the island shown there is a part of TURKEY, which is EXACTLY what the USA and UK have wanted for decades!

Light:


So what? The territories of the world have been divided, reunited, and split apart many times in history. Based on that rather silly idea that you're presenting, we/they should take large chunks of Europe and the U.K. and give it back to the Italians. After all, a very large portion of it once belonged to Rome.

Thank you!

Then please explain why the U.S attacked Iraq after it invaded Kuwait (a former province), whereas it did not attack Israel when it stole land of the Arabs. The excuse used by the Israelis was 'well, it was our land 2,000 years ago!' (as if the Canaanites and Philistines never existed).

Why wasn't Saddam allowed to annex a former province of Iraq (Mesopotamia), whereas Israel was allowed to annex Arab land to form a state which existed at roughly the same time Mespotamia was formed?

Uhh yeah especially as Saddam used the WMDs America sold him,
the botulism, anthrax etc.
its all documented.

and the poison gas he used on the Kurds.

I'm not saying saddam wasnt bad
i'm saying america helped him

Anyone looking at that map might reasonably think that the island shown there is a part of TURKEY
Welll, even though the Cypriots say differently, I don't recognize them as a nation, and I see them as part of Turkey. Same thing with Taiwan. I officially see the Chinese claim as valid, and thus do not recognize Taiwan. It is all a matter of personal opinion.

Welll, even though the Cypriots say differently, I don't recognize them as a nation, and I see them as part of Turkey. Same thing with Taiwan. I officially see the Chinese claim as valid, and thus do not recognize Taiwan. It is all a matter of personal opinion.


This is exactly the type of idiotic ignorance I'm talking about.

Cyprus is a European nation with 3000 years of GREEK history, with a population of 750000 Greek Cypriots. The Greek Cypriot Government and constitution is officially recognised by the whole world with the sole exception of Turkey!

Turkey invaded and occupied 1/3 of the (independent) island in 1974 on the pretext that it was protecting the indigenous 100000 Turkish Cypriots after a short lived right-wing insurgency and attempted coup organised by America, Britain and the Greek colonels in Greece.

Turkey still maintains 50000 Turkish troops and has imported up to 200000 Turkish settlers from Anatolia. Half the indigenous Turkish Cypriots have left the island since 1974 as they couldn't stand the poor living conditions and Turkish oppression.

The self proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is officially an illegal regime unrecognised by anyone apart from Turkey and Hapsburg! :rolleyes: :mad:

tabla:


Where did you get that biased map? Why isn't the island of CYPRUS named? WTF.. I see this happen so often, it wasn't even named when a map containing it showed up in the movie Alexander The Great! I'm sure it's an American conspiracy to NOT acknowledge that the island even EXISTS! Anyone looking at that map might reasonably think that the island shown there is a part of TURKEY, which is EXACTLY what the USA and UK have wanted for decades!

Now that I think about it, you do have a point. Cyprus should have been marked, otherwise the viewer will naturally assume that it was part of Turkey.

Nevertheless, that is incidental. The point I was making is that Mespotamia (aka. Ancient Iraq) included the lands of Kuwait. That map was the best I could find when stressing my main argument.

It just angers me when I see my country disregarded like this and it happens too often, like it's part of some secret agenda to make people forget it or not realise that it actually exists, which I truly believe it is. There was once a map of the region in Car magazine and the island wasn't even shown!

You can be sure the big powers have something horrendous lined up for us.. Cyprus is situated next to the biggest oil reserve discovered so far, a space shared by Syria and Lebanon.. not the USA's or Britain's favourite countrie!

Where did you get that biased map? Why isn't the island of CYPRUS named? WTF.. I see this happen so often, it wasn't even named when a map containing it showed up in the movie Alexander The Great! I'm sure it's an American conspiracy to NOT acknowledge that the island even EXISTS! Anyone looking at that map might reasonably think that the island shown there is a part of TURKEY, which is EXACTLY what the USA and UK have wanted for decades!

The number of world maps I've seen where New Zealand isn't even shown in the Pacific--it's disgraceful! :D

This is exactly the type of idiotic ignorance I'm talking about.

Cyprus is a European nation with 3000 years of GREEK history, with a population of 750000 Greek Cypriots. The Greek Cypriot Government and constitution is officially recognised by the whole world with the sole exception of Turkey!

Turkey invaded and occupied 1/3 of the (independent) island in 1974 on the pretext that it was protecting the indigenous 100000 Turkish Cypriots after a short lived right-wing insurgency and attempted coup organised by America, Britain and the Greek colonels in Greece.

Turkey still maintains 50000 Turkish troops and has imported up to 200000 Turkish settlers from Anatolia. Half the indigenous Turkish Cypriots have left the island since 1974 as they couldn't stand the poor living conditions and Turkish oppression.

The self proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is officially an illegal regime unrecognised by anyone apart from Turkey and Hapsburg! :rolleyes: :mad:
Why the fuck are you so pissed? I don't honestly care about Cyprus, for all I'm concerned, the Cypriots can go fuck themselves with iron pikes, but I like doing things that the government tells me not to do, so I support Turkey, despite my nickname.

Because we all know that the modern Iraq is exactly the same as the Iraq from the past, before the British + French split up the Ottoman Empire, right?

This is almost as accurate as your placing the first german reich in the 1800s :p If you are going to run your mouth in the history section at least read a little first.




Hmmmm, funny how Mesopotamia (which was renamed Iraq when the Arabs invaded) includes Kuwait. Then again, since when have Western war mongers ever mentioned Mesopotamia, or the lands which constituted Iraq during the Ottoman Empire? I guess it sort of confuses the audience when the Westerners promised the Arabs the 'unity and independence of their lands', and then split them up to nerf the area. Oh well.

So you are basically in favor of military action to resolve border disputes and along with it the resulting death and destruction :rolleyes:

Yeah and bad Iran for defending itself against Iraq, the Shat Al Arab should be part of iraq too, oh wait that was part of the persian empire as well as Iraq for centuries. Oh well.

Then please explain why the U.S attacked Iraq after it invaded Kuwait (a former province), whereas it did not attack Israel when it stole land of the Arabs. The excuse used by the Israelis was 'well, it was our land 2,000 years ago!'



They (kuwait) a little further up the ass of the US then Iraq ever was.

Israel are further up still. Somewhere around the mouth

Sock puppet:


This is almost as accurate as your placing the first german reich in the 1800s If you are going to run your mouth in the history section at least read a little first.

Obviously you still fail to grasp my subtle brand of sarcasm. Then again, somebody as slow-witted as yourself probably couldn't grasp their dick with both hands.



So you are basically in favor of military action to resolve border disputes and along with it the resulting death and destruction

Why not? Israel, America, Britain, France, Germany, and almost every other 'white' country has done so in the past. Why deny the Iraqis the same pleasure? At least they have a legit claim.

Why the fuck are you so pissed? I don't honestly care about Cyprus, for all I'm concerned, the Cypriots can go fuck themselves with iron pikes, but I like doing things that the government tells me not to do, so I support Turkey, despite my nickname.


Pighene gamisou vlako-poushtopedo!

Sock puppet:

Obviously you still fail to grasp my subtle brand of sarcasm.

I think you could sooner call it ignorance than sarcasm. Do some reading and find out who proped up the "sickman of europe" with military, political and monetary support until Kemal Attaturk finally did what was needed and abolished the caliphate. This support despite turkeys history of aggression against europe.


Then again, somebody as slow-witted as yourself probably couldn't grasp their dick with both hands.

Still playing the foulmouthed little boy I see. I can grasp it alright but as you point out not all of it. Remember foul language doesn't cover your lack of content ;)





Why not? Israel, America, Britain, France, Germany, and almost every other 'white' country has done so in the past..

Oh how scholarly the "evil whitey" argument :rolleyes:




Why deny the Iraqis the same pleasure? At least they have a legit claim.

Oh the Iraqis have had that pleasure plenty of times in the past andmay have again in the future. You still have a problem here with supporting aggression while arguing against aggression.

This is exactly the type of idiotic ignorance I'm talking about.

Cyprus is a European nation with 3000 years of GREEK history, with a population of 750000 Greek Cypriots. The Greek Cypriot Government and constitution is officially recognised by the whole world with the sole exception of Turkey!

Turkey invaded and occupied 1/3 of the (independent) island in 1974 on the pretext that it was protecting the indigenous 100000 Turkish Cypriots after a short lived right-wing insurgency and attempted coup organised by America, Britain and the Greek colonels in Greece.

Turkey still maintains 50000 Turkish troops and has imported up to 200000 Turkish settlers from Anatolia. Half the indigenous Turkish Cypriots have left the island since 1974 as they couldn't stand the poor living conditions and Turkish oppression.

The self proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is officially an illegal regime unrecognised by anyone apart from Turkey and Hapsburg! :rolleyes: :mad:


Excuse me 3000 years of Greek History? Why didn't you mention that the Island was also occupied by the Ottoman Turks and thats why there are also Turks there. The Turks invaded the Island under a peace operation after the Greek Cypriots (not Greeks) wanted to get rid of the Turks and unite with Greece. Yes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is officially not recognized but in reality everyone know that it exists and the island is divided in to 2. So, start looking for solutions instead of believing that there is only one Cyprus.

Yeah Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq and you can also see that it was an important part right at the sea. Oh, well :bugeye:

It had also as I mentioned been a part of Persia

http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/images/Maps/Persian%20Empire.jpg

And by the 6th century it had been occupied by an arab tribe

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~bvon/images/map1.gif

I still don't see how that would make it right for persia or arabia or anybody to invade a peaceful prosperous land. Should the greeks get anatolia back because it was part of the hellenic world for millenia?

A potted history of Cyprus... why it deserves to be named on maps and why it is not and never has been part of Turkey!

Cyprus: An island of aprox’ 850,000 inhabitants, composed roughly of 600,000 people of Greek origin, 50000 of other and 200000 0f Turkish origin.

Measuring about 200 km by 80km, it is situated in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, close to Turkey to the north, Syria and Lebanon to the east and is not far from Israel and Egypt to the south. Its location is one of the most strategic on the planet, being at the crossroads between Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

8000 years of Greek history, religion and culture. A history dotted with invasions and tugs of war. The Greek culture remained, even when the country had been invaded and occupied by the likes of but not limited to, the Persians, Egyptians, Romans, Knights of St John, Lusignans, Venetians, Ottomans, British Empire and last but not least, Turkey.

Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974 was prompted by circumstances of the cold war and the Greek Junta in Greece. The US backed far-right Junta, had been put in place to thwart perceived communist aspirations in the Greek government and in the poor, downtrodden people of the time. After sufficient time, when the people had been beaten and tortured into submission, the Junta was set to be dismantled and to be replaced with a democracy.

Cyprus, being an independent state, had been far removed from the horrors of the Greek colonels, but had its own problems. Its charismatic leader and also Archbishop, was President Makarios. He’d fought against the British, in Cyprus’ struggle for independence and had been exiled to the Seychelles by them, until he returned to take up presidency in a newly independent Cyprus in 1960.

The newly independent state, consisted of a democratically elected government composed of Greek and Turkish Cypriots according to population ratio, with Turks being in the minority. The Turkish Cypriots were actually the people that had been left behind, after 400 years of Ottoman rule (and many had mixed blood), when the British, at first annexed and then colonized, Cyprus from Turkey.

Although Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots had been living mainly peacefully and side-by-side for 400 years, there had always been an ancient and dormant animosity between them, the least not being, that the Greeks are Orthodox Christians and the Turks are Muslim. Further factored by the natural animosity between invader and his oppressed subjects.

The British had been well aware of this. When the Greek Cypriots rose up against the British in the mid 50’s in the EOKA struggle for independence, the divisive British rulers decided to revive old hatreds and so officially appointed Turkish thugs to police the Greek villages and towns. The Turkish ‘police’, keen to show off their powers and following British dictates, began to harass the Greeks. Scuffles began to break out between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Turks attacked Greek villages and the Greeks reciprocated by attacking Turkish villages. Terrorists on both sides, working for higher powers, had perpetrated most of the major incidents. The point had been to distract the Cypriots from their goal, that of independence from British rule and colonialism. But the seeds of discord had been sown.

In view of the renewed conflict between Greeks and Turks, there was a renewed call for ENOSIS (union with Greece), by a number of Greeks, frightened by the perceived threat of Turkey.

When Britain pulled out of Cyprus in 1960 (leaving a number of sovereign bases and radar espionage facilities on the island), both, Greeks and Turks, understandably feared one another. On this pretext of everlasting hate, Britain, Greece and Turkey were assigned as guarantors of Cyprus’ peace, integrity and independence.

Makarios, mistrustful of Britain and abhorrent of US duplicity, had the backing of the Cyprus socialist and communist parties and preferred to be on friendlier terms with the Soviets. This did not go down well with the Americans and when President Johnson infamously told Makarios that, “America is like an elephant and Cyprus like a flea and so the flea better watch out the elephant doesn’t squash it!” The Cypriots knew where they stood. In actual fact, the elephant Had been afraid of the flea, because the flea was friends with a giant grizzly.

After they (the US) got rid of the communist threat in Greece, the US turned their attention to Cyprus. After some minor skirmishes between Turks and Greeks, which were understandable, in view of the fact that Cyprus was a new state just coming to grips with its new found status, trying to build up its economy and establishing its power players and admittedly, the Greeks, not being totally fair with the indigenous Turks, who’d been considered as lazy and ignorant. There was fear amongst some far right wing Greeks that they would always be under threat from Turkey and stifled in their economic potential by the socialist government and again demanded ENOSIS with Greece.

The US and probably the British SS, taking advantage of these facts, arranged for their agent, General Grivas (a Cypriot hero and one time major player-nee-terrorist, in EOKA’s struggle against the British) to return to Cyprus from Greece (Junta) and to restart the terrorist organization; EOKA BETA, this time, calling for ENOSIS and the overthrow of Makarios. A coup was staged; Makarios was declared dead and the right wing EOKA BETA seized power from the left. Armed militias stormed into the towns and villages and subdued the population with threats. EOKA BETA, chose a pawn and declared a right wing newspaper editor, Nicos Samson, the new president.

Then, Makarios spoke to the people from his hiding place (he hadn’t died after all) and was covertly removed from Cyprus for his own safety, where he tried to seek international help.

Turkey (as a guarantor power) did not hesitate, to go to the aid of the apparently endangered Turkish Cypriots, even though this conflict had actually been between the Greeks. And, as soon as Makarios had vacated the island, they invaded from the north, by air and sea. The rural populace panicked and fled their homes en masse, fleeing to the south in their attempts to escape from the marauding masses of Turkish troops, leaving behind their belongings, their homes, businesses and land and becoming refugees in their own country.

The new government fell, just as suddenly as it had arose. To say that Turkey had used overkill wouldn’t do her justice.

Meanwhile, the British (another guarantor power), who had known that Turkey would invade, realised, that Turkey had meant much more serious business than they’d anticipated and asked the Americans who’d had a naval fleet nearby, to help them intervene. The Americans, on direct orders from Dr. Kissinger, refused to help and also told the British not to get involved. So, Turkey, meeting very little opposition from the fledgling National Guard, which was already in chaos and disarray because of the coup, literally walked into the island and took about 48% of the land, declaring it as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a pseudo state recognised only by Turkey.

The so called Green Line, separating North from South, had actually been drawn up by a British General in the 50’s, who’d secretly asserted, that the only solution for peace between Greeks and Turks would be two separate states. Remember, this was at the time of the original EOKA struggle for freedom and independence, when the British had artificially created Turkish and Greek animosity for their own strategic purposes.

The grim Green Line stretches from one end of the island to the other, encompassing a strip known as no man’s land, which is mined and heavily guarded by Turks, Greeks and UN Peace Keepers along the route. There has never been any major trouble between Greek and Turkish forces.

For 30 years, the UN had tried to facilitate re-unification processes between the 2 ethnicities, with the Greek side always willing to debate and compromise for a lasting and just solution to the ‘Cyprus Problem’. The TRNC, headed for the past 30 years by Rauf Denktash, never stayed at the meetings long enough to establish any meaningful dialogue, demanded the impossible and was totally intransigent and uncompromising when they did talk. The TRNC and Turkey always wanted to make the division permanent and for the TRNC to be recognised as a legitimate state. This is what they want.

The TRNC contains over 150,0000 Turkish troops and mainland settlers, is poor and economically stagnant. Many of the original Turkish Cypriots have emigrated, as they couldn’t stand the oppressive nature of the Turkish regime.

The Greeks on the other hand, created what is known as the Cyprus Economic Miracle. In 30 years, even with only half a country, they have rebuilt and enhanced their economy, to the extent that it is on a par with the best countries in Europe (compared per ratio GDP).

On May 1st 2003 Cyprus officially joined the EU, as it meets all the criteria needed to join. On the other hand, Turkey, as a wannabe EU member, doesn’t meet many of the criteria, including Economy and Human Rights. Although a democracy, Turkey is managed by its generals and their huge, very well equipped army, which happens to be a NATO member, but has proven to be very reluctant whenever asked for help by the West. Turkey’s government is secular, but the banned Nationalist Muslim Party holds the majority of sympathizers.

Turkey, to prove that she can change enough for Europe, is under intense pressure to solve the Cyprus problem, before she can even be considered for EU membership.

Pighene gamisou vlako-poushtopedo!
What the fucknuts does that mean?

I used to live in a different house to where I live now. By mountainhare's argument, I have every right to go back to my old house and reclaim it by force of arms. After all, I have a "prior claim" to it.

Dear formerly banned user:



I think you could sooner call it ignorance than sarcasm.

Yes, I agree that you display ignorance of what sarcasm is. No matter, I'm sure one day your mother will explain such a concept to you.



Do some reading and find out who proped up the "sickman of europe" with military, political and monetary support until Kemal Attaturk finally did what was needed and abolished the caliphate. This support despite turkeys history of aggression against europe.

Whether the Europeaners supported the Ottoman Empire before WWI is rather irrelevant to this thread, wouldn't you say? All I am pointing out is that the Iraq of today does not consist of the same land that formed Mesopotamia.



Still playing the foulmouthed little boy I see.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that foul language offended your dainty sensibilities.



Remember foul language doesn't cover your lack of content

Feigned politeness and disguised condescension and sarcasm don't disguise your failure to address the point of this thread. Never mind, I understand that when you lack detailed knowledge about a historical event, the natural reaction is to divert the audience's attention from your ignorance. Quite understandable, old chap.



MH:“ Why not? Israel, America, Britain, France, Germany, and almost every other 'white' country has done so in the past.. ”

SP: Oh how scholarly the "evil whitey" argument

Oh, how scholarly, a straw man attack. Odd how on some threads I'm accused by members of being a neo-Nazi white supremacist. But here I'm accused of branding whites as evil.



Oh the Iraqis have had that pleasure plenty of times in the past andmay have again in the future. You still have a problem here with supporting aggression while arguing against aggression.

Once again, another straw man argument. Where have I 'supported' aggression?

James R:


I used to live in a different house to where I live now. By mountainhare's argument, I have every right to go back to my old house and reclaim it by force of arms. After all, I have a "prior claim" to it.

Well, that's not entirely accurate, since you sold the house for a fair price. It's not like it was stolen from you.

However, you are quite right, 'my' argument supports the reclaimation of land via force of arms. It is not necessarily an argument I agree with, but it is one used by the Zionists.

Of course, if you use the above argument to justify Zionism, Zionists should support Saddam's invasion of Iraq if you are to remain 'fair and consistent'. That was the whole point of starting this thread. It is a subtle jab at the Zionists. Why do Zionists support the rights of European Jews to reclaim 'ancient' land, but not the Iraqis? *sniff sniff* Do I smell racism?

Who said I supported zionism?

James R:


Who said I supported zionism?

Ehhh, I knew that, but I worded my post poorly. My apologises.

(Me in parentheses and the Kuwait's Ministry of Information in quotes.)

(In about 1716 a tribe from what is now Saudi Arabia moved to what is now Kuwait city and transitioned from camel herding to sea based activities. A British mail station became based there.)

"As early as 1863 the British representative to the Gulf reported that Kuwait was practically independent despite recognizing Turkish suzerainty." (This situation of semi independence was the reality for half of the Ottoman empire. As long as they sent money the less important places could rule themself.)

"In 1899, Kuwait asserted its independent status by entering into an agreement with Britain. This agreement was designed to provide Kuwait with protection against outside forces. In return, Kuwait agreed “not to receive the agent or representative of any Power or government.”[5] This agreement was a clear and conscious assertion of Kuwaiti sovereignty and was aimed at both Ottoman and colonial powers.

Much of Iraq’s alleged claim to Kuwait is based on the later Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, an agreement signed between Britain and the Turks. In the Convention Kuwait was named as “an autonomous qada’ [subprovince, district] of the Ottoman Empire.”[6] These words form the basis of every Iraqi claim to Kuwait. "

(The truth as I understand it from past reading is that from the late 1800s until WW1 there was a triangle between the British, the Al Sabah Family an the Ottoman Empire sort of like the current triangle between the USA, the government of Taiwan, and China. Kuwait was required by the British and Turks to remain formally part of the Basra Wilayet of the Ottoman Empire. Basra could conquer Kuwait any time it wanted but then the British would put a hurt on the Ottomans.)

"In the late 1930s, Iraq’s King Ghazi (British appointed cousin of Jordanian British appointed Kings from a family historicly from Mecca) began an active campaign to incite the people of Kuwait to revolt against their (..) leaders, stating, “The Iraqi Government, as the successor to the Ottoman Government in the Wilayets of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra, considers that Kuwait should properly be incorporated into Iraq."

Dear formerly banned user:

And when was that Einstein?



Whether the Europeaners supported the Ottoman Empire before WWI is rather irrelevant to this thread, wouldn't you say? All I am pointing out is that the Iraq of today does not consist of the same land that formed Mesopotamia.

The info. I mentioned on european support of the ottoman empire was in response to your mistaken claim that it was divided up by the european powers.


Because we all know that the modern Iraq is exactly the same as the Iraq from the past, before the British + French split up the Ottoman Empire, right?

And what does the breakup of the ottoman empire have to do with iraqs borders? Were you claiming that since it was part of the ottoman empire that turkey has a right to invade?




I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that foul language offended your dainty sensibilities.

Just an observation of sophmoric behaviour.



Feigned politeness and disguised condescension and sarcasm don't disguise your failure to address the point of this thread. Never mind, I understand that when you lack detailed knowledge about a historical event,

If you were paying attention I and many others have demonstrated the ridiculousness of your original point. You have shown your knowledge ofhistory on several occasions.


the natural reaction is to divert the audience's attention from your ignorance. Quite understandable, old chap.

riiight



Oh, how scholarly, a straw man attack. Odd how on some threads I'm accused by members of being a neo-Nazi white supremacist. But here I'm accused of branding whites as evil.

You said it not me



Once again, another straw man argument. Where have I 'supported' aggression?

Wasn't this what you wrote what is so bothering you?


Why wasn't Saddam allowed to annex a former province of Iraq (Mesopotamia),

Last but not least you keep mentioning mesopotamia like it was a country whos demise somehow justifys your post


Hmmmm, funny how Mesopotamia (which was renamed Iraq when the Arabs invaded)


when have Western war mongers ever mentioned Mesopotamia

Maybe that's because there is not and never has been a country called Mesopotamia numbnuts. Mesopotamia describes the region between the Tigris and Euphrates ask Tablariddim what mesopotamia means in greek.

Honestly you're not the sharpest tool in the shed but hopefully you are just young. If you could remain civil you might not have to endure being condescended to and you might learn something from the folks here.

You can start studying Here (http://www.crystalinks.com/mesopotamia.html) it would at least be a start.

Whether the Europeaners supported the Ottoman Empire before WWI is rather irrelevant to this thread, wouldn't you say? All I am pointing out is that the Iraq of today does not consist of the same land that formed Mesopotamia.
Well, modern Germany does not consist of the same land that formed the Holy Roman Empire. Does that mean we should we force the netherlands, belgium, silesia, eastern pomerania, austria, bohemia, moravia, slovenia, italy, lichtenstein, switzerland, and western france to be annexed to Germany?
:rolleyes:

they should take large chunks of Europe and the U.K. and give it back to the Italians. After all, a very large portion of it once belonged to Rome.

*cough*cough*Mussolini*cough*

While we're at it, let's give all this (http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/MapImages/MongolEmpire-display.jpg) back to Mongolia!

Oh look, people keep missing the point again. No big surprise.

To the formerly banned user:


The info. I mentioned on european support of the ottoman empire was in response to your mistaken claim that it was divided up by the european powers.

The Ottoman Empire was divided up by the British and the French. Ever heard of the Sykes-Picot agreement? Perhaps I should have been more clear, but I assumed that anyone with a basic knowledge of history would know which European powers I was referring to. I forgot that I was posting in reply to you, Sock. That's OK, I'll speak slower from now on.



And what does the breakup of the ottoman empire have to do with iraqs borders? Were you claiming that since it was part of the ottoman empire that turkey has a right to invade?

Nope... however, according to Zionists , Turkey has a right to invade. And the Persians. And Iraqis, since Kuwait was once a province of Iraq, which even the posters on this thread have admitted.



Wasn't this what you wrote what is so bothering you?

“ Why wasn't Saddam allowed to annex a former province of Iraq (Mesopotamia),

Yes, I did write that. Once again, where am I supporting aggression? Funny how you continue to engage in conjecture on what I 'support'.



Maybe that's because there is not and never has been a country called Mesopotamia numbnuts.

I never claimed it was a country. Oh, and by the way, I love how you've resorted to name calling and foul language. You've just lost any moral highground you might have had previously, when I was being a 'foul mouthed little boy'. Looks like you're no better, hmmm? The difference is that you are a hypocrite, whereas I am not. I'm starting to see why you need a 'sock puppet'. :rolleyes:



Mesopotamia describes the region between the Tigris and Euphrates

No shit! Although it actually includes a lot more than just the land between Tigris and Euphrates...



You can start studying Here it would at least be a start.

It's interesting how you demand I study, when your language comprehension skills are apparently so poor. Still think that I claimed that Mesopotamia was a country? Where exactly?

Still think I support aggression merely because I pointed out that Kuwait was once part of Iraq? I'm fascinated at what language you read my posts in, because it obviously isn't English.

Hapsburg:


Well, modern Germany does not consist of the same land that formed the Holy Roman Empire. Does that mean we should we force the netherlands, belgium, silesia, eastern pomerania, austria, bohemia, moravia, slovenia, italy, lichtenstein, switzerland, and western france to be annexed to Germany?

According to the Zionists, yes. Hasn't anyone here ever heard of Reductio ad Absurdum?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm


In its most general construal, reductio ad absurdum - reductio for short – is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd - and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue.


Do I think that Saddam had a right to invade Kuwait. NO!

However, I find that a lot of people who share my view somehow support the Europeans Jews rights to grab Arab land, because it was theirs thousands of years ago. This in itself is a self-contradiction. You can't support Israels right to annex land which was 'once theirs', and then deny Iraq the right to annex Kuwait, or the Germans to annex what once constituted as the Holy Roman Empire.

Quite simply, this thread had ulterior motives. I'm surprised I had to spoon feed this to some posters.

Oh look, people keep missing the point again. No big surprise.

Well since there are so many of us missing your point you are either being too vague, too incoherant or just not formulating your point clearly enough. So please do.

The Sykes-Picot agreement was an economic and political agreement between the powers about what to do after the ottoman empire's imminent collapse the agreement itself was toothless.

Well since there are so many of us missing your point you are either being too vague, too incoherant or just not formulating your point clearly enough. So please do.

It's not my fault that some people need statements spoon fed to them by my loving and understanding hand. And quite frankly, I don't give a shit if a couple of slow witted morons can't understand the point of this thread... it's their loss, not mine.



The Sykes-Picot agreement was an economic and political agreement between the powers about what to do after the ottoman empire's imminent collapse the agreement itself was toothless.

Must be why there were about 22 Arab states after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, with Britain and France ruling many of them. I wonder what ever happened to that unity and independence of Arab land which was promised by the French + British.

I can't see on the map any "country" by the name of "paletine" that they whine that it was "stolen" from them...

http://palestinefacts.org


Who are the Palestinians?

By Yashiko Sagamori


If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history", I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:

When was it founded and by whom?

What were its borders?

What was its capital?

What were its major cities?

What constituted the basis of its economy?

What was its form of government?

Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before (Egyptian born) Arafat?

Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

What was the language of the country of Palestine?

What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?

What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.

And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

You are lamenting the "low sinking" of "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?

And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology* for history won't work here. The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively?

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a "nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.


That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?

* The science that deals with the origin of words.

I can't see on the map any "country" by the name of "paletine" that they whine that it was "stolen" from them...

Guess you wouldn't have an argument if you didn't distort opposing views and erect straw man after straw man.

It's not my fault that some people need statements spoon fed to them by my loving and understanding hand. And quite frankly, I don't give a shit if a couple of slow witted morons can't understand the point of this thread... it's their loss, not mine.



Just as I suspected.

You don't have any point in this thread.

Were you trying to show some sort of hypocrisy, mountainhare?

The Palestinians are like the Iraqi Kurds. They never had a nation. The Palestinians today are the closest descendants of the people who lived between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in 1500 AD, who in turn were the closest descendants of the people who lived between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in 1000 AD, who in turn were the closest descendants of the people who lived between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in 500 AD, who in turn were the closest descendants of the people who lived between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in 0 AD, who in turn were the closest descendants of the people who lived between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in 500 BC, who in turn were the closest descendants of the people who lived between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in 1000 BC, who in turn were the closest descendants of the people who lived between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in 10,000.

Most people in the past were rural. It is doubtful that any of the deportations from the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in ever exceeded 20% of the population.

Hebrew was a language that fit geographically in Israel/Palestine. Hebrew did not come with Abraham (if he existed) from Iraq. Knowing what we know about past conquests and migrations and meldings the near anihilation of the Indians in the USA was abnormal and blendings as in Mexico and Ancient England were more normal.

Some estimates put the Jewish population of the Roman empire arround 0 AD at 7%. Jewish population in Egypt, Syria and Turkey was very large. The land of Israel/Palestine could not have produced anything like 7% of the population of the Roman empire. Some synagogues in Rome and other places had more "God fearers" than Jews in attendence on the day from which records survived. "God Fearers" were uncircumsised converts. Just looking at Ashkenazi Jews it apeers that they are of less than one third Middle Eastern ancestry.

Ashkenazi Jews have the Same rights to take Israel from the Palestinians that my ancestors had to take the soon to be USA from the natve Americans. Both people believed that God sanctioned their taking of the land by force from the previous inhabitants.

The question is, should the world continue to tollerate new ethnic cleansing? We all seem to agree that the ethnic cleansing of Darfur is not OK. Why? If the ethnic cleansing of Darfur is not OK than why is the Ethnic cleansing of Israel/Palestine OK? Because it happened earlier? 1967 was not that long ago and the ethnic cleansing is continuing to take more land in the West bank away from it's previous inhabitants every year. Is it because the Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Palestine/Israel has much support in the USA and the USA is the world's dominant power? Is it because Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims have been successfully demonized to the point that Kiwi and hundreds of millions of other people have a feeling towards Palestinians that is similar to what Germans felt about Jews during the time of Hitler?

Roman:


Were you trying to show some sort of hypocrisy, mountainhare?

YES! Thank you... I was starting to think that everyone on this forum was a lost cause.

Saddam tries to regain Kuwait, which everyone here admits was once part of Iraq. Israel attempts to regain old lands. They both attempt to redraw borders.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? IS THERE ANY?
If so, why was Saddam's invasion a 'crime of aggression', whereas Israel's attacks are 'restoring old borders'?

BTW, good post nirukar!

mountain,

Thank you!

Then please explain why the U.S attacked Iraq after it invaded Kuwait (a former province), whereas it did not attack Israel when it stole land of the Arabs. The excuse used by the Israelis was 'well, it was our land 2,000 years ago!' (as if the Canaanites and Philistines never existed).

Why wasn't Saddam allowed to annex a former province of Iraq (Mesopotamia), whereas Israel was allowed to annex Arab land to form a state which existed at roughly the same time Mespotamia was formed?
I knew what you were getting at from about this point, but I didn't want to spoil your guys' fun :cool:.

Roman, yes we saw the supposed 'connection" into Arabs' stealing land from the original Jewish owners, and not invating Australia, America etc. for sitting on "stolen land".

How do you like this mixture?

What a rubbbish direction by this poster: Mountainhare.

Instead of just accepting a fact that people live (even if he's mistakenly thinking that the palestinians are the real old natives, whichthey're not) and not ethnic cleanse the Jews out with some filthy logic.
And not deporting the Americans or the Australians out.
But it's ok to persecute little Israel, because you know the arab muslim jihadists attackers on innocent unramed people everyday are just the poor poor victims.

----
Again to the land issue?
palestinians never ever owned an independent land-country, period.

Stop spouting your racism, zionist.

I was just thinking .....is there any land on Earth that belongs to it's rightful and/or original owner? If so, where?

Baron Max

There's some Asian country that's kept soveriegnty for like a 1000 years. I dunno who though.

There's some Asian country that's kept soveriegnty for like a 1000 years. I dunno who though.

1,000 years is a very, very short time in the life of human evolution.

I've often heard people say that Japan was an uninhabited island before the Japanese people landed on it and set up shop, but I don't know that and I've read nothing to verify it. I've also heard of some countries in southeast Asian that were settled and remained as one single group, but I don't know which nation and I've also never read anything to verify it.

I'm highly skeptical that any land is still in possession of the original people who settled it. And if that's so...?

Baron Max

Japan was once uninhabited by humans, then a race of caucasian colonized it. They had a matriarchal society. Then a race of dwarf mongoloid pirates invaded and created what we now know as Japan. Chinese documents of the period tell of midget pirates raiding their coasts.

It was during this period I believe that the Japanese picked up most of what is now considered Japanese culture, including poetry, silk, sword making techniques, calligraphy, tea, and Buddhism.

Don't quote me on that, though.

I was just thinking .....is there any land on Earth that belongs to it's rightful and/or original owner? If so, where?

Baron Max

"Owner" is in some ways not a good term for control over a piece of earth. Even if we buy the land from the first man to see it it is still sort of like buying stolen property because the first man did not pay for the earth. But I know what you mean.

In places most people would not try to live there might be places where people live where nobody was ever chased off the land and the descendants of the first people to live there still live there.

I am just guessing, but I would bet that the some of the Native Americans in Northern Canada and northern Alaska are on land that nobody was ever displaced from. The Kalahari desert Bushmen may be another original people. Some Tibetans and some people in Siberia may be the descendants of the original people to settle in their areas.

I would guess most people are living in places that were taken by force from other humans hundreds of times in the last million years.

I would guess most people are living in places that were taken by force from other humans hundreds of times in the last million years.

Then we need to give it back to 'em!!! ...or pay reparations in the gazillions, plus interest.

Baron Max

The Kalahari desert Bushmen may be another original people.

Under Apartheid they weren't white, under affirmative action they're not black...

Discussing Israel is all very well, but does anyone have a realistic long term solution?

Aboriginals seem to have diverged the longest from other humans. They must be able to claim australia. In some sort of way. If they would want to. Or not... maybe... who knows...someone else must...

Discussing Israel is all very well, but does anyone have a realistic long term solution?
What does Realistic mean?
What does solution mean?

If I could make the USA and the rest of the world behave unrealisticly in a scenario then I could probabably get the Israelis and Palestinians to realisticly make real peace in the scenario, but I don't think that counts as realistic.

Israel could move all It's Palestinians and the West Banks Palestinians to Gaza and see what happenns. It would be a gamble but it might work well for Israel.

I don't know if you could call that a solution though if it is only a solution for one side.