BF2S Forums Binyamin Netanyahu

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Are you kidding?  The Middle East has had more war than most other regions of the world -- especially in recent decades.

For example? Excluding the product of Western Imperialism pretty sure they are no more warlike than anywhere else, probably less so in fact.

Uh... no...  Look at how much war they engaged in during ancient times.

You mean, when they were crusaded against?

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

For example? Excluding the product of Western Imperialism pretty sure they are no more warlike than anywhere else, probably less so in fact.

Uh... no...  Look at how much war they engaged in during ancient times.

You mean, when they were crusaded against?

No...  even before that...  The Hebrews have a long history of warfare.  So did their neighbors.

Turquoise wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uh... no...  Look at how much war they engaged in during ancient times.

You mean, when they were crusaded against?

No...  even before that...  The Hebrews have a long history of warfare.  So did their neighbors.

So how is that different to anywhere else? The whole world has been torn up again and again but each super power or minor power that's come into existence.

Turquoise wrote:

True, but the difference is that the results seem to be less productive from most of the Middle East's wars.  For example, Europe went through a heavy war phase, but it actually went somewhere.   So did East Asia.  Yet, the Middle East just kind of fell apart after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, until oil trade really kicked in.

Even now, though, the Middle East is still pretty desperate in many areas.

Africa was divided up by the European nations, stripped of it's wealth and now look at what's leftover. They don't even have the luxury of oil money and world focus.

The reason these areas are so war-torn might go down to the fact that they are traditionally tribal groups, who do often compete for resources. But the Middle Eastern conflicts are larger because they have the West backing one side or another.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Muslims have Mecca, let the Jews have JEWRUSELEM k.

But the Muslims also consider Jesus a prophet.

kthxbai

So Muslims get the Vatican City too

Dilbert_X wrote:

Zippy Livny wrote:

I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them 'you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere

More ethnic cleansing ahead eh? That really is Nazi-esque - 'The National Solution for you is to GTFO'

National Solution =/= Final Solution

Dilbert_X wrote:

Zippy Livny wrote:

I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them 'you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere

More ethnic cleansing ahead eh? That really is Nazi-esque - 'The National Solution for you is to GTFO'

Turquoise wrote:

Muslims have both a long history of conquering indigenous cultures and even fighting each other.  Granted, Christians do too, but the results seem to have been better in the long run for the Christians.

Please put forward something to back up your claims.

"The almost constant wars among the Sumerian city-states for 2000 years helped to develop the military technology and techniques of Sumer to a high level. The first war recorded was between Lagash and Umma in ca. 2525 BC on a stele called the Stele of Vultures. It shows the king of Lagash leading a Sumerian army consisting mostly of infantry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

"Within 100 years the Empire of Akkad collapsed, almost as fast as it had developed, ushering in a Dark Age. By the end of the reign of Naram-Sin's son, Shar-kali-sharri, the empire collapsed outright from the invasion of barbarians of the Zagros known as "Gutians". It has recently been suggested that the Dark Age at the end of the Akkadian period (and First Intermediary Period of the Ancient Egyptian Old Kingdom) was associated with rapidly increasing aridity, and failing rainfall in the region of the Ancient Near East, caused by a global centennial-scale drought."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_Empire

"During the reign of Sennacherib of Assyria, Babylonia was in a constant state of revolt, led by Mushezib-Marduk, and suppressed only by the complete destruction of the city of Babylon. In 689 BC, its walls, temples and palaces were razed, and the rubble was thrown into the Arakhtu, the sea bordering the earlier Babylon on the south. This act shocked the religious conscience of Mesopotamia; the subsequent murder of Sennacherib was held to be in expiation of it, and his successor Esarhaddon hastened to rebuild the old city, to receive there his crown, and make it his residence during part of the year. On his death, Babylonia was left to be governed by his elder son Shamash-shum-ukin, who eventually headed a revolt in 652 BC against his brother in Nineveh, Assurbanipal.

Once again, Babylon was besieged by the Assyrians and starved into surrender. Assurbanipal purified the city and celebrated a "service of reconciliation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

"A delegation consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as chief arbitrator for the entire community. There was fighting in Yathrib mainly involving its Arab and Jewish inhabitants for around a hundred years before 620. The recurring slaughters and disagreements over the resulting claims, especially after the Battle of Bu'ath in which all clans were involved, made it obvious to them that the tribal conceptions of blood-feud and an eye for an eye were no longer workable unless there was one man with authority to adjudicate in disputed cases. The delegation from Medina pledged themselves and their fellow-citizens to accept Muhammad into their community and physically protect him as one of themselves."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Furthermore, Islam's history is pretty much bloody from nearly the start.  It began with Muslims being oppressed by the pagans, and it continued with the Muslims establishing dominance and then spreading through conquest throughout the Middle East (and beyond).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest

Of course, as you said, there was potential for plenty more violence after the West got involved, but it's not like the foundation for turmoil wasn't already in place once the Ottoman Empire fell.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Apart from Western Imperialism and its consequences the ME has been pretty peaceful really.
OTOH Christian Europe and America have fought two great wars and seem to have been involved in countless international conflicts on an almost continuous basis.

To say the ME is a shithole full of violent warring bastards - apart from the peaceloving Israelis - is simply wrong.

I never said the Israelis were peaceful.  They are descended from one of the earliest warring cultures.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And how does the above differ from Europe, China, North America, South America, Asia etc?

This is what you said

Turquoise wrote:

The Middle East is mostly just a festering sore of conflict with a long history of war.

Its no different to anywhere else in the world, to describe it as a festering sore is just bizarre.

Really?  Why not move there then?  I mean, if it's no different from Australia, then surely the adaptations needed wouldn't be too much.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Furthermore, Islam's history is pretty much bloody from nearly the start.  It began with Muslims being oppressed by the pagans, and it continued with the Muslims establishing dominance and then spreading through conquest throughout the Middle East (and beyond).

And this is different from christianity how?

Because most Christian countries aren't currently embroiled in ethnic conflicts, whereas a large portion of Muslim ones are.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Really?  Why not move there then?  I mean, if it's no different from Australia, then surely the adaptations needed wouldn't be too much.

Its a shithole now, thanks to Western Imperialism and destabilisation caused by the existence of Israel and the reactionary rise of radical islam.
You saying its always been a warring shithole therefore whatever Israel does doesn't matter is simply wrong, the ME is no different to most of the rest of the world in terms of wars fought historically - just read up on China for example.

Where did I say that it doesn't matter what they do?  I don't support Israel's overreactions anymore than you do.  I'm just saying that the region won't see peace anytime soon, because most of the cultures present there aren't particularly peaceful to start with.

The only nations that have managed to get away from the turmoil are the ones that have Westernized more (with the exception of Israel), like the United Arab Emirates.

So while it is true that we've been a negative influence on the region by supporting fanatics, if these countries simply Westernized more by reinvesting their oil wealth into their people, they'd be more peaceful.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Because most Christian countries aren't currently embroiled in ethnic conflicts, whereas a large portion of Muslim ones are.

Again current events are unconnected with your initial statement about the long history of islam.
Based on your statement the histories of christianity seem near identical, maybe they've gone through different phases at slightly different times, thats how history works.

There are similarities in their beginnings, but their outcomes have been quite different.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The only nations that have managed to get away from the turmoil are the ones that have Westernized more (with the exception of Israel), like the United Arab Emirates.

Strange, Saudi Arabia hasn't fought any real wars that I can remember, Iran hasn't fought any apart from the proxy US war via Iraq.
They don't seem all that westernised, in fact they are the least westernised countries in the region..

Wrong....  Iran is one of the most Westernized countries in the Middle East.  It's why I think we shouldn't demonize them the way we do.  Yes, they have some nutjobs here and there, but compared to some of their neighbors, Iran is actually progressive.

Saudi Arabia is somewhat Westernized, but they seem to be in denial about it, because Wahhabists wield a lot of influence there, while they still have access to many Western amenities and a lot of Western media.

Dilbert_X wrote:

There are similarities in their beginnings, but their outcomes have been quite different.

How so?
Recently apart from the West going in and redrawing all their borders and plonking Israel amongst them I've not noticed any particular antagonism caused between the people there.
Looking back further I don't see a great difference in the number of wars fought between moslem countries and wars fought between christian countries.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that then.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Ken-Jennings wrote:

National Solution =/= Final Solution

Seems comparable, the Israelis really have no sense of historical irony, or shame.

It is comparable. But instead of gasing them, they would be asking them, probably quite forcefully, to leave.

That makes quite a diffference.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

...However, I think it is important to look at the fact that Livny does support a two-state solution and an Israeli withdrawal from Jerusalem - ..

Livni support leaving ALL of Jerusalem to the palestinians?