Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad? [Archive]

View Full Version : Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

Divinus Arma

08-13-2006, 07:37

Pretty simple. Blind poll, no names shown.

Strike For The South

08-13-2006, 07:52

Lets get real. The guy with the turban gets more attention. We would be lying to ourselves anyway. The first thing you do when you get on a plane is look for the brown people. We all do it. Dont lie

JimBob

08-13-2006, 08:06

No. What happens when John Walker mkII shows up? While we are giving attention to the 6 people you fingered in the other thread, he waltzs through.

InsaneApache

08-13-2006, 08:12

Lets get real. The guy with the turban[i] gets more attention. We would be lying to ourselves anyway. The first thing you do when you get on a plane is look for the brown people[ii]. We all do it. Dont lie

[i] What have Sikhs done?

[ii]No. If I spent my life avoiding brown skinned folks I'd never be able to leave the house. The city I live in has about 35-40% Moslems living here.

Aenlic

08-13-2006, 08:13

Doesn't even have to look like John Walker Lind. If we start profiling Arabs (more than we already do) to supposedly catch terrorists, then the terrorists who do look Arab in any way will simply recruit fair-skinned dupes and have them dye their hair blonde. They'll end up looking like every other bottle-blonde West Coast surfer dude.

Person in first class seat A1: "Nice tan, dude!"

Person in first class seat A2: "Yeah, I was in Maui catching some waves, bro!"

Boom.

ChewieTobbacca

08-13-2006, 08:33

Racial profiling is a great way to let your target know who not to send!

Samurai Waki

08-13-2006, 09:06

I don't like the idea of racial profiling... But, the changes I would make in the current security system we have right now, is don't profile 80 year old ladies and 5 year old kids. The shocker is, the last time I was at LAX there was a couple in their seventies, who were selected for a random search, and right behind them were 5 dudes, with wicked looking tattoos and two had full grown beards and dark tans, and weren't checked... my first thought was, hmmm.... wouldn't it be more appropriate to check them? and then I thought... Nobody suspects ma' and pa', especially the old man who was wearing an 82nd PIR WWII Vet Cap. :inquisitive:

Fragony

08-13-2006, 09:55

Why not, if it are mainly arabs doing boom it is just common sense.

Mithras

08-13-2006, 09:58

Racial profiling is a great way to let your target know who not to send!

That's what I think. If we indulge in it then in the long run we'll leave ourselves open to some cleaver sod who choose the 16 year old blond gir who's actually a psychotic maniac

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/MarieWarner1.jpg

Pannonian

08-13-2006, 11:05

Racial profiling upsets the moderate majority from whom we get intelligence, resulting in more recruits for the extremists and less useful information for us. AFAIK we cracked the latest bomb plot precisely because we tried to accommodate the moderate majority and they in turn warned us of suspicious individuals. Doing it secretly doesn't help either, as word will out, most will be upset that you're doing such profiling, and the remainder will be upset you're trying to fool them.

Insaneapache, I live in the city that was bombed last year, regularly going through the stations that were bombed last year. I admit I get a little tentative when travelling by train or tube and there are dark-skinned people carrying bags nearby. But then I remind myself, I am British, I will not let this get to me, I will live as I have always lived, terrorist or no terrorist, and I at least put on the appearance of behaving normally. There are old ladies around who lived through the blitz, who regard this as nothing more than a nuisance, who am I to worry myself to death over this?

Pannonian

08-13-2006, 11:21

[i] What have Sikhs done?

Terrorist? Or national hero?

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

Don Corleone

08-13-2006, 16:07

Come everyone, quit being a bunch of bigots. Talking about fair-skinned arabs, dying their hair. That just assumes it's Arabs in the first place. We all know that the leading source of terorism is 85 year old women who can't walk under their own power. That's why it's so critical for the TSA to deeply frisk each and every one at security checkpoints. :dizzy2:

Actually, there's plenty of rabid jihadists to be found in the Phillipines and in Indonesia.

Ser Clegane

08-13-2006, 16:10

You can be politically correct, or you can survive the Jihad on the West. You cannot do both.
How is scanning everybody, regardless of race or color, counterproductive to surviving the "Jihad"?

Fragony

08-13-2006, 16:12

How is scanning everybody, regardless of race or color, counterproductive to surviving the "Jihad"?

Too much work, would be an unnecesity of epic proportions. Scanning everyone is like looking for kkk'ss at the black panters.

Ser Clegane

08-13-2006, 16:16

So white people don't hijack planes?

How about people from Spain or Southern Italy?

doc_bean

08-13-2006, 16:18

Bad, they'd just get the recently converted Blly Bob to carry the bombs while they distract attention by sending a few brown guys too.

I'm not saying we can't keep a closer eye on a Mosque than on a Methodist Church but when it comes to airport security and such, everybody should be seen as an equal threat.

Fragony

08-13-2006, 16:22

So white people don't hijack planes?

How about people from Spain or Southern Italy?

I think it's obvious that we are discussing a practical problem here, why make it a moral one?

edit! which is of course the heart of the discussion, my bad.

nevermind ^^

Ser Clegane

08-13-2006, 16:29

I think it's obvious that we are discussing a practical problem here, why make it a moral one?
I am talking about practical issues here. Just going by "looks" creates a security hole, while at the same time feeding the trolls (i.e., adding to the "us vs. them" feeling).

manbaps

08-13-2006, 16:30

The whole point of airport security is that everyone gets searched, so it isnt really a practical problem.

Fragony

08-13-2006, 16:36

I am talking about practical issues here. Just going by "looks" creates a security hole, while at the same time feeding the trolls (i.e., adding to the "us vs. them" feeling).

You are right, damn you :laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

08-13-2006, 16:41

For intelligence gathering, one doesn't seek out potential terrorist plots in Lutheran Scandinavian churches.
So yes, Muslim communities, madrassa's, mosques, 'charity' organisations are the places to keep a close watch on. We need to be careful though not to alienate or infringe upon the dignity of the Muslim population.

For individual terrorists racial profiling doesn't work very well though.

I remember that one of the very reasons Richard Reid - the shoe bomber - managed to sneak through security was because he was of mixed British / Jamaican descent, was born in London, and travelled on a UK passport. None of which set of any alarm bells back in december 2001, when all eyes were focused on travelling Arabs.

rory_20_uk

08-13-2006, 17:04

Datamining can often come up with a decent profile, especially if there is a large amount of information that is provided to the engine.

Picking on everyone that's brown is not a great idea as it's too crude. Indeed there may be other determinants that are far more important and might come to light.

Criteria should not be provided, merely the ones to check should be checked. Then a random sample of everyone else, as you've only managed to get the most likely based on past evidence.

~:smoking:

Ironside

08-13-2006, 17:14

Also commenting about airport security searches and simular. Isn't that also supposed to stop other crimes too? Or does it exist a special anti-terrorist unit on the "floor" so to say?

For intelligence services, sure, although most focus is supposed to be on radical groups more than race for best effect.

For the average cop, airport security etc it's not as effective.
It alienates the profiled group and gives a predictabillity pattern that can be abused.
Now I don't say that you have to search truly random, but being too systematic isn't good. If always search the arab dude, and never that small girl or elder lady, who do you think will be smuggling bombs/weapons/stuff after a while?

Crazed Rabbit

08-13-2006, 17:57

Ser Clegane

08-13-2006, 18:13

Ideally, you'd use a system like the Israeli airline uses, which involves a brief questioning of all passengers and longer questioning of suspicious individuals.
That should be standard procedure and has nothing to do with racial profiling.

EDIT to add:

Becuase of some lefty dillusion, we think that we should stubbornly ignore the reality of our situation and that being blown up because we searched old women is better than *gasp* facing the fact that the terrorists are not white Christian John Smiths.
I don't know about you, but I have to fly quite frequently (including flights to the US about once or twice a year) and I am working in a major office building in the financial district of the city with by far the largest airport in Germany.
My opinion is certainly not driven by "lefty dillusions" but by concerns about airport security. Racial profiling does not provide this security, IMO but only serves as a populistic tool (just as tanks at Heathrow)

Pannonian

08-13-2006, 18:21

Good.

Everyone here prattles on about we wouldn't catch 5% of the terrorists using this method, as if for that reason we shouldn't try at all.

The obvious thing is-which opponents of this seem to ignore-is that you don't just use profiling. Ideally, you'd use a system like the Israeli airline uses, which involves a brief questioning of all passengers and longer questioning of suspicious individuals.

The main point of counter-terrorism is intelligence. Alienating the population which the terrorists live in, and on whom you're relying for information, is counter-productive. If keeping them onside means giving up the tool of racial profiling, so be it.

But our resistance to profiling is enourmously stupid. Becuase of some lefty dillusion, we think that we should stubbornly ignore the reality of our situation and that being blown up because we searched old women is better than *gasp* facing the fact that the terrorists are not white Christian John Smiths.

Crazed Rabbit
Because it alienates the Muslim population on whom you rely for intelligence. If you want to see effective counter-terrorism at work, look at European police, who for decades before 9/11 have been dealing with terrorists who were racially similar to the target population, who weren't readily distinguishable by facial characteristics. Despite this lack of obvious tools, we managed to deal with them. Why not learn from our experience?

JimBob

08-13-2006, 18:25

But our resistance to profiling is enourmously stupid. Becuase of some lefty dillusion, we think that we should stubbornly ignore the reality of our situation and that being blown up because we searched old women is better than *gasp* facing the fact that the terrorists are not white Christian John Smiths.
Sure, now. We start using racial profiling and then the terrorists move. They stop using people who fit the profile. Or they change the way a person looks so they don't fit the profile. Then it's useless. I encourage profiling based on behavior, but based on race would work for a little while. Then Al Queda would stop recruiting in Saudi Arabia and move to the Sudan, Indonesia, and Chechnya.

And you can't see someone's religion. I put on a necklace with a cross and I look Christian, I put on a kippa I look Jewish, etc

Samurai Waki

08-13-2006, 18:35

yeah. I'm German-Irish but I have been accused as looking both Mexican and Jewish...

Banquo's Ghost

08-13-2006, 18:58

I posted this in the morning in response to Ecelctic in the Syria thread, and since it hasn't been moved here, forgive me posting twice.

Oh Great. Now I'm a bigot? Give me a little credit man. All I am saying is to focus a little more and not give people a free pass because of their looks, and perhaps, maybe, use a little rational police work in targeting people. Were the British terror suspects last week white anglos? This isn't exactly a nutter idea my friend.

Actually, at least one of the suspects is 'anglo' - white, middle class and a convert.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4783215.stm)

Abdul Waheed, 21, was arrested at a house in Hepplewhite Close, High Wycombe.

He had changed his name from Don Stewart-Whyte about six months previously, according to neighbours.

Perhaps American security measures don't profile passengers, but European airports do. Racial profiling is very low on the list (as it doesn't really work) but one sees it all the time if you travel - those dressed in traditional garb are more often pulled over for questioning than white Europeans. Sadly, we have a long history of racism over this side of the pond and it doesn't fade away easily amongst the plods.

The real work however, is done through behavioural profiling honed over years of experience with drug smugglers, organised crime and yes, terrorists. You see, Al-Queda and the US didn't invent terrorism in 2001, we have been living with various forms for many years. A Basque, or Irishman, or Italian communist looks much the same if he is a normal citizen or a terrorist. Racial profiling doesn't help a jot.

What does help is observing the behavioural patterns of someone intent on a criminal act. Whilst it is possible to train out these behaviours, it is expensive and technically skilled.

A lot of the basic work at airports is to consider carefully who is coming through, match it to previous intelligence and watch. Effective security and intelligence work is low-key, diligent and unspectacular.

I would be surprised (but not greatly) if US airport security didn't already profile in the manner I described. Pulling over people who 'look Muslim' :dizzy2: in public view of the gallery achieves only the satisfaction of racial/religious stereotypes.

And now I'm off to the airport for a quick jaunt. Quick...erm. Well, I've got my plastic bag and I look real good naked :bounce:

scooter_the_shooter

08-13-2006, 20:00

The answer is obvious.......of course we should!

Who needs to be watched the most

The white middle class 78 year old grandma.

or

The 25 year old muslim who just came from iran?

Deep down all you bleeding heart types no the answer.

John86

08-13-2006, 20:07

Well lets see....

We have arabs doing the majority of terrorist actions. So Tada! Watch out for arabs. Theres nothing wrong with watching out for someone we know is the enemy. Of course, only a small precentage of arabs follow the radical policy terrorists follow, but then again, I havent seen many white men blow themself up lately in the name of Allah.

Ser Clegane

08-13-2006, 20:08

The white middle class 78 year old grandma.
Yes, it's really those thousands of grandmas everybody here is talking about that keep the security staff so busy that they cannot take care of the real terrorists...

Reenk Roink

08-13-2006, 20:52

I think this will sum it up:

Racists on an Airplane (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ham4RaE50M)

rotorgun

08-13-2006, 21:18

Let's just call it International Profiling of People who come from Countries that Terrorists Originate or that Support Terrorists, or IPPTOST for short. I can think of nothing more appropriate then to put the governments of such countries on notice that their people are no longer welcome if they continue to believe in the "nutcases who want to have 72 virgins when they die a martyr for the cause of Allah." If they no longer wish to let antone to travel to thier countries, no problem. I didn't lose anything there in any case. Count me in as a yes until these insane fools are finished trying to tell the rest of the world that they must believe in their way or else. Screw them! Why should my people be the ones to suffer and not their people as well. Let them pound camel dung as far as I am concerned. They are acting like complete maniacs and deserve every bit of what comes thier way. It's like dealing with an errant three year old, except this child wants to kill you. Maybe they should have thought it out a bit better. Now they've got all the negative attention they could possibly want. For those countries who are against the Terrorists, welcome any day.

Ser Clegane

08-13-2006, 21:24

Count me in as a yes until these insane fools are finished trying to tell the rest of the world that they must believe in their way or else. Screw them! Why should my people be the ones to suffer and not their people as well. Let them pound camel dung as far as I am concerned. They are acting like complete maniacs and deserve every bit of what copmes there way.
Are you finished with your rant?
Who are you talking about?
Do you know what this discussion is about?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-13-2006, 22:02

Kanamori

08-13-2006, 23:39

Deep down all you bleeding heart types no the answer.

I've been thinking over this for awhile, and I cannot quite understand. How is it possible to no an answer? I'm sorry, but I'm not God and I cannot simply invalidate something; you see, it must already be false or true prior to my coming to it and its validity is separate from anything that I could hope to do to it.:shrug:

Pannonian

08-14-2006, 00:15

Racial profiling is stupid and misses the point, profiling Muslims however is not. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists, merely that all our current terrorists are Muslims, or claim to be.

This avoids picking up my Arabian Christian friends.
But surely if this antagonises the general Muslim population, the side effects are worse than the benefits to be gained? Better to openly disavow such profiling, engage the Muslim communities, then profile extremist trends and individuals based on information thus gained. John Smith in MI5 isn't likely to be able to distinguish suspicious Muslims from ordinary Muslims. Meanwhile, Shazeer Mohammed in Barnsley might see an outsider distributing leaflets outside his mosque, and a regular group of kids who cluster around this outsider. Data-mining in central HQ might not reveal anything out of the ordinary, as each of these events is quite legal. However, Shazeer would be able to see this as unusual, and report it to the police via whatever channels he feels comfortable with, and the police will have something concrete to focus on.

Most advocates of increased surveillance miss the point that there is already too much data to practically deal with. When investigators don't already know what they're looking for, there is practically no chance of finding it until after the event. The only way they can make sense of it is if an insider gives them a lead that can focus their investigation. Therefore every effort should be made to cultivate such insiders, and moves that can hinder this should be avoided where possible.

rotorgun

08-14-2006, 02:00

Are you finished with your rant?
Who are you talking about?
Do you know what this discussion is about?

Yes I am finished with my rant. I'm sorry, but I had to get that off my chest. As for who I am talking about, why the Muslim extremists who claim to speak for all Muslims. You know, folks like Al Queda and Hezbollah, etc. These I call "the nutcases who want to recieve 72 virgins by becoming martyrs for Allah."
Correct me if I am wrong, but we are speaking of wether racial profiling is justified to aid in the war against the terrorists, are we not? I realize that I may have gone a bit over the top, but in all seriousness, don't you think it would be the easiest way to prevent these groups from further entering our countries to inflict harm on our citizenry?

I'm not talking about going after those muslim people who are currently law abiding citizens of the United States or the United Kingdom, but merely denying access and immigration to any more from the muslim world until the terrorists are defeated. I would make allowances for those who are on official business with our governments only. No other visas or passports would be approved! If this upsets the governments of such muslim countries or the sensabilities of non-muslims who feel that we ought to make it easy on the terrorists to visit our shores, than perhaps they should move to the muslim world and see how welcome they are.

PS: Just because a few wolves have made it into the pasture because our fences were damaged, doesn't mean that I should open the gates as well. I mean really!

Thanks for your concern,

Papewaio

08-14-2006, 02:15

So how many Saudi's were in 9/11?

Do you really want to stop all non-government business with them?

Hepcat

08-14-2006, 02:20

I understand what you mean, but what about arabs trying to escape their country?

Why base your judgements on the minority, there are more kinds of terrorists than just Arabs. The war on terrorism can't be won. There are terrorists in Europe, the Basque ETA are terrorists.

So that would make Muslims never able to enter the US. Though it would just mean that they would enter illegally. In my opinion it wouldn't solve the problem. And what about the Muslims in America already who can't get their families to the country, but can't leave because they won't be allowed back. It is an interesting thought but would it keep the American Muslims happy?

No, you would probably end up turning more Muslims already in America against the government.

scooter_the_shooter

08-14-2006, 03:01

I've been thinking over this for awhile, and I cannot quite understand. How is it possible to no an answer? I'm sorry, but I'm not God and I cannot simply invalidate something; you see, it must already be false or true prior to my coming to it and its validity is separate from anything that I could hope to do to it.:shrug:

Yeah.... I noticed that:help: I'd edit it but I can't...it says my warnings are removed but I still can't edit:inquisitive:

Samurai Waki

08-14-2006, 05:16

Sun Tzu's Art of War: Know Thy Enemy ...well we know they aren't 80 year old war vets, and Grannies with a handbag...

Xiahou

08-14-2006, 05:40

I've been profiled by airport security before.... just not racially. I once commented to a screener that "I must look suspicious" since I had been selected multiple times for "random" screenings when boarding my flights during a business trip.

I was told by the screener that no, it wasnt that- it was just that my carry-on (a small duffle bag) was very easy to search, so they were selecting me. ~:eek:

Divinus Arma

08-14-2006, 06:45

Here is a twist!

Baby bombers and fanatical moms!

By JOHN KAY
Chief Reporter
and SIMON HUGHES

HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.

Security sources confirmed last night that alleged “baby bombers” were among those arrested over the plot to massacre thousands by downing transatlantic flights.

Those being quizzed included a husband and wife with a six-month-old infant.

The discovery prompted fears that there were fanatical mothers in secret al-Qaeda cells in Britain ready to become suicide bombers — and to die with their tots in their arms.

And it emerged as the reason why women at airports were ordered to drink from their babies’ bottles before being allowed to board flights during last week’s massive alert.

One senior Government security adviser warned of a race against time to identify individuals who might pose a threat.

The adviser said: “It may be beyond belief, but we are convinced that there are now women in Britain who are prepared to die with their babies for their twisted cause. They are ruthless, single-minded and totally committed.”

The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.

The threat was identified along with an additional warning that as many as two dozen terror cells may still be active in Britain.

The source added: “We believe all the known players involved in last week’s plot have been detained. Our biggest concern now is all the unknown players who may be out there.

“And that includes mothers who are ready and willing to see their little ones die. It is a race against time.” Women around the world have carried out suicide attacks in the past.

Two female Chechen terrorists blew themselves up on separate flights in Russia two years ago.

An intelligence source said: “Al-Qaeda specialises in attempting the unexpected. What could be more unexpected in Western eyes than women willing to die with their babies?”

Best argument I have seen yet against profiling. All your "civil liberty" arguments are poop. Now we expand the net to include muslim women and mothers. Crazy freaks.

Papewaio

08-14-2006, 06:58

Best argument I have seen yet against profiling. All your "civil liberty" arguments are poop. Now we expand the net to include muslim women and mothers. Crazy freaks.

Actually it disproves profiling. If only young Arab males was the profile target, then a married Pakistani couple with a baby would be outside the parameters and hence missed from that search.

Now if you search everyone, then everyone will get searched. Setup holes in a search program and the holes are what will be used. As anything that is not part of the profile is now a hole.

Rodion Romanovich

08-14-2006, 09:43

Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?
What's your next poll going to be - identifying badges for "undesireables"?

I think the answer to your question is quite obvious. When datamining and wiretapping of phones and email increases, terrorists will start making the attacks alone, without any communication at all, and their terror will remain, while the datamining has removed freedom, democracy and integrity from our countries. To use datamining and wiretapping against terrorists is the most contra-productive strategy ever suggested in any conflict in the history of mankind. In fact it's so stupid of an idea with so clear contra-productive consequences, that it makes you think that the real intention of it probably isn't anti-terrorism, but a gradual coup to transform our countries into dictatorship regimes just like what happened in the early 19th century where practically every country in Europe except France and Britain got dictators. This gradual removal of freedom and democracy has been going for about 4 years now, and our leaders have achieved just as much as Hitler, Stalin, or anyone else achievied in 4 years when it comes to removal of democratic rights and increasing of demonization and fear of protesting. So what can we expect in the coming years?

Banquo's Ghost

08-14-2006, 10:04

What's your next poll going to be - identifying badges for "undesireables"?

I think the answer to your question is quite obvious. When datamining and wiretapping of phones and email increases, terrorists will start making the attacks alone, without any communication at all, and their terror will remain, while the datamining has removed freedom, democracy and integrity from our countries. To use datamining and wiretapping against terrorists is the most contra-productive strategy ever suggested in any conflict in the history of mankind. In fact it's so stupid of an idea with so clear contra-productive consequences, that it makes you think that the real intention of it probably isn't anti-terrorism, but a gradual coup to transform our countries into dictatorship regimes just like what happened in the early 19th century where practically every country in Europe except France and Britain got dictators. This gradual removal of freedom and democracy has been going for about 4 years now, and our leaders have achieved just as much as Hitler, Stalin, or anyone else achievied in 4 years when it comes to removal of democratic rights and increasing of demonization and fear of protesting. So what can we expect in the coming years?

EDIT by Ser Clegane: last part has been removed to reflect edits in original post

Er....yikes? :anxious:

Divinus Arma

08-14-2006, 10:12

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

wanna lay off the naziness amigo? Just cause I wanna cath te bad guys dont make me a ****ing nazi!!!!!

It makes me sick to be called abigot by complete strgangers. youuo dont knwo a damn ting about me. Yes I am drunk and posting but damn. I dont care fi you are a craker, a beaner, a nip, a negor, or a chink. I'll be your friend either way. That crap means nothing to me you arse. I care about the politicas of th matter, namely: are you coming to my country byt millios with nothing tooffer but poverty? Are you attempting to kill mt famiuly? Get a clue man. This never nevr never had anything to do with race.

Ser Clegane

08-14-2006, 10:18

I expect these knee-jerk racism accusations to stop. :stare:

If you disagree with the effectiveness of "racial" (or whatever) profiling please let us know why.
Simply accusing other patrons of being racist is not acceptable.

Rodion Romanovich

08-14-2006, 10:22

If you disagree with the effectiveness of "racial" (or whatever) profiling please let us know why.

Datamining and wiretapping can only catch terrorists who communicate. Terrorists working alone will not be caught. After a few cases of terrorists being caught, they will all change strategy and go alone, which means they can't be caught. Then you're back where you started - with no gains in the war against terrorism, but with one difference - you've made your country wiretap it's citizens, you've violated their integrity, and you've already created the hateful demonized feeling that has in history always ended with genocide. The end result is therefore the loss of something, without the gain of anything.

If you look at previous examples in history where datamining and wiretapping of the citizens was carried out, you'll see that that's something that has only existed in malfunctioning, violent and authoritarian societies - for instance Nazi Germany, Communist USSR, Mao Zedong's China, DDR, Mussolini's Fascist regime and The Khmers in Cambodia, to mention a few. Interesting also to note is that previously to the usage of datamining, wiretapping and controlling the citizens, these societies worked a lot better than they did after a few years of all the surveillance.

rotorgun

08-14-2006, 13:16

So how many Saudi's were in 9/11?

Do you really want to stop all non-government business with them?

Absolutely! This means Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Iran, Syria, Lebenon, and let us not forget our dear friends, Pakistan. I would go as far as freezing the assets of the Saudis in this country until they were more forthcoming in helping to find their brother Osama Bin Killin' and promised the reforms that would help keep such groups as Al Kill Ya from being able to spread their brand of hatred.

As for racial profiling, it is something that their people brought on themselves. If they want my respect, then perhaps the muslim world could do more to reign in the nutcases who want to have 72 virgins by dying for Allah. I really mean our peaceful muslim bretheren no harm, and I have every respect for the Koran (praise be upon it), but this is war-a war the west did not ask for and if we must take a hard look at one segment of our population to find the wolves among us, then to do less is to lack moral courage. We are not talking about your standard criminal element here, but a highly sophisticated enemy who is completely dedicated to causing us misery and harm.

Regards,

Xiahou

08-14-2006, 14:08

Datamining and wiretapping can only catch terrorists who communicate. Terrorists working alone will not be caught. After a few cases of terrorists being caught, they will all change strategy and go alone, which means they can't be caught. Then you're back where you started - with no gains in the war against terrorism, but with one difference - you've made your country wiretap it's citizens, you've violated their integrity, and you've already created the hateful demonized feeling that has in history always ended with genocide. The end result is therefore the loss of something, without the gain of anything.So you're arguing that we shouldnt catch terrorists because they might get wise to our methods and switch? That's like arguing against treating people with anti-biotics because the diseases may get resistent. Besides, they won't stop communicating- without planning and coordination it's impossible to pull off any large-scale attacks.

Rodion Romanovich

08-14-2006, 14:26

So you're arguing that we shouldnt catch terrorists because they might get wise to our methods and switch? That's like arguing against treating people with anti-biotics because the diseases may get resistent. Besides, they won't stop communicating- without planning and coordination it's impossible to pull off any large-scale attacks.

Is it the surveillance and racial discrimination profiling or regular police work that has stopped the latest two terror plots? You're putting words I never said into my mouth. Removal of democratic rights to fight a threat against democracy, is like murdering random civilians to fight murder.

To remove our democratic rights and using racial discrimination and concentration camps is no more a solution to any problem than murdering innocent Jews or Anti-communists was a solution to any problem for the nazis and stalinists.

Lemur

08-14-2006, 15:07

Just to lighten the mood ...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/terrorist.jpg

Mithras

08-14-2006, 15:14

The fun thing about Islam is that it's a religion. The fun thing about Scary nutter Islam is that it's a perspective. This means that the entire human race can be a member of both. If you single out Arabs alienate them and give the terrorists an opening to exploit. It's almost a cert that their are white people out their who could plausably be terrorists. Their's also also large numbers of black, pakistani and Asian muslims out their anyway not to mention the Eastern europian ethnic groups. This isnt 'bleeding heartism' (aka a buzzword used by mildy bigoted conservatisves to make their enemies look naive when it's actually they themselves who are naive) it's basic logic.

Louis VI the Fat

08-14-2006, 15:16

What!!???

You mean to tell us that terrorists drive black mercedesses? Are you insinuating that we should race-profile Germans!? :furious3:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-14-2006, 15:20

Except that both Blair and Bush will be gone in a few years and as soon as the Muslim terrorist threat disappears the erosion of the state will start again. That said removing double jeopardy and trial by jury are rather worrying, since I don't see that getting reversed.

Blair has ground to a halt and he's a lame, duck. I'd shelve the conspiracy theories for a while if I were you.

On topic: While I agree that profiling can be counter productive you have to admit that all the terrorists are Muslims, thats the link. You can't get away from it. They're not all Arabs, or blacks, or white, they're all Muslim. So in Britain we can discount the 58.2 million people in Britain who are not Muslim.

Just as in the same way when they were looking for an IRA plot they could discount the protasant Welsman with no Irish relatives. These things don't need to be made public, they just need to be done. The idea that the public needs to know everything going in is stupid. Thats what we have the security services for, to take care of these things so that we don't have to worry about it.

Aenlic

08-14-2006, 15:54

...*gasp* facing the fact that the terrorists are not white Christian John Smiths.

Crazed Rabbit

Right. They're white Christian Timothy McVeigh's.

The whole problem with this entire debate is that far too many people think Muslims = Arabs and terrorists = Muslims; therefore, to them, terrorists = Arabs. It just isn't the case. Not all Arabs are terrorists. Not all Arabs are Muslims. Not all Muslims are Arabs. Not all Muslims are terrorists. And most importantly, not all terrorists are Arabs or Muslims. So what freaking good does racial profiling do? If anything, it gives the terrorists an open invitation to recruit non-Arabs to be their suicide bombers. Meanwhile, the less than intelligent will feel safe because the geniuses we hire for minimum wage to work in airport security will think that some Hindi woman dresses like an Arab (even though she doesn't) and profile her for searching, or single out the Sikh in the turban, instead of the terrorist in the business suit. No thanks.

Lemur

08-14-2006, 16:04

You mean to tell us that terrorists drive black mercedesses? Are you insinuating that we should race-profile Germans!?
Actually, I was getting paranoid about the blue Mazda in the background. Let's profile Japanese and French people.

In fairness, after the Oklahoma City bombing, police were profiling young white men with extremely short haircuts and paramilitary clothing. I remember they caught a couple of guys that way. Nobody raised much of a fuss about it at the time.

Papewaio

08-15-2006, 01:26

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/terrorist.jpg

OMG that means Aussies must be the main suspects...
The likely Australian population (of camels) is now 600,000. (http://www.camelsaust.com.au/)

Joeokar

08-15-2006, 02:11

Actually, I was getting paranoid about the blue Mazda in the background. Let's profile Japanese and French people.

In fairness, after the Oklahoma City bombing, police were profiling young white men with extremely short haircuts and paramilitary clothing. I remember they caught a couple of guys that way. Nobody raised much of a fuss about it at the time.
well thats because its profiling of white men ~:)

Divinus Arma

08-15-2006, 07:31

Thank GOD. I'm glad (*edit) western my government is not completely idiotic (Thanks Ghost, I guess the headline alone caught my eye):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2313135,00.html

Muslims face extra checks in new travel crackdown
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

THE Government is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk.

The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.

Silver Rusher

08-15-2006, 14:09

Lets get real. The guy with the turban gets more attention. We would be lying to ourselves anyway. The first thing you do when you get on a plane is look for the brown people. We all do it. Dont lie
Most Muslims don't wear turbans, as has probably been pointed out quite a few times in this thread, but it's true, there are a lot of people who connect turbans to Islam...

Anyway, racial profiling for Muslim terrorists is a horrendous idea. As a religion, Islam is probably the most racially diverse of them all. A Muslim terrorist could be any race you can possibly think of. According to the news, one of the people arrested in connection to the failed attacks was a Jamaican immigrant convert. There are even a lot of white Muslims. Racial profiling for Muslims would suggest that they are all genetically similar, which they aren't, quite simply.

Banquo's Ghost

08-15-2006, 14:15

Thank GOD. I'm glad my government is not completely idiotic:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2313135,00.html

E, you did see that it was the UK government? Are you moving? :wink:

Well, this just proves how governments manipulate opinion. The article gives the impression that these discussions are new in the UK.

The profiling outlined has been done for years and years. I was trained in it back in the early eighties. Utter propaganda.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-15-2006, 22:59

Pannonian

08-16-2006, 00:09

I still think that racial profiling is a bad idea but I'm utterly mistified about the people here that refuse to accept that 100% of the potential Jihadists are Muslim and that that in tern means we can totally discount the other 58.2 million people here.
Therefore openly discount general profiling of Muslims and court the general Muslim population to help profile their communities. The police can't cope with the amount of information they already have, why would giving them even more help? Dividing the country into regions and relying on the Muslim communities therein to help detect anything suspicious would be a better strategy. Adding a few dozen thousand profiles of individuals to the database would bring the police to a stop. Adding a few dozen profiles of communities would be a realistic project, and they in turn will help focus on the few individuals who may have jihadist links or sympathies.

The media often ask why the state has information on perpetrators but do nothing to stop the crimes. The fact is, unless we want to live in a police state with 50% of the country's resources directed thereof, there is only so much bureaucracy can do. The demand for more surveillance coupled with more bobbies on the beat (or variations of) only makes things worse, as there is even more data to deal with and fewer desk jockeys to deal with it. The police don't want more information, they want more targeted information. Indiscriminate profiling of Muslims reduces the pressure on the rest of the population, but it acts against gaining information from the Muslim population from which the terrorists spring. It makes the rest of us feel good, but it counters our goal of stopping terrorist attacks. I suppose this means Blair will be proposing it in the near future.

King Ragnar

08-16-2006, 15:30

Its a very good idea i mean it seems a bit stupid searching a non muslim family say a white british family of 4, waste of time to be honest when a single muslim man poses the much greater threat....

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-16-2006, 21:28

Therefore openly discount general profiling of Muslims and court the general Muslim population to help profile their communities. The police can't cope with the amount of information they already have, why would giving them even more help? Dividing the country into regions and relying on the Muslim communities therein to help detect anything suspicious would be a better strategy. Adding a few dozen thousand profiles of individuals to the database would bring the police to a stop. Adding a few dozen profiles of communities would be a realistic project, and they in turn will help focus on the few individuals who may have jihadist links or sympathies.

The media often ask why the state has information on perpetrators but do nothing to stop the crimes. The fact is, unless we want to live in a police state with 50% of the country's resources directed thereof, there is only so much bureaucracy can do. The demand for more surveillance coupled with more bobbies on the beat (or variations of) only makes things worse, as there is even more data to deal with and fewer desk jockeys to deal with it. The police don't want more information, they want more targeted information. Indiscriminate profiling of Muslims reduces the pressure on the rest of the population, but it acts against gaining information from the Muslim population from which the terrorists spring. It makes the rest of us feel good, but it counters our goal of stopping terrorist attacks. I suppose this means Blair will be proposing it in the near future.

I agree but it in Britain people keep asking why the Police only target Muslims.

Pannonian

08-16-2006, 21:52

I agree but it in Britain people keep asking why the Police only target Muslims.
If the individuals we profile are as a result of concrete information or tip-offs from their communities, we can hardly be blamed if those individuals are exclusively Muslims. The public shouldn't have access to a list of exactly which individuals are profiled anyway, just a general description of the policy.

Pannonian

08-17-2006, 00:24

A Guardian comment on the subject, with discussion from posters. Article quoted, go to url for discussion.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/claude_moraes/2006/08/claude_moraes.html

In writing this post I declare an interest. As a British Asian male travelling by air and Eurostar most weeks, I am stopped and searched regularly. Since 9/11 I've noted the frequency of these stops increase in comparison to my white colleagues, and have, as an MEP, taken up the cases of people who believe they have been unfairly targeted. And if you believe that this can be just a minor inconvenience, then ask one of my constituents who was strip-searched because they had been "profiled" - with nothing found.

However, it is not principally because of the potential unfairness of targeting particular ethnic groups that the current rush to profiling should be resisited; it is because it simply doesn't work - and can be counterproductive.

Where is the evidence that something which seems as logical as targeting "muslim" looking passengers does not work? In June of this year I convened a meeting of NGOs and senior EU figures - including the EU anti-terrorism coordinator Gijs de Vries - to hear exhaustive research from the Open Society Institute (OSI) showing that the implicit premise that race or religion is an accurate predictor of terrorist activity was a recipe for disaster. In short, good intelligence, community support, good policing and sharper aviation security were needed. Profiling on a large scale was not.

Alhough it has no consistant name, ethnic profiling has now become a major component of the fight against terrorism in several European countries including the UK, France and Germany. In the UK the proportion of "Asians" stopped by police under the new anti-terror legislation tripled in the 18 months following 9/11. To date, not one of these has resulted in conviction for a terrorism offence.

Massive data-mining operations in Germany from the end of 2001 until early 2003 collected sensitive personal information about 8.3 million people - but did not identify a single terrorist subject. Other manifestations of ethnic profiling in Europe researched by the OSI included invasive raids on mosques and mass identity checking - again producing no chargeable suspects.

So where have the relatively small number of captured and convicted terrorists come from? Virtually all have been the product of intelligence-based investigations over extended periods focused on time-bound and event-specific matters, not racial groups or stereotypes.

By branding whole communities as suspect, ethnic profiling not only legitimises prejudice amongst the general public: it can also engender feelings of humiliation and resentment amongst targeted groups. On a practical level, police and intelligence gained from communities can dry up through lack of cooperation amongst the overwhelming moderate majority.

Most importantly, profiling may divert attention from actual threats that fall outside the prescribed criteria. Before the 7/7 attacks on London, MI5 had come across the the leader of the bombers in connection with another plot - but had not pursued him because he did not fit their profile.

Finally, the more predictable law enforcement profiling becomes, the easier it becomes for terrorists to adapt. For example, the UK Government concluded in its report on the London bombings published this year that "there is no consistent profile to help identify who may be vulnerable to radicalisation".

The solutions to detecting terrorists lie in well-resourced intelligence work with communities of interest. As one senior Netherlands counterterrorism official observed in the OSI research, "community relations achieve results; stop and search does not". Most EU countries were also found wanting in their ability to monitor the effectiveness of their law enforcement agencies. The very secrecy of intelligence gathering should not preclude appropriate monitoring mechanisms.

Finally, at the airport the existing level of profiling which probably sees me being stopped more often than the now famous "family in flip-flops on holiday" should not be taken to extreme levels. Instead, for example, our UK airports should invest in hugely improving their technology - such as in the faster and more effective screening of hand luggage.

We must address the threat of terrorism effectively. It is possible to do this by avoiding a policy like ethnic profiling, which strikes at the heart of the social contract linking law enforcement to the communities they serve.

Papewaio

08-17-2006, 01:25

I still think that racial profiling is a bad idea but I'm utterly mistified about the people here that refuse to accept that 100% of the potential Jihadists are Muslim and that that in tern means we can totally discount the other 58.2 million people here.

So can you tell the difference between a Pakistani and an Indian?

Better still can you tell the difference between a non-Muslim Pakistani and a muslim one?

A non-Muslim Pakistani and a Muslim Sri Lankan?

A Muslim Pakistani of light skin who is dressed like any other university student?

A Muslim Anglo-Saxon dressed like a universtiy student and a Hindu Indian waiting at the airport. The Indian gets all the attention, Mr Shoe Bomber MK II walks past and causes a ruckus on the plane.

Creating profiles are useful for investigating, it shouldn't be used to screen at airports... everyone should be screened. Then based on body language others should be selected. Ones tan line is not a very good basis to figure out ones fundamentalist feelings.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-17-2006, 16:04

So can you tell the difference between a Pakistani and an Indian?

Better still can you tell the difference between a non-Muslim Pakistani and a muslim one?

A non-Muslim Pakistani and a Muslim Sri Lankan?

A Muslim Pakistani of light skin who is dressed like any other university student?

A Muslim Anglo-Saxon dressed like a universtiy student and a Hindu Indian waiting at the airport. The Indian gets all the attention, Mr Shoe Bomber MK II walks past and causes a ruckus on the plane.

Creating profiles are useful for investigating, it shouldn't be used to screen at airports... everyone should be screened. Then based on body language others should be selected. Ones tan line is not a very good basis to figure out ones fundamentalist feelings.

That is exactly my point, why are you picking on me.

At what point did I say Muslim=Arab, or Pakistani=Muslim.

If you look further back you'll see I actually made a reference to my Christian Arab friends.

Profiling is no good at airports because you're assuming you can profile on looks. If there is a serious risk you check EVERYONE.

Profiling is good in investigation and in investiagtion of Muslim terroism you can discount everyone who is not a Muslim.

Aenlic

08-17-2006, 20:09

Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's one time Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, is a Chaldean Catholic.

The cognitive dissonance setting in among certain parties to this thread is going to be almost audible now.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-17-2006, 21:04

Whats your point?

He unlikely to be involved in Jihad?

He's an Arab and a Christian?

Ser Clegane

08-17-2006, 22:07

Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's one time Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, is a Chaldean Catholic.

In this context it might also be mentioned that Ibrahim Izzat Al-Douri probably also would slip through as he would not really fit the description of a Muslim Arab:
https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/83/ibrahimalduriby6.jpg

JAG

08-17-2006, 22:36

Lets get real. The guy with the turban gets more attention. We would be lying to ourselves anyway. The first thing you do when you get on a plane is look for the brown people. We all do it. Dont lie

SAYS IT ALL!

'Guy with the Turban'.... So when was the last time Sikhs practiced any terrorism?!

You start with racial profilling, you finish with simple racism and injustice not to mention alienation of different cultures and people from different racial backgrounds. Racial profilling is the kind of thing which promotes, not diminishes terrorism.

Tribesman

08-17-2006, 22:57

.... So when was the last time Sikhs practiced any terrorism?!

Last week , and the week before that ..... I havn't seen any this week yet though :juggle2:

In this context it might also be mentioned that Ibrahim Izzat Al-Douri probably also would slip through as he would not really fit the description of a Muslim Arab:

But he's ginger , that an offence in itself .

Anyhow , instead of the question being ....racial profiling , good or bad ?
Surely it should be ....racial profiling , does it work ?

Seamus Fermanagh

08-18-2006, 03:39

Question of practicality.

Ideal security would be to interview and search all persons using any form of public transportation or attending any public venue.

This is impractical in resource terms, as well as intrusive.

Lacking the practical capability to question/search/review all persons, what is the best means of focusing your efforts so as to screen the most likely source of danger?

Using "Race" as the primary basis for a threat profile does not strike me as very useful. However, developing a set of criteria that can provide screeners with a useful "profile" should be doable.

Would-be terrorists could, of course, learn the parameters of the profile and then work NOT to fit -- but at least it would require them to up their effort level and expend more time/treasure/talent to circumvent the authorities. I'm not inclined to make it easy for my opponents if I can see some means to avoid doing so.

IrishArmenian

08-19-2006, 00:45

rotorgun

08-21-2006, 05:42

Oh yes, the Nestorian Christians are based in Syria. They practice Catholicism but think Jesus was never man, just 100% divine. They are all darker than white people. My Grandfather was born in Iran, and he was a devout Christian, also he could've been mistaken for a Muslim. the point is, not all Arabs or people of a mid-dark skin colour are Muslim. Many Egyptian Christians too. I am also, quite dark myself.

While I agree that what you say is true, what way would you have of identifying someone such as your grandfather if you were not of the culture? Let's liken the terrorists to wolves, in this case Islamic wolves. Not all Muslims are terrorists, just as all canines (no offense intended by this) are not big bad wolves, but all wolves are certainly all canines. In what way does a peaceful farmer protect his flock from predators such as the wolf? Why he certainly would probably shoot any that he sees on sight....wouldn't anyone? Now suppose that these wolves could disguise themselves to look like ordinary dogs. How should the farmer then proceed? If he could find no reasonable way of identifying the wolves from the dogs, then he must take drastic action against either or risk losing his flock.

This is the dilemma that currently faces the leaders of the western nations. How can they make thier countries safe from the terrorists when it is so difficult to even indentify them? Some criteria must be established, but which one. Is it not just common sense to take the drastic step of severly limiting the ability of all Muslims from entering your country from those countries which support terrorism. In addition, would it not be irresponsible if they did not put certain racial groups, particularly those with similar backrounds as the terrorists, under closer scrutiny? I admit that it is highly undesirable, but it would at least make the job of your security forces easier to identify any possible suspects. Once again, I am not saying that all Islamic people are my enemy, but those that are are have made it difficult for my country to trust many Muslims because of the terrorists' cowardly way of hiding behind the innocent to avoid detection. I implore my Muslim brothers, what would the countries that you originate from do if it were a radical group of Americans or Europeans doing the same to your people, especially if not much was being done by the countries that harbored such attackers to aid you?

I have more respect for a coyote.

Papewaio

08-21-2006, 05:44

You speak of wolves, now name the most common animal a farmer would use to defend their flock...

rotorgun

08-21-2006, 05:57

You speak of wolves, now name the most common animal a farmer would use to defend their flock...

Indeed, it must certainly be the dog, although I have seen a number of farmers employing a good Jack Ass or two in thier fields. It seems that they are very aggresive in taking the fight to the wolves and coyotes.

My point was in the identifying of the terrorists. Perhaps you could provide a better analogy?

Regards,

Papewaio

08-21-2006, 06:12

The best information is from the communities.

So if you alienate the entire community it will be a less effective strategy then one that can get them to help. Hence the dogs vs wolves analogy.

Patriarch of Constantinople

08-21-2006, 07:19

If someone is wearing a turban i honestly think it should be checked but not have the guy pulled out and it being called a "random selection". Sometimes i feel like a complete jack*** when saying this

Patriarch of Constantinople

08-21-2006, 07:24

Whats your point?

He unlikely to be involved in Jihad?

He's an Arab and a Christian?

I think Muslim and Arab are continually mixed up. The Arabs (Arabic: عرب ʻarab) are predominantly speakers of the Arabic language, rather than a pure ethnic group, mainly found throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
A Muslim (Arabic: مسلم, Turkish: Müslüman, Persian and Urdu: مسلمان) is an adherent of Islam. The feminine form of Muslim is Muslimah. Literally, the word means "one who submits to God". There are approximately 1.31 billion Muslims worldwide.

So muslims follow Islam and Arabs are explained above. Ive heard alot of generelazations of all Arabs being muslim.

rory_20_uk

08-21-2006, 10:13

Groups tend to view other groups as hamogenous. Many black people assume that whites all get on, and I had no idea the animosity between Africans and Carribeans. So of course everyone in the middle east must be best buds, right? :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

rotorgun

08-21-2006, 15:21

The best information is from the communities.

So if you alienate the entire community it will be a less effective strategy then one that can get them to help. Hence the dogs vs wolves analogy.

I haven't seen very much in the way of help coming from any Muslim communities in the United States or the United Kingdom. On the contrary, it seems that their is quite a bit of "Allah Aqbar" going on in many mosques any time that 9/11 is mentioned in sermons. What in the world is one to make of such an attitude? I guess I am just to overlook the fact that over 80% of Muslim s in those communities hate the west, and wish to see the restoration of the Caliphate. We might as well just start living in the middle ages again if that should ever happen. Trust such people indeed! I might as well invite a rapist to date my daughter or a thief to do my banking. Come on man! Are you really that naiive? Let's imagine that 9/11 happened in Austrailia. Do you think that the Australian people would have such restraint? Many of them understand exactly what it means to let a wolf in among your sheep. I doubt they would be so docile as you claim to be towards so dedicated an enemy.

Banquo's Ghost

08-21-2006, 15:49

Horatius

08-21-2006, 20:40

Profiling Muslims-Unfortunately an absolute neccessity, and remember 100% of the terrorists are Muslims.

Profiling the "Muslim Race"-Impossible no such thing exists

Why does everyone insist on equating Islam with a race?

So yes I am in for of profiling, however I am for religious, not racial profiling.

Most of the intelligence we here in the UK get from the Muslim Community comes from bugging mosques, or from under cover agents who blend in with the in crowd of the terrorists, the latter method not an anonymous phone call is how we defeated the most recent plot to blow up ten civilian jets.

Dâriûsh

08-21-2006, 21:21

I hope the "good" voters will one day have to undergo security checks with a gloved hand up their behind.

Pannonian

08-21-2006, 21:53

Profiling Muslims-Unfortunately an absolute neccessity, and remember 100% of the terrorists are Muslims.

Wasn't the first use of the new anti-incitement law against a pro-life activist who supported attacking abortion clinics or something? IIRC there have also been firebombs from animal rights activists in the past few months as well. In NI there is still some tension between the Loyalists and the Republicans, and between the Loyalists themselves. Then there are the neo-Nazis.

Profiling the "Muslim Race"-Impossible no such thing exists

Why does everyone insist on equating Islam with a race?

So yes I am in for of profiling, however I am for religious, not racial profiling.

So how would you go about doing this profiling? How would people qualify to be profiled? Would all Muslims have to register to be profiled, or only a subsection? How would you define that subsection? Would converts have to register upon conversion? How much data do you think this will throw up? How are you going to deal with all this data and turn it into useful information?

Most of the intelligence we here in the UK get from the Muslim Community comes from bugging mosques, or from under cover agents who blend in with the in crowd of the terrorists, the latter method not an anonymous phone call is how we defeated the most recent plot to blow up ten civilian jets.
Any cites for this? Also, how are you going to get undercover agents into the incrowd of these terrorists if you're going to alienate the entire Muslim population?

AntiochusIII

08-21-2006, 23:17

I hope the "good" voters will one day have to undergo security checks with a gloved hand up their behind.Ah, but Whites have greater tolerance for such alternative caressing activities by complete strangers, especially considering on how I suspect just about everyone on the far right likes to do that in their closets!

...

I'm not sure, but I'd rather have political forces on full swing dealing with actual issues and actual things than scanning the hell out of my very tender behind because of my Asian look and such. It wouldn't be too soon before the Southeast Asian terrorist organizations -- many of which are heavily tied to your old friends -- are utilized by the beloved Al-Qaida for another spectacular round of global destabilization, and then I shall find the privacy of my bedroom to be but a myth. The actual job of fighting this incredibly catchy-sounding War on Terror ought to be fought with more innovative ways than the logically-flawed, racism-encouraging, partisan-inspiring, resource-wasting, distracting system of racial profiling.

But who can say? Since so many in this thread have expressed the sentiment of "face it, you're scared of the other colored person too (I could shorten it to racism, but for the courtesy of it...)" and a few even go to the legendary "but my Muslim/Arab Christian/Cyrodiilic (and I'm not Camonna Tong! [Morrowind reference]) friend!"

Horatius

08-21-2006, 23:21

Wasn't the first use of the new anti-incitement law against a pro-life activist who supported attacking abortion clinics or something? IIRC there have also been firebombs from animal rights activists in the past few months as well. In NI there is still some tension between the Loyalists and the Republicans, and between the Loyalists themselves. Then there are the neo-Nazis.

1. You forgot the IRA

2. Yes Animal Rights and pro-life groups are such a threat to Britain that it is so equivalent to Islamic Terrorist:dizzy2: :dizzy2: , and I would like to know when was the last terror attack attributed to Nick Griffith.

So how would you go about doing this profiling? How would people qualify to be profiled? Would all Muslims have to register to be profiled, or only a subsection? How would you define that subsection? Would converts have to register upon conversion? How much data do you think this will throw up? How are you going to deal with all this data and turn it into useful information?

You are acting like M15 is incompetent first off by assuming that the amount of information this would require processing before it becomes useful is too much for it.

Secondly somebody with a very heavy German accent named Ali bin Allah might be a convert, while not all Muslim Converts change their names enough do for religious profiling without racial profiling. I do concede that any profiling is unfortunate, and I wish that it wasn't needed, however the danger is clear and present.

Any cites for this? Also, how are you going to get undercover agents into the incrowd of these terrorists if you're going to alienate the entire Muslim population?

1. It's called secrecy, hence the term undercover.

2. The Muslim Population already feels extremely alienated.

3. I will look for that one to, although I am doing a bunch of things at the same time.

Anyway Pannonian just as I acknowledge you don't hate me, or Tony Blair Loyalists I hope you acknowledge I do not hate you, Muslims or Leftists.

Redleg

08-21-2006, 23:55

To put it simply Racial Profiling equates to poor police work. I prefer behavior profiling as the method to catch the individual who has committed himself to breaking the law.

Tribesman

08-22-2006, 00:23

I would like to know when was the last terror attack attributed to Nick Griffith.

Well you had the two friendly bombings in London by the nice BNP member from Camberley , then you had Kirk Barker a nice BNP campaigner in North-Hampshire who was implicated in those bomb attacks getting caught trying to firebomb a Hindu wedding , then Kirks drinking and campaigning partner Luke Gardiner getting arrested for a racist attack and the police search of his house turning up explosives and illegal firearms .
Though of course Nick Griffith doesn't do terrorism ..... his followers do .

Pannonian

08-22-2006, 03:02

Papewaio

08-22-2006, 03:51

I haven't seen very much in the way of help coming from any Muslim communities in the United States or the United Kingdom. On the contrary, it seems that their is quite a bit of "Allah Aqbar" going on in many mosques any time that 9/11 is mentioned in sermons. What in the world is one to make of such an attitude? I guess I am just to overlook the fact that over 80% of Muslim s in those communities hate the west, and wish to see the restoration of the Caliphate. We might as well just start living in the middle ages again if that should ever happen. Trust such people indeed! I might as well invite a rapist to date my daughter or a thief to do my banking. Come on man! Are you really that naiive? Let's imagine that 9/11 happened in Austrailia. Do you think that the Australian people would have such restraint? Many of them understand exactly what it means to let a wolf in among your sheep. I doubt they would be so docile as you claim to be towards so dedicated an enemy.

Ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, anger leads to mistakes.

I would like to see where you are getting your information from because it is essentially wrong. It is also racist. When you equate an entire people to rapists and thieves it shows how much out of your depth you are indeed.

Lets dissect your insipid arguement down to the marrow.

it seems that their is quite a bit of "Allah Aqbar" going on in many mosques any time that 9/11 is mentioned in sermons.
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of "Amen" when going in many churches any time that 9/11 is mentioned in sermons too. Oh my Gawd all christians must be terrorists because they say Amen! :laugh4:

I am just to overlook the fact that over 80% of Muslim s in those communities hate the west.
Care to backup this claim? There are plenty of types of Muslims and you do realise that the Caliphate really only applies to a portion of the sects not all, It would be like saying all Christians want to see world dominiation by the Catholics, or all Buddhists want to see China dominate the world.

Trust such people indeed! I might as well invite a rapist to date my daughter or a thief to do my banking.
Thats plain racist. Insert any group based on ethics, creed or skin colour into that statement and you will see how wrong it is.

Let's imagine that 9/11 happened in Austrailia. Do you think that the Australian people would have such restraint? Not only did we show restraint over the Bali Bombing, when the Tsunami hit we were the biggest contributor on the ground and in funds per capita in helping out Indonesia. We have the ability to discern the difference between facism and democracy and Islamofacism and Islamic Democracy. Australians as a whole also don't believe in collective punishment as this is another form of racism.

What is wrong with terrorism is that it is a form of collective punishment that attacks all regardless of age, gender or actions. Collectively punishing an entire community is from the same poor idea of ethics. Be it internment camps, death camps, second class citizenship etc.

Attacking an entire community when they can be your best tool in defeating terrorism smacks of idiocy much like Kitcheners solution in the second Boer War. The terrorists want to create a schism, they want to splinter communities, they want to create fear. It is not a good idea therefore to play to their strenghts to give into fear, to splinter communites and create gaps. This is playing to their plan and giving them the initiative, which is not the way to win any war let alone a fourth generation one.

Maybe next time I will go easy on you and just give the warning points. :2thumbsup:

Divinus Arma

08-22-2006, 07:55

Horatius

08-22-2006, 19:06

Tribesemen

1. That happened a very long time ago perhaps you could have saved yourself the time and just brought up World War Two?, and again the scale is no where close to the danger posed by Islamic Terrorists, and we caught the BNP perpetrators in part by profiling BNP member the fact that we caught them using that method strengthens not weakens religious profiling.

Tribesman

08-22-2006, 19:41

Horace 7 years is not a long time ago .
And it shows that your claim about fascist scum not doing terrorism was rubbish .
we caught the BNP perpetrators in part by profiling BNP member the fact that we caught them using that method strengthens not weakens religious profiling.

No they didn't and no it doesn't , Copeland was caught after a tip off from his face being published , Barker and Gardiner were both caught in the act of commiting a crime , though they have never got Barker for his gun smuggling activities and the racially superior welsh git managed to survive his prison sentance ....... by spending the whole time sectioned with the nonces .

Seamus Fermanagh

08-22-2006, 21:41

I just watched a documentary from the Discovery Times Channel called the Media Jihad or something similar. Very interesting. It provides a look at the propoganda methods of muslim terrorists.

I could be wrong, but it seems there is no larger group than muslims who truly hate the people of America. It's sad to see 8 yr old muslim boys watching Al Qaida propganda material and being taught to hate Americans in the Madrasas.

I found it especially interesting to see the Jihadi groups in Britain, which meet regularly and watch these videos. I guess there is a large population of these folks in Birmingham (is that right? 2nd largest city next to London).

Sad. What the hell do these freaks think we in the west want? To rape their women and convert their people? Sorry. No. Well, some want to convert them, but not by force, that's for sure.

Why would they not hate us?

In the 20th century alone, the Western Powers attacked the remains of the Caliphate (Ottoman Empire) splintering the Middle East into fragments, failed to honor their promises for complete autonomy following WW1, exploited the area's resources for decades, fought wars (WW2 & Colonial spats) in Muslim Africa wherein the natives were casual targets for stray rounds,and topped it all off by creating a Jewish homeland from Arab territory as they finally left. The West then supports this ersatz "Crusader Kingdom" allowing it to continue to steal what is theirs and to win wars in which it should otherwise have succumbed. Now the West calls for peace but continues to fund their pet kingdom as it squelches the Palestinian people.

Horatius

08-23-2006, 02:44

In the 20th century alone, the Western Powers attacked the remains of the Caliphate (Ottoman Empire) splintering the Middle East into fragments,

Incorrect, the Ottomans attacked Russia, and joined into World War One and got punished along with the Western Empires that where on the wrong side, and if the Arabs hate the set up borders let them stop complaining and unite with each other (Which is what Baathism is about, and Baathism is not popular which is why the closest to success the Baathists had was when Hafez Al Assad temporarily submitted to Gamel abd Al Nasser.

failed to honor their promises for complete autonomy following WW1,

Arabs failed their promise to seriously hurt the Ottoman Empire, shall we hate Arabs now? Niether side fulfilled their agreement.

exploited the area's resources for decades,

In North Africa yes, but not in the Middle East.

fought wars (WW2 & Colonial spats) in Muslim Africa wherein the natives were casual targets for stray rounds,

The other option was allow the Nazis to win which I know many Arabs wanted, however that was simply not an option.

and topped it all off by creating a Jewish homeland from Arab territory as they finally left.

Arab land that had a Jewish Majority at the time, which is a funny way for it to be Arab Land, perhaps Istanbul is still Greek Land?

The West then supports this ersatz "Crusader Kingdom" allowing it to continue to steal what is theirs and to win wars in which it should otherwise have succumbed.

Israel won all of it's wars on it's own, and it has not stolen any land, land captured in defensive wars that the enemy wants to commit genocide is not theft.

Now the West calls for peace but continues to fund their pet kingdom as it squelches the Palestinian people.

I don't know where to begin in countering that. Perhaps the fact that Hamas rejects the right of Israel to exist? Or perhaps the fact that Israel has consistently been willing to negotiate while in a classic example in 2000/2001 the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

rotorgun

08-23-2006, 02:46

To Papewaio and Banquo's Ghost I would like to say thank you for your honesty in expressing your thoughts about my latest response. After looking at it closer I realised just how it must have made me appear as a racist. I should like to revise my statement to be a more accurate representation of my thoughts and feelings about this subject.

When talking about "rapists" and "theives" I was speaking rhetorically about those who are using the call of radical Islamic doctrine to influence those Muslims who might otherwise be of a more moderate view. I am speaking of those who hide among the peaceful Muslim populations of the world and strike without warning the innocent people of the countries that they despise. I liken them to wolves, but on reflection perhaps they are more like rats. It is they who I "do not trust" and therefore I must take care in how I trust other people who hail from the region they come from. I would like to withdraw any statement that has caused offense.

As for the 80% figure I spoke of concerning the number of Muslims who hate the United States and the United Kingdom, I admit that I arrived at it from pure feeling. I had recently watched a news broadcast which showed two competely different mosques in the UK. I don't remember exactly where these were located, somewhere with a significant Muslim population, such as Birmingham or some place like that. I do remember an interview with an older Muslim cleric who said that many of the younger members of his mosque had stopped coming to his mosque, but now attended the one just next door. In this mosque, a much more radical sermon was being preached, with emphasis made on how deserving America was to have been attacked on 9/11. Every time that 9/11 was mentioned, or something about the "evil" United States, a round of "Allah Aqbar!" went up from the congregation.

In the interview with the youths, it was claimed that this was how the majority of the young felt about the United States, and that they hoped to someday see the restoration of the Caliphate. Many of them expressed a desire to fight along side Osama Bin Laden, Hamas, or Hezbollah. These were the actual words of those interviewed, not something I made up from thin air. I do admit that how I arrived at a figure of 80% is rather incredulous, but I guess I just felt that 80% represented a good figure for a majority. I realise that I was intellectually, morally, and spiritually wrong to express such a figure now.
Please accept my humble apologies for this obvious error.

As to my ability to even discuss this subject logically I must decline for the present. My feelings are just to strong about it. As you and others have mentioned, the terrorists have sought to spread fear and divide their enemies. In this they have admirably succeded. I hope that they are proud of themselves for what they have accomplished. I hope that Allah will be as proud of them as well, especially for all of the murders and atrocities that they have committed. In a way, I feel that I must pray for them that God may forgive them for their sins. For why they have wasted such a gift, as life is, by hating others so much that they must kill them and throw the world into fear and turmoil is beyond me. There are so many better ways to spend one's time on earth. I shall not pray to Allah to kill them, but to Jesus that he may teach me to forgive them.

I shall now retire from this discussion, or any others like it, until the second coming. You may now all say "Amen" if it should float your boat.

For the record, we do not ever speak of sovereign nations such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, or any other Islamic country with anything but respect in my church. I have never heard one "hateful" sermon about any of them in all my years as a Christian. As a matter of fact we have often prayed on our knees for the peace of these countries, and for a resolution to the woes in all of the middle east. To that we have often shouted "Amen!"

Papewaio

08-23-2006, 03:06

Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps), you wouldn't want the majority of Americans attitudes to be summed up by the majority of his congregation.

Idiots exist in every religion.

Divinus Arma

08-23-2006, 03:24

Comparing Phelps to people who simply offer a differing opinion from you on security strategy is a pretty low blow.

Papewaio

08-23-2006, 03:26

? I'm comparing Phelps to Islamofacists... and saying that there are idiot congregations in every religion and country who shouldn't be used as the measuring stick.

Divinus Arma

08-23-2006, 03:28

Ahh. Then I apologize for misunderstanding your statement. If I had a flood time of less than 300 seconds, I would have apologized even faster. :bow:

Edit: As for your comment- I think it is fair to point out that the proportion of nutters who follow Phelps is considerably less than the nutters who follow Bin Laden and similar hate-mongers. Considerably less indeed.

Strike For The South

08-23-2006, 03:34

Phelps isnt a good anaolgy anyway. He has 40 followers and does nothing violent. The islamofacists have millions of followers and even more people who would turn a blind eye. It is true all socites have idoits. But this one has them yeilding all the power.

Papewaio

08-23-2006, 03:38

And I bet you can name quite a few other idiots who also give Christianity a bad name.

KKK (who went on a recruitment drive at the Org), Christian Neo-Nazis and I'm sure quite a few others. Would you really sum up the majority of Christian opinions based on them?

Would you sum up the majority of adult opinions based on radical groups such as those that protest at the G8?

Radicals exist within every religion and thought system. Some of them are ultra-violent, even Buddhism has violent monks that intefer in politics.

Strike For The South

08-23-2006, 03:46

Once agian you are trying to say these men can weild 1/10000 of the power that these inams can. They cant. This kind of thinking is engrained in there socitey. It is tuaght in school and in mass.Could you imagine if a teacher told his class to hate the smelly brown people in the west? No. There is something bigger at work here it is not a few fundies

Papewaio

08-23-2006, 03:52

True there are more fundies, but lumping the moderates in with them is going to help the fundies not us. We need to support he moderates, it will be far more better for us.

Strike For The South

08-23-2006, 03:53

This is true but how to get the moderates on our side without breaking the floodgates?

Papewaio

08-23-2006, 03:56

The Golden Rule.

Strike For The South

08-23-2006, 03:58

Indulge me good sir

Seamus Fermanagh

08-23-2006, 04:12

Papewaio

08-23-2006, 04:21

Golden Rule (http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm)

aka do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

aka Recipriocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity)

Strike For The South

08-23-2006, 04:30

If it were only that simple my friend. Even if we did everything we could do they wouldnt stop. They are jelaous of what the west has and wont stop until they destroy us. Not to mention we shouldnt be listening to them anyway. Our polices should be decided by us. Id rather fall for my idelas than stand for something Im not.

Papewaio

08-23-2006, 05:43

The Golden rule means to apply the same rules we would have on us to them.

It means if we applaud the life of someone who spends their life hunting Nazis we are likely to applaud someone hunting down terrorists.

It means that if we demand trials by jury they too will be tried.

It means that if we have capital punishment for terrorism that they too will be under that law.

For the moderates it means that we will treat them with the dignity that we would expect from our own group. It means we will let them practice their faith as we would expect ours to be allowed. It also means for myself that if I can make fun and caricatures of my holy cows, that I will make fun of others too... that is probably stretching the definition, but fun things have a bit of give and take, condoms for instance. :laugh4:

It means that that rules that we apply to ourselves will be applied to others. It does not mean one rule for us and another set for another be it none or more severe.

So if you think it is okay to go to an internment camp because of what the IRA did then it would be okay to send all Muslims to internment camps based on what Osama has done. It you think it would be unfair to be sent to an internment camp based on the actions of others, then the golden rule would mean that you should be against sending others to an internment camp based on group think.

Essentially the Golden Rule is a very useful tool in increasing our Monkey Sphere... it is a reason that it is a core tenent of the major religions, it leads to the ability to create much larger social groups. The lack of the Golden Rule in the likes of Phelps would probably limit a lot of these groups from developing beyond their leaders Monkey Sphere limited mindset.

Reenk Roink

08-23-2006, 17:02

Incorrect, the Ottomans attacked Russia, and joined into World War One and got punished along with the Western Empires that where on the wrong side, and if the Arabs hate the set up borders let them stop complaining and unite with each other (Which is what Baathism is about, and Baathism is not popular which is why the closest to success the Baathists had was when Hafez Al Assad temporarily submitted to Gamel abd Al Nasser.

Firstly, how on earth does any of this make it "incorrect" that the Ottomans were attacked by the Allies? It's a war, both sides attacked each other, Allied and Central. :rolleyes:

The Arabs do have a pretty good reason to hate the redrawn borders. Ethnic and religious groups never meant to live with each other are suddenly put in the same nation (Iraq), while others are separated.

Now, there is fault of Arab nations of not being able to unite, though western hands aren't totally blameless either.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire was in retrospect, a pretty significant event. A humiliation of the Muslim world, a destruction of the remnants of unity (ever disintegrating since the 10th century), and the opening of the floodgates to many conflicts (both between Muslims and others). After all, the Ottoman Empire was much better in playing down differences between various groups. And perhaps most relevantly, it led to the downfall of traditional Sunni authority among Muslims (no more Caliph, scholars have their power destroyed). The subsequent failure of Pan-Arab nationalism led to the current ideology: a mix of the literalist brand Wahabi/Salafi Islam and 20th century revolutionary ideas, from Qutb to Azzam to bin Laden...

Arabs failed their promise to seriously hurt the Ottoman Empire, shall we hate Arabs now? Niether side fulfilled their agreement.

In response to: "failed to honor their promises for complete autonomy following WW1,"

This is a very poor argument.

The other option was allow the Nazis to win which I know many Arabs wanted, however that was simply not an option.

I'm sorry, but how is this the other option to: "fought wars (WW2 & Colonial spats) in Muslim Africa wherein the natives were casual targets for stray rounds,"

Nice character assassination though, but you failed to mention Germans. :rolleyes:

Also, it is interesting, that anti-Semitism in the Arab world coincided with the rise of Zionism and peaked with the creation of Israel. It just wasn't there before that...

Arab land that had a Jewish Majority at the time, which is a funny way for it to be Arab Land, perhaps Istanbul is still Greek Land?

This is blatantly false.

Israel won all of it's wars on it's own, and it has not stolen any land, land captured in defensive wars that the enemy wants to commit genocide is not theft.

Now this is a loaded statement. Well, I'd advise you to look up the scores of threads on the topic for more information. While you're at it, look up the statements of some early Zionist leaders as well... :wink:

I don't know where to begin in countering that. Perhaps the fact that Hamas rejects the right of Israel to exist? Or perhaps the fact that Israel has consistently been willing to negotiate while in a classic example in 2000/2001 the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

See above...

rory_20_uk

08-23-2006, 18:14

Although I think that the implementation of Pape's ideas would be tough it seems a very fair handed way of approaching matters. Intolerance to those that are intolerant, fairness to the fair. It also stops terrorists and extremists using the laws of the very country they are trying to destroy to escape deportation or other sequalae of their actions.

~:smoking:

Horatius

08-23-2006, 19:05

Firstly, how on earth does any of this make it "incorrect" that the Ottomans were attacked by the Allies? It's a war, both sides attacked each other, Allied and Central.

The Ottoman Empire did not join the war untill they thought Germany was about to win, and then bombarded the Crimea without any provocation from the Russians, and when Russia demanded that the crew that did it be punished the Ottomans formally declared war, they launched the first stone, hence they where agressors during World War One.

The Arabs do have a pretty good reason to hate the redrawn borders. Ethnic and religious groups never meant to live with each other are suddenly put in the same nation (Iraq), while others are separated.

Now, there is fault of Arab nations of not being able to unite, though western hands aren't totally blameless either.

In other words you acknowledge the total failure of Baathism? Mesopatamia should not have been unified, however that is hardly the case of most Arab Countries. Baathism is not popular amongst most Arabs and so every Baathist ambition is doomed to failure.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire was in retrospect, a pretty significant event.

Certainly no more significant then the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

A humiliation of the Muslim world, a destruction of the remnants of unity (ever disintegrating since the 10th century), and the opening of the floodgates to many conflicts (both between Muslims and others). After all, the Ottoman Empire was much better in playing down differences between various groups. And perhaps most relevantly, it led to the downfall of traditional Sunni authority among Muslims (no more Caliph, scholars have their power destroyed). The subsequent failure of Pan-Arab nationalism led to the current ideology: a mix of the literalist brand Wahabi/Salafi Islam and 20th century revolutionary ideas, from Qutb to Azzam to bin Laden...

I am going to concede that Ottoman Authority was best at playing down differences between the groups (Turk, Arab, Muslim, Armenian, Muslim, Kurd, Jew, Shia etc etc etc) however internal events before World War One especially concerning the House of Saud and the rise of the CUP had already made that start to disintegrate (ever heard of the Armenian Genocide, or the wars between the Sauds and the local Shias?), and the rise of Wahhabism was linked to the durability of the House of Saud and their exporting of their ideology with oil money.

In response to: "failed to honor their promises for complete autonomy following WW1,"

This is a very poor argument.

No it isn't, do you even know what the treaties between the Hashashem's and Britain said? Perhaps you should read it yourself.

I'm sorry, but how is this the other option to: "fought wars (WW2 & Colonial spats) in Muslim Africa wherein the natives were casual targets for stray rounds,"

Yes it was such a crime of Britain to prevent Nazi Germany from conquering North Africa, that is such a legandery crime against humanity every Briton much apologize, note the extreme sarcasm. The fact that Nazi Germany wanted North Africa made fighting them there more then just, unless of course you wouldn't mind Germany winning the war since keeping the Suez Canal open was vital, I don't care what the collateral damage was Nazi Germany had to be stopped anywere and at any cost.

Nice character assassination though, but you failed to mention Germans.

? Did you even read what I said? the Nazi Revoly in Iraq also showed that they did have plenty of support in the Arab World, unless of course you are claiming Winstin Churchill lied in his memoirs which were given a positive review by George Orwell.

This is blatantly false.

No it isn't, unless of course you believe that 538,000 Jews is less then 397,000, while I am no Einstien I am sure that 538,000>397,000.

Now this is a loaded statement.

As is saying the Battle of Manzikert triggered the Crusades, that the Prophet Mohhamad massacred Jews at Khaybar, that the Ottomans commited the first Holocaust of the 20th century, however unfortunatley all of those statements are historical facts as well as loaded statements.

Well, I'd advise you to look up the scores of threads on the topic for more information.

Other people agree with my view is not an argument, it isn't even relevant to whatever the topic is.

While you're at it, look up the statements of some early Zionist leaders as well...

The forged one that many on your side bring up or authentic ones? You will be unpleasantly surprised by the authentic quotes.

See above...

Your above argument was not a good one, there are many who agree with my views as well may I use that as my argument as well?

Also, it is interesting, that anti-Semitism in the Arab world coincided with the rise of Zionism and peaked with the creation of Israel. It just wasn't there before that...

To quote you a patently false statement, you should broaden your horizen and read some accounts of the Arab World written by Jews both Medieval (Benjamin of Tudela) and modern (Bat Yeor) you may find that your generalization is not sufficiently accurate or helpful.

Reenk Roink

08-23-2006, 21:11

The Ottoman Empire did not join the war untill they thought Germany was about to win, and then bombarded the Crimea without any provocation from the Russians, and when Russia demanded that the crew that did it be punished the Ottomans formally declared war, they launched the first stone, hence they where agressors during World War One.

The Ottoman Empire joined the War in October 1914, because of the Ottoman-German Alliance signed shortly before the war. The deal was to enter the war on Germany's side.

Russia was also a longtime enemy of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, some groups in the Empire wanted to side with the allied powers instead, but could not accept allies of Russia.

In other words you acknowledge the total failure of Baathism? Mesopatamia should not have been unified, however that is hardly the case of most Arab Countries. Baathism is not popular amongst most Arabs and so every Baathist ambition is doomed to failure.

Pan-Arab nationalism is a failure. I have mentioned that before. I don't see where this is going.

Certainly no more significant then the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

But of course. One only has to look at the current state of the Balkans. However, I don't see where you are going with this.

I am going to concede that Ottoman Authority was best at playing down differences between the groups (Turk, Arab, Muslim, Armenian, Muslim, Kurd, Jew, Shia etc etc etc) however internal events before World War One especially concerning the House of Saud and the rise of the CUP had already made that start to disintegrate (ever heard of the Armenian Genocide, or the wars between the Sauds and the local Shias?), and the rise of Wahhabism was linked to the durability of the House of Saud and their exporting of their ideology with oil money.

Of course. There is a reason why by the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was known as the "sick, old man of Europe."

No it isn't, do you even know what the treaties between the Hashashem's and Britain said? Perhaps you should read it yourself.

No, it is a poor argument because you do not take into account the magnitude and effect of the failure of respecting the treaties.

The Ottoman Empire was dissolved after World War I.

Not giving autonomy to the regions in the Middle East had dire consequences, and the effects can be felt today.

Yes it was such a crime of Britain to prevent Nazi Germany from conquering North Africa, that is such a legandery crime against humanity every Briton much apologize, note the extreme sarcasm. The fact that Nazi Germany wanted North Africa made fighting them there more then just, unless of course you wouldn't mind Germany winning the war since keeping the Suez Canal open was vital, I don't care what the collateral damage was Nazi Germany had to be stopped anywere and at any cost.

I see now that our paradigms are so irreconcilable...

? Did you even read what I said? the Nazi Revoly in Iraq also showed that they did have plenty of support in the Arab World, unless of course you are claiming Winstin Churchill lied in his memoirs which were given a positive review by George Orwell.

The Arab world was divided during the War. Many Arabs fought with the British army, others supported Germany because they were already worrying about Zionist and British control.

By the way, I'm no fan of Churchill... :wink:

No it isn't, unless of course you believe that 538,000 Jews is less then 397,000, while I am no Einstien I am sure that 538,000>397,000.

Lets have a look:

1917: Population of Palestine alone (not including Transjordan)

700,000: total

574,000: Muslim

74,000: Christian

56,000: Jewish

30 years later, 1947:

1,845,000: total

1,237,000: Arab

608,000: Jewish

As is saying the Battle of Manzikert triggered the Crusades, that the Prophet Mohhamad massacred Jews at Khaybar, that the Ottomans commited the first Holocaust of the 20th century, however unfortunatley all of those statements are historical facts as well as loaded statements.

Oh yes, we can go back far into history for reasons as to why this or that happened.

As to your first point, we can go back on the reasons for Manzikert and all Muslim-Byzantine struggles, both Arab and later Turkish to 630 AD, when the Byzantines grew wary of Islam's rising power in Arabia and decided to conquer it. They took their Christian Arab allies to fight a proxy war. When the Arabs marched to Tabuk, the Byzantines had broken camp. Then on to Yarmuk and further...

Your second point is quite incorrect. The incident where the Muslims executed about 600 fighting age men is the siege of the Bani Qurayza, not the Battle of Khaybar. You call it a massacre, Muslims call it a victory. After all, the primary source, Ibn Ishaq, claims that the Qurayza formed an alliance to attack the Muslims with the Meccans, even though they had previously signed treaties with Muhammad stating that they would fight alongside him. After a sandstorm forced the Meccans to break their siege of Medina, Muhammad had the camp of the Bani Qurayza besieged. The Bani Qurayza then asked for a man who they thought would rule favorable for them to judge their fate. Now the man, ibn Muadh, ruled that all adult males would be executed. Some say he chose this because this was in the Torah, others because he was wounded by an arrow.

But we can go on and on about atrocity commited by Muslims. The historical record has many anecdotes. It will not change two things:

The fact that all religions, ideologies, races, and nations have commited what we would deem atrocity in our age. You seem to have been concentrating only on Muslim ones.

The fact that Muslims, and all religions, ideologies, races, and nations have good records. Need I remind you of the relative tolerance, advancement of civilization, philosophy, science, technology, architecture, etc that the Islamic and Arab world can boast of?

Other people agree with my view is not an argument, it isn't even relevant to whatever the topic is.

Your inference of my statement is incorrect. This was your statement: "Israel won all of it's wars on it's own, and it has not stolen any land, land captured in defensive wars that the enemy wants to commit genocide is not theft."

Much has been written about it, many facts given, that would argue against your points. I have not the time nor will to rehash them for you.

The forged one that many on your side bring up or authentic ones? You will be unpleasantly surprised by the authentic quotes.

You will find that these are quite authentic:

Prime Ministers of Israel (http://monabaker.com/quotes.htm)

Your above argument was not a good one, there are many who agree with my views as well may I use that as my argument as well?

See two points above...

To quote you a patently false statement, you should broaden your horizen and read some accounts of the Arab World written by Jews both Medieval (Benjamin of Tudela) and modern (Bat Yeor) you may find that your generalization is not sufficiently accurate or helpful.

I have never heard of the medieval author, but have skimmed through Bat Yeor and her selective polemic. But it is the hysterical cries of a mythical "Eurabia" that really damage her credibility. As I've said before, there are anecdotes of persecution, but there are also many anecdotes of tolerance, and even benevolent treatment. This is maybe why most historians consider the early, and medieval Islamic world to be at least a place of relative tolerance.

But besides historical attitudes, attitudes in the past 100 years have changed in the Arab world. Israel is the reason. Arabs are to blame as they simply have not learned to accept it (it was they who were defeated, and lost their land by right of conquest), and Israel is also to blame for its actions.

Horatius

08-23-2006, 21:47

The Ottoman Empire joined the War in October 1914, because of the Ottoman-German Alliance signed shortly before the war. The deal was to enter the war on Germany's side.

In other words they had agreed to attack Russia when Germany needed the help, and then waited for when the time seemed right and launched an unprovoked attack on the Crimea on behalf of Germany. Sorry but that counts as agression.

Russia was also a longtime enemy of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, some groups in the Empire wanted to side with the allied powers instead, but could not accept allies of Russia.

So what?

Lets have a look:

1917: Population of Palestine alone (not including Transjordan)

700,000: total

574,000: Muslim

74,000: Christian

56,000: Jewish

30 years later, 1947:

1,845,000: total

1,237,000: Arab

608,000: Jewish

Those figures are simply not accurate, and even if they where you should factor in that 30,000 Jews got killed by orders of Jemal Pasha who put many on death marches similar to the ones he put Armenians on.

As to your first point, we can go back on the reasons for Manzikert and all Muslim-Byzantine struggles, both Arab and later Turkish to 630 AD, when the Byzantines grew wary of Islam's rising power in Arabia and decided to conquer it. They took their Christian Arab allies to fight a proxy war. When the Arabs marched to Tabuk, the Byzantines had broken camp. Then on to Yarmuk and further...

Funny that the Arab and Turkish sources of the time disagree with you and tend to blame the servant of Heraclius for the invasion of the Byzantine Empire by saying it was his rudeness combined with the refusal of Heraclius to convert to Islam that provoked the invasions of the Byzantine Empire. Historians all agree on the fact that Arabs and later Turks were the agressors against the Byzantines not the other way around, the fact is all of the battles were fought on Byzantine owned land. It was not just Byzantines who got targetted for Medieval Jihad though, India was also a rich and frequently attacked target.

But we can go on and on about atrocity commited by Muslims. The historical record has many anecdotes. It will not change two things:

The fact that all religions, ideologies, races, and nations have commited what we would deem atrocity in our age. You seem to have been concentrating only on Muslim ones.

The fact that Muslims, and all religions, ideologies, races, and nations have good records. Need I remind you of the relative tolerance, advancement of civilization, philosophy, science, technology, architecture, etc that the Islamic and Arab world can boast of?

In terms of architecture there is not especially much that can be directly attributed to Islamic Civilizations since it was mostly taken from the already advanced Byzrianantine and Persian Zorastrian Civilizations, in terms of science and mathematics the only thing attributable to them is algebra which I grant them credit for, however they took a lot of credit for oriental accomplishments because they introduced them to Europe. Besides in my opinion Algebra is no more Islamic then the Theory of Relativity is Jewish, or the way gravity works and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun is Christian.

Your inference of my statement is incorrect. This was your statement: "Israel won all of it's wars on it's own, and it has not stolen any land, land captured in defensive wars that the enemy wants to commit genocide is not theft."

Much has been written about it, many facts given, that would argue against your points. I have not the time nor will to rehash them for you.

That response once again confirms my original response to your original statement that you say other people support your view therefore I am correct, unfortunately for you that is not an argument.

You will find that these are quite authentic:

Prime Ministers of Israel

A website that advocates boycott of Israel is not a reliable source of information, sorry but your source is no more credible that the BNP website on the topic of should we allow immigration?

See two points above...

See my rebuttel

I have never heard of the medieval author,

That means you are very uninformed about Medieval Jewry since he is a primary source used today in studying their status, he went from place to place with Jews (Apart from Western and Northern France and Germany the few places he didn't spend parts of his life in) and recorded the status of the Jewish Communities and some other things on politics, and you would be shocked if you bothered to read it.

but have skimmed through Bat Yeor and her selective polemic.

Which one the one about her life as a Dhimmi and later as a refugee? If you mean that one then you have shownplenty of bias in dismissing it simply because it doesn't confirm your beliefs, if you mean The Decline of Eastern Christendom under Islam perhaps you can debate with her sources which are reliable and well sourced.

But it is the hysterical cries of a mythical "Eurabia" that really damage her credibility. As I've said before, there are anecdotes of persecution, but there are also many anecdotes of tolerance, and even benevolent treatment. This is maybe why most historians consider the early, and medieval Islamic world to be at least a place of relative tolerance.

That can be said about Catholic Europe as well.

But besides historical attitudes, attitudes in the past 100 years have changed in the Arab world. Israel is the reason. Arabs are to blame as they simply have not learned to accept it (it was they who were defeated, and lost their land by right of conquest), and Israel is also to blame for its actions.

So why is it that so many Turks, Malaysians, and Indonesians, Persians, Afghans, Albanians, Bosnians, and Muslim converts see the reason to share Arab Tribal sentiments? That is not consistent with your explanation is it since those groups have no part in the regional conflict.

Tribesman

08-23-2006, 22:14

:laugh4: :laugh4: Those figures are simply not accurate,:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Come on Horace publish some census figures that will back up your claim , there are none not even from the Zionist federation or Aliyot studies groups that will back up your claim .
You are correct that Reenks are not accurate , that is simply because census figures always have a degree of innacuracy involved .
But there are none from anything that could be described as an even remotely reliable source that will back up your claim ....unless of course they count differently on your planet .
Blimey even an old die-hard like Gawain eventually came round to the fact that the claims of a Jewish majority were false .

Horatius

08-23-2006, 22:30

Lets just for a moment concede that those are the figures for 1917.

1. How is it relevant when the ones that count are the 1948 figures?

2. By 1948 the state of affairs in Mandate Palestine was similar to that in todays Iraq, 1/3 of the Population was Jewish and they wanted independence, the way the Kurds today are seeking statehood in Iraq.

The Druze and Circassions fought on Israel's side, and there was an Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem so perhaps counting it as just Jews and Arabs is misleading?

Reenk Roink

08-23-2006, 22:38

In other words they had agreed to attack Russia when Germany needed the help, and then waited for when the time seemed right and launched an unprovoked attack on the Crimea on behalf of Germany. Sorry but that counts as agression.

And so the fact that France and Britain attacked the Ottomans in the Middle East is also "aggression". No, no. In World War I, I'm afraid I can't sympathize with any side.

So what?

You were unable to grasp the implicit conclusion from that statement?

Those figures are simply not accurate, and even if they where you should factor in that 30,000 Jews got killed by orders of Jemal Pasha who put many on death marches similar to the ones he put Armenians on.

They come from the UN website. Please give your figures. Also, there was atrocity on both sides in the years leading to Israel's independence, but we can safely say that the number of Arabs killed, displaced, and villages depopulated were more than the other side.

Of course you simply choose to be one-sided and selective in your arguments.

Funny that the Arab and Turkish sources of the time disagree with you and tend to blame the servant of Heraclius for the invasion of the Byzantine Empire by saying it was his rudeness combined with the refusal of Heraclius to convert to Islam that provoked the invasions of the Byzantine Empire. Historians all agree on the fact that Arabs and later Turks were the agressors against the Byzantines not the other way around, the fact is all of the battles were fought on Byzantine owned land. It was not just Byzantines who got targetted for Medieval Jihad though, India was also a rich and frequently attacked target.

Oh really? http://ccminc.faithweb.com/iqra/articles/9704tabuk.html

The Muslim army's march to Tabuk was in response to reports of a Byzantine mobilization with Ghassanid allies. The Byzantine army was nowhere to be found when the Muslims reached Tabuk.

Yarmuk is the battle that led to the invasion of Asia Minor and Egypt by the Muslims. Yarmuk is the stage for the Islamic military expansion.

In terms of architecture there is not especially much that can be directly attributed to Islamic Civilizations since it was mostly taken from the already advanced Byzrianantine and Persian Zorastrian Civilizations, in terms of science and mathematics the only thing attributable to them is algebra which I grant them credit for, however they took a lot of credit for oriental accomplishments because they introduced them to Europe. Besides in my opinion Algebra is no more Islamic then the Theory of Relativity is Jewish, or the way gravity works and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun is Christian.

Wow. :no:

That response once again confirms my original response to your original statement that you say other people support your view therefore I am correct, unfortunately for you that is not an argument.

No, it has nothing to do with the fact that other people agree with me. It is their arguments. Continuing to dismiss my statement as an example of argumentum ad populum is just wrong.

A website that advocates boycott of Israel is not a reliable source of information, sorry but your source is no more credible that the BNP website on the topic of should we allow immigration?

They have cited the places the quotes are taken from. Do you actually want to dispute them?

See my rebuttel

See two posts above...

That means you are very uninformed about Medieval Jewry since he is a primary source used today in studying their status, he went from place to place with Jews (Apart from Western and Northern France and Germany the few places he didn't spend parts of his life in) and recorded the status of the Jewish Communities and some other things on politics, and you would be shocked if you bothered to read it.

Firstly, your tone is rude, and unnecessary.

By the way, I did search a bit on Benjamin of Tudela, and on my own University webpage, this is what I found:

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/crusades/BenjaminofTudela.html

I journeyed first from my native town to the city of Saragossa, and thence by way of the River Ebro to Tortosa. From there I went a journey of two days to the ancient city of Taragona with its Cyclopean and Greek buildings. The like thereof is not found among any of the buildings in the country of Sepharad. It is situated by the sea, and two days’ journey from the city of Barcelona, where there is a holy congregation, including sages, wise and illustrious men, such as R. Shessheth, R. Shealtiel, R. Solomon, and R. Abraham, son of Chiasda.

This is a small and beautiful city, lying upon the seacost. Merchants come thither from all quarters with their wares: from Greece, from Pisa, Genoa, Sicily, Alexandria in Egypt, Palestine, Africa and all its coasts. Thence it is a day and a half to Gerona, in which there is a small congregation of Jews. (59)

There is no harbor like [Tyre] in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city. It contains about 500 Jews, some of the scholars of the Talmud... The Jews own sea-going vessels, and there are glass-makers amongst them who make that fine Tyranian glassware which is prized in all countries. In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all over to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and sea ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market places, streets, and palaces, in the bed of the sea. New Tyre is a busy place of commerce, to which merchants flock from all quarters. (79)

Jerusalem is a small city fortified by three walls. It is full of people whom the Mohammedans call Jacobites, Syrians, Greeks, Georgians, and Franks, and of people of all tongues. It contains a dying-house, for which the Jews pay a small rent annually to the king,on condition that besides the Jews no other dyers be allowed in Jerusalem. There are about 200 Jews who dwell under the tower of David in one corner of the city. [He goes on the describe some landmarks and gates of the city.] (82)

Damascus, the great city, which is the commencement of the empire of Nur-al-din, the king of the Togarmin, called Turks. It is a fair city of large extent, surrounded by walls, with many gardens and plantations, extending over fifteen miles on each side, and no district richer in fruit can be seen in all the world. From Mount Hermon descend the rivers Amana and Pharpar; for the city is situated at the foot of Mount Hermon. The Amana flows through the city, and by means of aqueducts the water is conveyed to the houses of great people, and into the streets and market places. The Pharpar flows through their gardens and plantations. It is a place carrying on trade with all countries. Here is a mosque of the Arabs called the Gami of Damascus; there is no building like it in the whole world, and they say that is was a palace of Ben Hadad. Here is a wall of crystal glass of magic workmanship, with apertures according to the days of the year, and as the sun’s rays enter each of them in daily succession the hours of the day can be told by a graduated dial. In the palace are chambers built of gold and glass, and if the people walk around the wall is between them. And there are columns overlaid with gold and silver, and columns of marble of all colours... Three thousand Jews abide in this city, and amongst them are learned and rich men. (90-91)

Baghdad, the great city and royal residence of the Caliph Emir al Muminin al Abbassi of the family of Mohammed. He is at the head of the Mohammedan religion, and all the kings of Islam obey him; he occupies a similar position to that held by the Pope over Christians...

There the great king, Al Abbassi the Caliph (Hafiz) holds his court, and he is kind unto Israel, and many belonging to the people of Israel are his attendants; he knows all languages, and is well versed in the law of Israel. He reads and writes the holy language (Hebrew). He will not partake of anything unless he has earned it by the work of his own hands... He is truthful and trusty, speaking peace to all men.

Within the domains of the palace of the Caliph there are great buildings of marble and columns of silver and gold, and carvings upon rare stones are fixed in the walls. In the Caliph’s palace are great riches, and towers filled with gold, silken garments, and all precious stones... [During the parade of Ramadan] He is accompanied by all the nobles of Islam dressed in fine garments and riding horses, the princes of Arabia, the princes of Togarma and Daylam (Gilan), and the princes of Persia, Media and Ghuzz, and the princes of the land of Tibet, which is three months’ journey distant, and westward of which lies the land of Samarkand... Along the road the walls are adorned with silk and purple, and the inhabitants receive him with all kinds of song and exultation, and they dance before the great king who is styled Caliph...

He built, on the other side of the river, on the banks of an arm of the Euphrates which borders the city, a hospital consisting of blocks of houses and hospices for the sick poor who come to be healed. Here there are about sixty physicians’ stores which provided from the Caliph’s house with drugs and whatever else may be required. Every sick man who comes is maintained at the Caliph’s expense and is medically treated. Here is a building called Dar-al-Maristan, where they keep charge of the demented people who have become insane in the towns through the great heat in the summer, nad they chain each of them in iron chains until their reason becomes restored to them in the winter-time. Whilst they abide there, they are provided wth food from the house of the Caliph, and when their reason is restored they are dismissed and each one them goes to his house and his home. Money is given to those that have stayed in the hospices on their return to their homes. Every month the officers of the Caliph inquire and investigate whether they have regained their reason, in which case they are discharged. All this the Caliph does out of charity to those that come to the city of Baghdad, whether they be sick of insane. The Caliph is a righteous man, and all his actions are good.

In Baghdad there are about 40,000 Jews, and they dwell in security, prosperity and honour under the great Caliph; and amongst them are the great sages, the heads of Academies engaged in the study of the law. In this city there are ten Academies... In Baghdad there are 28 synagogues, situated either in the city itself of in Al-Karish on the other side of the Tigris; for the river divides the metropolis in two parts.

The city of Baghdad is twenty miles in circumference, situated in a land of palms, gardens, and plantations, the like of which is not to be found in the whole land of Shinar. People come thither with merchandise from all lands. Wise men live there, philosophers who know all manner of wisdom, and magicians expert in all manner except witchcraft. (95-102)

Which one the one about her life as a Dhimmi and later as a refugee? If you mean that one then you have shownplenty of bias in dismissing it simply because it doesn't confirm your beliefs, if you mean The Decline of Eastern Christendom under Islam perhaps you can debate with her sources which are reliable and well sourced.

I read Eurabia. I don't doubt the fact that she has her sources. Her methodology is what is criticized. Taking a string of anecdotes (atrocity by Muslims), and then using them to interpret Jihad and "Dhimmitude" (not even a word...) is just dishonest.

That can be said about Catholic Europe as well.

Certainly. It is fallacious to say that Europe was only about inquisition, etc...

However, I think most historians agree that medieval Islamic tolerance was much, much better than medieval Christian tolerance.

So why is it that so many Turks, Malaysians, and Indonesians, Persians, Afghans, Albanians, Bosnians, and Muslim converts see the reason to share Arab Tribal sentiments? That is not consistent with your explanation is it since those groups have no part in the regional conflict.

Look up some polls from Pew Global attitudes. You will see that anti-Israeli, and anti-Jewish sentiments wane the farther away from Israel.

Still, Muslim countries are no fans of Israel, probably because they sympathize with their Muslim brethren. It’s quite an easy explanation.

In Lebanon for example, Muslims have favorable views of Christians, and Christians have favorable views of Muslims. But neither Muslim nor Christian has favorable views of Jews. It is 0%.

Also, non Israeli Jews or evangelical Christians have no part in the regional conflict either, why do they then support Israel? The answer is obvious.

Horatius

08-23-2006, 23:10

And so the fact that France and Britain attacked the Ottomans in the Middle East is also "aggression". No, no. In World War I, I'm afraid I can't sympathize with any side.

It would have been had the war not been started by Germany in the first place, so Ottomans attacking Russia for Germany was joining the agressors.

No, it has nothing to do with the fact that other people agree with me. It is their arguments. Continuing to dismiss my statement as an example of argumentum ad populum is just wrong.

Do you even know about their arguments or just that they are there?

I read Eurabia. I don't doubt the fact that she has her sources. Her methodology is what is criticized. Taking a string of anecdotes (atrocity by Muslims), and then using them to interpret Jihad and "Dhimmitude" (not even a word...) is just dishonest.

So do you equally condemn speaking with anecdotes like atrocity about the Crusades or is it only Jihads that it is dishonest to describe as an atrocity? Dhimmitude is a word, and read her other books before just dismissing her.

Certainly. It is fallacious to say that Europe was only about inquisition, etc...

However, I think most historians agree that medieval Islamic tolerance was much, much better than medieval Christian tolerance.

So does that mean you are conceding the point that there always was anti-semitism in the Islamic World? Also note that the status of Jews between Christendom and Islam does not appear to have a wide gap in his works, and I did not call you ignorant to offend, so I am sorry for doing that.

Look up some polls from Pew Global attitudes. You will see that anti-Israeli, and anti-Jewish sentiments wane the farther away from Israel.

Which polls lots of them have been done, and are you saying that things are better between Iran and Israel then lets say Egypt and Israel (Let us also remember that people who aren't Arab or Muslim don't seem to have a problem, Greek Cyprus has pretty good relations both between the populations and government with Israel)?

Still, Muslim countries are no fans of Israel, probably because they sympathize with their Muslim brethren. It’s quite an easy explanation.

Unless they have no problem with Muslim's in other places, does Malaysia and Iran even care about Russian overkill in Chechneya? Even bigger have they heard of Chechneya?

Also, non Israeli Jews or evangelical Christians have no part in the regional conflict either, why do they then support Israel? The answer is obvious.

Family in Israel, investments, religion together.

They have cited the places the quotes are taken from. Do you actually want to dispute them?

So does this one, I guess each of the zionists had multiple personality disorder, and this one does not advocate boycotting Arabs and Muslims.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionist_quotes.htm

The Muslim army's march to Tabuk was in response to reports of a Byzantine mobilization with Ghassanid allies. The Byzantine army was nowhere to be found when the Muslims reached Tabuk.

Medieval Armies were impossible to miss, so either the Muslims were too stupid to investigate first (Unlikely since they had very capable commanders), or it was agression and the claim of a Byzantine Army preparing to attack was propaganda.

Yarmuk is the battle that led to the invasion of Asia Minor and Egypt by the Muslims. Yarmuk is the stage for the Islamic military expansion.

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

And it was an invasion of Islamic Forces into the Byzantine Empire, and Asia Minor was not to be conquered for centuries to come.

Reenk Roink

08-24-2006, 00:23

It would have been had the war not been started by Germany in the first place, so Ottomans attacking Russia for Germany was joining the agressors.

I'm sorry but I cannot grasp how one sided this is... :no:

Do you even know about their arguments or just that they are there?

I know of their arguments and they are there...

So do you equally condemn speaking with anecdotes like atrocity about the Crusades or is it only Jihads that it is dishonest to describe as an atrocity? Dhimmitude is a word, and read her other books before just dismissing her.

This is a twist on the argument I'm afraid. Have I ever inferred to the contrary on what you ask?

So does that mean you are conceding the point that there always was anti-semitism in the Islamic World? Also note that the status of Jews between Christendom and Islam does not appear to have a wide gap in his works, and I did not call you ignorant to offend, so I am sorry for doing that.

First: :bow:

From what I have gathered in the reading excerpts of Benjamin of Tudela, most of the areas he visited were Muslim. The only Christian area on that link I provided is Constantinople and here is what he has to say of it:

Constantinople is a busy city, and merchants come to it from every country by sea or land, and there is none like it in the world except Baghdad, the great city of Islam. In Constantinople is the church of Santa Sophia, and the seat of the Pope of the Greeks, since the Greeks do not obey the pope of Rome. There are also churches according to the number of days of the year. A quantity of wealth beyond all telling is brought hither year by year as tribute from the two islands, and the castles and villages which are there. And the like of this wealth is not to be found in any other church in the world. And in this church there are pillars of gold and silver, and lamps of silver and gold more than a man can count. Close to the walls of the palace is also a place of amusement belonging to the king, which is called the Hippodrome, and every year on the anniversary of the birth of Jesus the king gives a great entertainment there. And in that place men from all the races of the world come before the king and queen with jugglery and without jugglery, and they introduce lions, leopards, bears, and wild asses, and they engage them in combat with one another; and the same thing is done with birds. No entertainment like this can be found in any other land.

This King Emanuel built a great palace for the seat of his government upon the seacoast, in addition to the palaces which his fathers built, and he called its name Blachernae. He overlaid its columns with gold and silver, and engraved thereon representations of the battles before his day and of his own combats. He also set up a throne of gold and of precious stones, and a golden crown was suspended by a gold chain over the throne, so arranged that he might sit thereunder. It was inlaid with jewels of priceless value, and at night time no lights were required, for every one could see by the light which the stones gave forth. Countless other buildings are to be met with in the city. From every part of the empire of Greece tribute is brought here every year, and they fill strongholds with garments of silk, purple, and gold. Like unto these storehouses and this wealth there is nothing in the whole world to be found. It is said that the tribute of the city amounts every year to 20,000 gold pieces, derived both from the rents of shops and markets, nad from the tribute of merchants who enter by sea or land.

The Greek inhabitants are very rich in gold and precious stones, and they go clothed in garments of silk with gold embroidery, and they ride horses, and look like princes. Indeed, the land is very rich in all cloth stuffs, and in bread, meat, and wine.

Wealth like that of Constantinople is not to found in the whole world. Here are also men learned in all the books of the Greeks, and they eat and drink, every man under his vine and his fig-tree. (71)

They hire from amongst all nations called Loazim (Barbarians) to fight with the sultan Masud, King of the Togarmim (Seljuks), who are called Turks; for the natives are not warlike, but are as women who have no strength to fight. (71)

No Jews live in the city, for they have been placed behind an inlet of the sea. An arm of the sea of Marmora shuts them in on the one side, and they are unable to go out except by way of the sea, when they want to do business with the inhabitants. In the Jewish quarter are about 2,000 Rabbinite Jews and about 500 Karaïtes, and a fence divides them... And amongst them are artificers in silk and many rich merchants. No Jew there is allowed to ride on horseback. The one exception is the king’s physician, and through whom the Jews enjoy considerable alleviation of their oppression. For their condition is very low, and there is much hatred against them, which is fostered by the tanners, who throw out their dirty water in the streets before the doors of the Jewish houses and defile the Jews’ quarter. So the Greeks hate the Jews, good and bad alike, and subject them to great oppression, and beat them in the streets, and in every way treat them with rigour. Yet the Jews are rich and good, kindly and charitable, and bear their lot with cheerfulness. The district inhabited by the Jews is called Pera.(72)

Which polls lots of them have been done, and are you saying that things are better between Iran and Israel then lets say Egypt and Israel (Let us also remember that people who aren't Arab or Muslim don't seem to have a problem, Greek Cyprus has pretty good relations both between the populations and government with Israel)?

It is only a basic relationship, and certainly not by any means rigid. Also, though the Arab governments of Egypt and Jordan may have better relations than Israel than Indonesia, the populace of Indonesia has more favorable views of Jews than the populace of either of the Arab states.

Unless they have no problem with Muslim's in other places, does Malaysia and Iran even care about Russian overkill in Chechneya? Even bigger have they heard of Chechneya?

Well, the government of Iran is very friendly with Russia, but I'm sure the people must feel some solidarity. Israel is always going to take the headlines, because it is the holy land.

Family in Israel, investments, religion together.

Religion it seems would be the strongest bind. After all, Evangelical Christians in America are extremely strong supporters of Israel, because of the Biblical prophecy.

So does this one, I guess each of the zionists had multiple personality disorder, and this one does not advocate boycotting Arabs and Muslims.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionist_quotes.htm

I really don't know. Maybe they said different things to different audiences. Maybe they changed their minds. All I know is that those quotes are authentic; they are well cited from reputable sources.

Medieval Armies were impossible to miss, so either the Muslims were too stupid to investigate first (Unlikely since they had very capable commanders), or it was agression and the claim of a Byzantine Army preparing to attack was propaganda.

The synopsis of the battle was that the Muslims arrived to an abandoned camp. The Byzantines and their Ghassanid allies were there, but they withdrew.

Tribesman

08-24-2006, 00:43

It would have been had the war not been started by Germany in the first place, so Ottomans attacking Russia for Germany was joining the agressors.
Damn I thought it was Austria that started the war over a Russian backed Serbian terrorist action .
Just goes to show you can learn something new every day , thanks Horace, keep 'em coming .

Papewaio

08-24-2006, 00:51

When was the timeline of Gallopolli in all this?

Pannonian

08-24-2006, 02:07

When was the timeline of Gallopolli in all this?
The battle of Gallipoli occurred when the Turks made an unprovoked attack on Australia. I think. Must stop reading these threads.

Papewaio

08-24-2006, 02:11

ROFL

There is a Gallopolli Mosque in Sydney...

Louis VI the Fat

08-24-2006, 02:56

A Gallipoli mosque? ~:eek:

Well have I ever...
The name of the mosque - Auburn Gallipoli Mosque - reflects the shared legacy of the Australian society and the main community behind the construction of the mosque, Australian Turkish Muslim Community. mosque (http://www.gallipolimosque.org.au/index.php?s=2&ss=1)

I'm sorry, but I find that a most peculiar name. 'Gallipoli' would be the last name I'd give a mosque in Sydney.
I know I'm missing something here, but I don't know what...:inquisitive:

Pannonian

08-24-2006, 03:19

A Gallipoli mosque? ~:eek:

Well have I ever...mosque (http://www.gallipolimosque.org.au/index.php?s=2&ss=1)

I'm sorry, but I find that a most peculiar name. 'Gallipoli' would be the last name I'd give a mosque in Sydney.
I know I'm missing something here, but I don't know what...:inquisitive:
The Turks and Australians won respect for each other over the their gallantry at Gallipoli. The Turkish general who saved the position at Gallipoli, Mustafa Kemal, later founded the modern Turkish nation. Kemal (later Ataturk) saw westernisation as the aim of the new Turkey, and made Gallipoli and the Australian link an important symbol of this. If you visit Gallipoli around the time of Gallipoli day, you'll see the reverence the Turks have for Australia and the Australians, as decreed by Ataturk.

Presumably the Australian Muslim population sees this relationship with the last Caliphate as something to celebrate, as the native Turks and many Australians do.

Papewaio

08-24-2006, 03:36

Gallipoli (thanks for the spell check)

As much as Europeans have a greater grasp of irony then Americans.

Australians have a greater grasp then most Europeans (with the exception of Brits... this too is an ironic statement as we all know they ain't Euros).

Anyhow...

The main national day of Australia and New Zealand is ANZAC day, 25th of April, which celebrates that defeat (yes we celebrate our defeats more then our victories).

On the Turkish side, the meteoric rise of Mustafa Kemal began at Gallipoli. In 1934, Kemal, now Kemal Atatürk, president of the new Turkish Republic, wrote this tribute in remembrance of the Anzac soldiers:

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours... You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."

It has actually resulted in forging a bond between Turkey and Australia. The Gallipolli mosque is a nod to this shared bonding.

Now down the road from this mosque is a confectionary shop (named aptly the Turkish Delight) which is rather nice to visit.

Horatius

08-24-2006, 03:57

I'm sorry but I cannot grasp how one sided this is...

Well that is infact what I was taught in school, so it seems you are calling the official version of history taught here one sided, not me.

First:

From what I have gathered in the reading excerpts of Benjamin of Tudela, most of the areas he visited were Muslim. The only Christian area on that link I provided is Constantinople and here is what he has to say of it:

Jerusalem, Tyre and Antioch all happen to be Christian Cities and you happen to have shown good reviews of Jerusalem and Tyre, and not only where those cities Christian but they where Crusader as well. There are also other Christian Cities he visited, I own a copy of his works I can get a list if you would like, but what made you think 12th century Tyre was a Muslim City?

This is a twist on the argument I'm afraid. Have I ever inferred to the contrary on what you ask?

That is why I asked it as a question instead of accusing you of a double standard, so I ask you again would you give equal condemnation to people who call the actions of Crusaders atrocities as you do to Bat Yeor for using the same language on Jihads?

It is only a basic relationship, and certainly not by any means rigid. Also, though the Arab governments of Egypt and Jordan may have better relations than Israel than Indonesia, the populace of Indonesia has more favorable views of Jews than the populace of either of the Arab states.

There is also the issue of where the emphasis is during education, might the fact that evil Jooos are emphasized during every subject in Egyptian Public schools in ways that would get a teacher arrested under EU anti-rascist legislation have something to do with it? Nobody is born rascist it is imbued by family, friends, and education, although Indonesian Schools are not much better in what they teach about Jews they are significantly better.

Well, the government of Iran is very friendly with Russia, but I'm sure the people must feel some solidarity. Israel is always going to take the headlines, because it is the holy land.

Are you sure about that? I have spoken to plenty of Iranians here in Britain who care deeply about Israel and want it destroyed and the Jews exiled or killed who don't care at all about Chechneya. Of course I am not trying to generalize and am sure there are plenty of Iranians who find those views repulsive but I am telling you what I have seen with my own two eyes.

Religion it seems would be the strongest bind. After all, Evangelical Christians in America are extremely strong supporters of Israel, because of the Biblical prophecy.

The strongest bind for the Evangelicals but you also asked about the Jews and I do think that to many people not just Jews Family comes first.

I really don't know. Maybe they said different things to different audiences. Maybe they changed their minds. All I know is that those quotes are authentic; they are well cited from reputable sources.

Or maybe some of those things where said in a fit of anger? Afterall they were human even in a fit of anger at Italy for joining Germany Churchhill said "It's only fair they sided with us last time", but the point is you only showed part of the picture of who those people were.

The synopsis of the battle was that the Muslims arrived to an abandoned camp. The Byzantines and their Ghassanid allies were there, but they withdrew.

Considering how well this battle went? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah

There is also the fact that it was on Byzantine Land, and Islamic Forces did regularly invade the Byzantine Empire in the centuries ahead untill Constantinople itself fell in 1453.

Reenk Roink

08-24-2006, 16:05

Well that is infact what I was taught in school, so it seems you are calling the official version of history taught here one sided, not me.

No you were in fact, blatantly calling the Ottomans "aggressors" for their attack on Russia, and then to circumvent the fact that with that logic, Britain and France were "aggressors", you went ahead and said that the Ottomans fought on the sides of the "aggressors". We all know of the "War Guilt Clause" in the infamous Treaty of Versailles. Doesn't make it the case...

By the way, I learned that World War I was started amidst great tensions. Countries had formed many secret alliances with each other since the end of the Franco-Prussian War. Then a member of the Serbian group "The Black Hand" assassinated the Austrian archduke. Austria invaded Serbia (with a push from Germany), which had a treaty with Russia, etc...

Jerusalem, Tyre and Antioch all happen to be Christian Cities and you happen to have shown good reviews of Jerusalem and Tyre, and not only where those cities Christian but they where Crusader as well. There are also other Christian Cities he visited, I own a copy of his works I can get a list if you would like, but what made you think 12th century Tyre was a Muslim City?

I overlooked the dates of Benjamin's travels when I saw the statement "It is full of people whom the Mohammedans call" referring to Jerusalem. It was indeed a Crusader city at this time, as well as Tyre (Antioch was not mentioned in the excerpt).

There are still a couple of conclusions I drew from the excerpts.

Firstly, I don't think any of the reviews of cities excluding Baghdad were "positive" and any but Constantinople were "negative". Indeed, Baghdad and Constantinople were the only cities that Benjamin described in detail in this excerpt, including the treatment of the Jews. The other places he mentioned had only concise summaries, not much more than the number of Jews who lived there.

Secondly, the numbers of Jews living in the Muslim cities are much higher than in Christian cities. The contrast of Jewish population between Baghdad and Constantinople and Damascus and Tyre are quite noticable.

That is why I asked it as a question instead of accusing you of a double standard,

Prudent, as doing so otherwise would be slander...

so I ask you again would you give equal condemnation to people who call the actions of Crusaders atrocities as you do to Bat Yeor for using the same language on Jihads?

Have I ever inferred to the contrary on what you ask?

Or maybe some of those things where said in a fit of anger? Afterall they were human even in a fit of anger at Italy for joining Germany Churchhill said "It's only fair they sided with us last time", but the point is you only showed part of the picture of who those people were.

I don't know, there seems to have been a common thread between each Prime Minister.

Anyhoo, I advised you to look these quotes up in response to a statement about Arabs and Nazis or Arabs and genocide. You certainly went out of your way to show that some Arabs supported Germany because of their perceived Zionist threat, but you failed to mention that many Arabs fought with the British. You tried to bring up historical anecdotes of Muslim atrocity but then marginalized the Arab/Islamic achievement. There certainly is one-sided-ness in this discussion.

Considering how well this battle went? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah

There is also the fact that it was on Byzantine Land, and Islamic Forces did regularly invade the Byzantine Empire in the centuries ahead untill Constantinople itself fell in 1453.

Mutah was a pre-Tabuk skirmish. Mutah saw a scouting party of 3,000 men on the Muslim side, Tabuk saw a 30,000 man army.

Yarmuk in 636 was the beginning of the Islamic conquests, into the Byzantine Empire. I think I have already mentioned this...

Horatius

08-24-2006, 17:07

No you were in fact, blatantly calling the Ottomans "aggressors" for their attack on Russia, and then to circumvent the fact that with that logic, Britain and France were "aggressors", you went ahead and said that the Ottomans fought on the sides of the "aggressors". We all know of the "War Guilt Clause" in the infamous Treaty of Versailles. Doesn't make it the case...

Well if France sent a frigate to bombard Irish Cities when Ireland did nothing to France would that qualify as unprovoked agression? Would you at least concede that Germany's plan to invade Belgium was unprovoked agression?

By the way, I learned that World War I was started amidst great tensions. Countries had formed many secret alliances with each other since the end of the Franco-Prussian War. Then a member of the Serbian group "The Black Hand" assassinated the Austrian archduke. Austria invaded Serbia (with a push from Germany), which had a treaty with Russia, etc...

France was not yet involved untill the Kaiser formally declared war on France, and sent the bulk of his forces to invade Belgium and France, which is how Britain got involved, You also never answered why the extreme lateness of an Ottoman Declaration of War if it was just the Alliance working? The Ottomans just waited untill they thought it was clear Germany would win.

Prudent, as doing so otherwise would be slander...

So the answer would be yes?

I don't know, there seems to have been a common thread between each Prime Minister.

Would you mind reading the fake quotes part of my link then? The Majority of your quotes are not only FAKES but they come from Israel hating sources. Let us inspect some of your experts who provide the sources of your website for the quotes.

1. Noam Chomsky-You are bloody ignorant of what that man stands for and his politics if you for a second think he is a reliable source on anything Israel.

2. All of the Golda Mier Quotes are infact true, there was no Arab Peace Partner in 1969, the idea of a Palestinian People was extremely new Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordon prior to 1967.

3. Some are simply only part of the conversation to spin what was being talked about for example We walked outside,
Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979. I read that part the first time I saw it he was discussing a conversation he had during the 1948 Arab Israeli War, where the Arabs were trying to "Drive all the Jews into the sea".

Anyhoo, I advised you to look these quotes up in response to a statement about Arabs and Nazis or Arabs and genocide.

Yes statements I made and stand by in response to Tribesmen accusing Britain of commiting atrocities by fighting World War Two in North Africa, so are you standing by Tribesmen attacking us for refusing to allow the Nazis to march to the Suez Canal?

You certainly went out of your way to show that some Arabs supported Germany because of their perceived Zionist threat, but you failed to mention that many Arabs fought with the British. You tried to bring up historical anecdotes of Muslim atrocity but then marginalized the Arab/Islamic achievement. There certainly is one-sided-ness in this discussion.

Yes it is going out of your way to say who's side people were on in World War Two when that is the subject, note the sarcasm. Many Arabs fought against the British, it was not just in Iraq, but Haj Amin Al Hussienei ever heard of him? Most Muslims who fought fought on the Soviet Side so were anti-Nazi, however you are acting like expressing clear historical fact if a one sided propagandaising. You also purposely distorted what I first wrote. I first wrote many, however since you and a few others insist on debating that I have responded with historical facts, the leaders of Arab Nations and most Arab Public Opinion was with Germany. I would probably also get attacked for pointing out that untill the mid 1930s Iran's name was still Persia but the name was changed to the Persian word for Aryan. You also are way exxagerating accomplishments in Islam. What architectural innovations do we owe to the Arabs since you wanted to bring that up?

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=83&x_article=775

Mutah was a pre-Tabuk skirmish. Mutah saw a scouting party of 3,000 men on the Muslim side, Tabuk saw a 30,000 man army.

Both happen to have been sheer agression motivated by Greed like Manzikert was, and the men Mohhamad sent on the Mutah expedition where not men that would be sent on a minor skirmish.

Yarmuk in 636 was the beginning of the Islamic conquests, into the Byzantine Empire. I think I have already mentioned this...

Yes so you now acknowledge who was attacking who right?

There are still a couple of conclusions I drew from the excerpts.

Firstly, I don't think any of the reviews of cities excluding Baghdad were "positive" and any but Constantinople were "negative". Indeed, Baghdad and Constantinople were the only cities that Benjamin described in detail in this excerpt, including the treatment of the Jews. The other places he mentioned had only concise summaries, not much more than the number of Jews who lived there.

There is more to his reviews, you only read a small excerp from each city. Antioch he reviewed in great detail since he was very surprised to see the Jews owning many of the ships and prospering through overseas trade.

Firstly, I don't think any of the reviews of cities excluding Baghdad were "positive" and any but Constantinople were "negative". Indeed, Baghdad and Constantinople were the only cities that Benjamin described in detail in this excerpt, including the treatment of the Jews. The other places he mentioned had only concise summaries, not much more than the number of Jews who lived there.

Secondly, the numbers of Jews living in the Muslim cities are much higher than in Christian cities. The contrast of Jewish population between Baghdad and Constantinople and Damascus and Tyre are quite noticable.

He gave negative reviews to Persian Cities as well as to Constantinople, and you are right there where more Jews living amongst the Muslims. HOwever he does record mistreatment of Jews by Muslim and Christian and there is almost no gap between the Persians and Byzantines, and the gap between Arabs and the Crusaders are larger but still not the vast difference that people like to think existed.

Tribesman

08-24-2006, 18:13

Yes statements I made and stand by in response to Tribesmen accusing Britain of commiting atrocities by fighting World War Two in North Africa, so are you standing by Tribesmen attacking us for refusing to allow the Nazis to march to the Suez Canal?

Wow not only from a different planet it appears Horace is from a different forum entirely :dizzy2:
Keep 'em coming Horace , you are priceless :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Leet Eriksson

08-24-2006, 19:24

Yes it is going out of your way to say who's side people were on in World War Two when that is the subject, note the sarcasm. Many Arabs fought against the British, it was not just in Iraq, but Haj Amin Al Hussienei ever heard of him? Most Muslims who fought fought on the Soviet Side so were anti-Nazi, however you are acting like expressing clear historical fact if a one sided propagandaising. You also purposely distorted what I first wrote. I first wrote many, however since you and a few others insist on debating that I have responded with historical facts, the leaders of Arab Nations and most Arab Public Opinion was with Germany. I would probably also get attacked for pointing out that untill the mid 1930s Iran's name was still Persia but the name was changed to the Persian word for Aryan. You also are way exxagerating accomplishments in Islam.

Man this is funny.

Hajj Amin al Husseini was just a minority amongst the palestinians in aiding the nazis, the palestinians never openely aided the nazis, while some jewish gangs in palestine did. (i.e Stern Gang)

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story420.html

Mind you, it might sound like propaganda, but the sources used are almost all isreali. Check the section "Related Links" about Benny Morris:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story596.html

Also geewiz, can you provide proof that most arab public opinion was with germany? I recall most arab states were allied with the west and are still till today allied to the west. Infact the only 3 independent Arab states in the arab world Saudia, Yemen and Oman were and are still allied to Britain and the US.

Reenk Roink

08-24-2006, 20:15

Double Post

Reenk Roink

08-24-2006, 20:18

Arguing about this with you is just absurd now...

You are incorrect when it comes to Mutah and Tabuk, you continue to deny the fact that the quotes of Israeli Prime Ministers are authentic, you continue your character assassination of the Arabs and Muslims while trying your best to gloss over any Western atrocity, fault, or blame.

Leet Eriksson

08-24-2006, 20:27

correction on the last line, the only independent arab countries during WW2.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-24-2006, 20:30

On Ottoman entrance into the First World War:

Turkey sought a formal alliance with England in 1910/1911. The English -- with Churchill as their representative -- turned them down. WC informed the Turkish leadership that, though England woudl not ally with them, the Turks would do well not to alientate British friendship.

Germany sought alliance with Turkey during the run-up to World War One, putting on specific efforts for an alliance in July of that year.

Turkey asked for a secret offensive/defensive alliance on 28 July 1914 in the event of either going to war with Russia. The offer was telegraphed to Berlin, signed, and telegraphed back within 12 hours. Turkey hesitated to sign.

That same day, Churchill, in his capacity as 1st Lord of the Admiralty, siezed two Turkish battleships -- the Sultan Osman and the Reshadieh -- which had been completed by early July, for which the builders had been paid the first installment of monies due, and for which Turkish transport crews were already in England ready to man these vessels. No compensation was offered but the PM Grey expressed regret and said the matter would be given "due consideration." [a very POLITE _________ you charlie.]

Turkey signed the alliance upon receipt of this Telegram.

On August 10th, having evaded the British fleet, German Admiral Souchon, with the Battlecruiser Goeben and cruiser Breslau entered Istanbul and were subsequently "sold" to the Turks as a replacement for the missing ships confiscated by England.

Still, while German influence in Turkey was growing, the Ottoman Empire hesitated to come actively into the war against Russia.

Annoyed with this dithering, Germany had Souchon, still in command of the Goeben and Breslau even though they were technically Turkish, proceed to Russia where, on 28 October 1914, he bombarded Odessa, Sevastopol, and Feodosia killing several Russian civilians and sinking one Russian gunboat. He then returned to Istanbul and anchored in the Golden Horn...well within range of the Turkish leadership.

Russia declared war on 4 November 1914, along with Britain and France the next day.

Source: Tuchman, B.W. (1962). The Guns of August. New York: Bonanza. esp. Chapter 10, "An Enemy Then Flying."

Leet Eriksson

08-24-2006, 20:31

Also about the renaming of Persia to Iran, thats the choice of Reza Shah Pehlavi, and had nothing to do with Hitlers Aryan race theory.

Tribesman

08-24-2006, 23:27

Seamus , you missed out a town in that piece , also no mention of the Russians mining Turkish waters (thats a bit of a provocation isn't it so there goes another "fact" from planet horace out the window) though Turkish vessels were not the target , it was intended to stop the Central powers navies interfering with Russian shipments to Serbia .