Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

[Reenk Roink]

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...

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

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.