Racial Profiling for Terrorists: Good or Bad?

[Reenk Roink]

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]

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_co...&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]

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
Keep 'em coming Horace , you are priceless

[Leet Eriksson]

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/A.../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/A.../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]

Double Post

[Reenk Roink]

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]

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

[Leet Eriksson]

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]

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 .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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."