The Middle East and the West: A Brief Historical Timeline.

[AthenaAwakened]

The Crusades: Two Centuries of Holy War

Aug. 17, 2004 · In the late 11th century, the Pope of Rome declares a crusade to seize Jerusalem from the Arabs, who have held the Holy Land for centuries. In just a few years, European knights seize the city, slaughtering most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants and launching two centuries of holy war

The Rise of the Ottoman Empire

Aug. 18, 2004 · Constantinople falls to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The Ottoman sultans dominate the Islamic world -- ruling over a region stretching from Iran to Morocco. The Ottoman Empire becomes the most powerful state in the Mediterranean, seizing European land in the Balkans and Hungary and twice laying siege to Vienna.

Europe Carves Up the Middle East

Aug. 19, 2004 · In the midst of the French Revolution, Napoleon seizes Egypt in 1798, setting in motion century-long European scramble for the Middle East. Eventually, the British would take Egypt, Sudan and the small states of the Persian Gulf. France would seize Algeria and Morocco. And Arab resistance to European encroachment would prompt much bloody violence.

World War I and its Aftermath

Aug. 20, 2004 · World War I sees Europe complete the seizure of the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire, an ally of Germany, is crushed by Britain and France. The territories of Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine fall into European hands. The French and British draw the borders of the modern Middle East, and the League of Nations sanctions their domination of the region.

The Rise of the U.S. in the Middle East

Aug. 23, 2004 · As World War II ends, the United States becomes the great outside power in the Middle East, with three main concerns: Persian Gulf oil; support and protection of Israel, founded in 1948; and containment of the Soviet Union. The goals prove difficult to manage, especially through the rise of Arab nationalism, two major Arab-Israeli wars and an Arab oil embargo

The Clash with Islam

Aug. 24, 2004 · In 1979, Iran's Islamic Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan foreshadow a rise in Islamic radicalism. Violence intensifies, with the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf war. By the mid-1990s, America faces a new enemy: Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. After the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. involvement in the Middle East is deeper than ever.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/the_west/

Without this history, do Arab Muslims commit acts of terror against the West?

 

[untermensche]

One problem we have is some people think massive unprovoked violence from super powers should not be labeled terrorism.

This is an ignorance hard to penetrate.

The lesser apes think if you can call something a "war" or an "invasion" that somehow also means it can't be terrorism. How they came to think you can only define acts one way is unknown.

Of course a lot of what is happening now is blowback from a massive act of terrorism by the West. A decade of torture and terror.

To not see it is to not see anything.

 

[repoman]

You didn't go back as far as Charles the Hammer Martel. Europe was fending off Islamic incurisions for a long time already by the first post in the OP.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You didn't go back as far as Charles the Hammer Martel. Europe was fending off Islamic incurisions for a long time already by the first post in the OP.

If the Franks went with the surname first he'd be M.C. Hammer.

 

[repoman]

No, this one:

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think so, although I think our meddling has certainly intensified the problem. The Sauds founded Wahhabi, and Sunni vs. Shia has been a problem for a long, long time. Would they commit acts of terror against each other if the West wasn't involved? I think so, and so I see no reason to think why we wouldn't be on the receiving end of terror, even had we not had colonialism, interfered in Iranian affairs, and founded Israel. We're living in a more and more global environment, and I think anyone coming into contact with that area will at the very least receive collateral damage. None of the terrorists have shown any lack of will to attack people from areas of the globe not involved in Western meddling.

 

[untermensche]

I think so, although I think our meddling has certainly intensified the problem. The Sauds founded Wahhabi, and Sunni vs. Shia has been a problem for a long, long time. Would they commit acts of terror against each other if the West wasn't involved? I think so, and so I see no reason to think why we wouldn't be on the receiving end of terror, even had we not had colonialism, interfered in Iranian affairs, and founded Israel. We're living in a more and more global environment, and I think anyone coming into contact with that area will at the very least receive collateral damage. None of the terrorists have shown any lack of will to attack people from areas of the globe not involved in Western meddling.

The Saudi dictatorship IS Western meddling.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You didn't go back as far as Charles the Hammer Martel. Europe was fending off Islamic incurisions for a long time already by the first post in the OP.

And you didn't answer the question.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think so, although I think our meddling has certainly intensified the problem. The Sauds founded Wahhabi, and Sunni vs. Shia has been a problem for a long, long time. Would they commit acts of terror against each other if the West wasn't involved? I think so, and so I see no reason to think why we wouldn't be on the receiving end of terror, even had we not had colonialism, interfered in Iranian affairs, and founded Israel. We're living in a more and more global environment, and I think anyone coming into contact with that area will at the very least receive collateral damage. None of the terrorists have shown any lack of will to attack people from areas of the globe not involved in Western meddling.

I'm not understanding you. IF there had been no Western intervention in the ME, it is your point that there would still be terror in the West coming from the ME because the saudis would be fighting each other?

 

[braces_for_impact]

The Saudi dictatorship IS Western meddling.

This is true, and I didn't wish to give the impression it wasn't.

 

[dismal]

Some of those dates seem off.

I don't remember August 2004 as being that hectic.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Some of those dates seem off.

I don't remember August 2004 as being that hectic.

Those are the dates of broadcast.

You really don't click the links, do you?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think so, although I think our meddling has certainly intensified the problem. The Sauds founded Wahhabi, and Sunni vs. Shia has been a problem for a long, long time. Would they commit acts of terror against each other if the West wasn't involved? I think so, and so I see no reason to think why we wouldn't be on the receiving end of terror, even had we not had colonialism, interfered in Iranian affairs, and founded Israel. We're living in a more and more global environment, and I think anyone coming into contact with that area will at the very least receive collateral damage. None of the terrorists have shown any lack of will to attack people from areas of the globe not involved in Western meddling.

I'm not understanding you. IF there had been no Western intervention in the ME, it is your point that there would still be terror in the West coming from the ME because the saudis would be fighting each other?

I think it's a tough question, a lot of which depends on the extent of Western presence in the Middle East.

I do think there would still be Muslim on Muslim terror in the Middle East regardless of Western intervention in the area. If someone else disagrees, I'm willing to listen, as I'm no expert on the subject.

If we removed the items on your list: The Crusades, Colonialism, The WW 1 & 2 entanglements etc. I do believe we would still encounter terror towards the West from that area. We still would be purchasing oil from the area, and that creates entanglements of it's own. Did Russia still invade the area? That could have ramifications. Do we still have military bases there?

I do think we would still have problems, yes. Many of the grievances the extremists list against the West are religious in nature, regardless of which extremist group we're talking about.

 

[untermensche]

The Saudi dictatorship IS Western meddling.

This is true, and I didn't wish to give the impression it wasn't.

Just making it clear.

The religious government in Iran IS Western meddling as well.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm not understanding you. IF there had been no Western intervention in the ME, it is your point that there would still be terror in the West coming from the ME because the saudis would be fighting each other?

I think it's a tough question, a lot of which depends on the extent of Western presence in the Middle East.

I do think there would still be Muslim on Muslim terror in the Middle East regardless of Western intervention in the area. If someone else disagrees, I'm willing to listen, as I'm no expert on the subject.

If we removed the items on your list: The Crusades, Colonialism, The WW 1 & 2 entanglements etc. I do believe we would still encounter terror towards the West from that area. We still would be purchasing oil from the area, and that creates entanglements of it's own. Did Russia still invade the area? That could have ramifications. Do we still have military bases there?

I do think we would still have problems, yes. Many of the grievances the extremists list against the West are religious in nature, regardless of which extremist group we're talking about.

And if no oil had been found in the ME? Without the iinternventions and without the oil, do we still acts of terror in the West stemming from the ME?

 

[Trausti]

You didn't go back as far as Charles the Hammer Martel. Europe was fending off Islamic incurisions for a long time already by the first post in the OP.

And you didn't answer the question.

Of course he answered the question. 8th Century Europe and Charles Martel did nothing to provoke the Muslim conquests. The Muslim conquests were wars of conquests. Attacking and subjugating non-Muslims peoples is part and parcel of their holy book. What did the North African Christian's do to provoke the Muslim conquests? - that area didn't turn predominately Muslim peacefully, ya know. And as for the cudgel of the Crusades, why is it always forgotten that it was sparked by yet another Muslim conquest? Modern-day Turkey used to be the Orthodox Byzantium empire. It pleaded with the Catholic West to come to its aid to save if from Islamic subjugation. (It is down the memory hole now, but the Catholic West and the Orthodox East did not get along.) To omit this fact when discussing the Crusades is intellectually dishonest.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And you didn't answer the question.

Of course he answered the question. .

This is the question.

Without this history, do Arab Muslims commit acts of terror against the West?

This is a yes or no question.

repoman's reply

You didn't go back as far as Charles the Hammer Martel. Europe was fending off Islamic incurisions for a long time already by the first post in the OP.

is not a yes or no answer, ERGO does not answer the question.

 

[dismal]

Some of those dates seem off.

I don't remember August 2004 as being that hectic.

Those are the dates of broadcast.

You really don't click the links, do you?

I didn't need the links to tell me those things didn't happen in 2004.

Also, not being historically illiterate, I already knew about all those things and more.

Islam has a long history of violent conquest. What it "has", it conquered. What it ever "had", it conquered. But yes, I'm sure it does piss them off when they lose a battle like they did in Vienna or in France. Moreso because their religion tells them they are supposed to be conquering not losing.

But the idea that once you've conquered something you are entitled to keep it forever is almost as bizarre as the compulsive need progressive atheists seem to have to come up with cockamamie defenses of a violent repressive religion like Islam.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Without that history, yes. Arab muslims began their history of terrorism in the seventh century, with their unprovoked invasion of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires. They oppressed the Zoroastrians of Iran, destroyed the Helleno-Syriac culture, invaded Egypt and North Africa, destroying the Romano-Berber and Vandalic cultures, then invaded Iberia and France. But it's GOOD when Europeans get conquered and oppressed, because they are only sub-human, inferior not people of no color. Genocide, slavery, conquest are only bad when subhuman, inferior white not people of no color do them.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Without that history, yes. Arab muslims began their history of terrorism in the seventh century, with their unprovoked invasion of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires. They oppressed the Zoroastrians of Iran, destroyed the Helleno-Syriac culture, invaded Egypt and North Africa, destroying the Romano-Berber and Vandalic cultures, then invaded Iberia and France. But it's GOOD when Europeans get conquered and oppressed, because they are only sub-human, inferior not people of no color. Genocide, slavery, conquest are only bad when subhuman, inferior white not people of no color do them.

Eldarion Lathria

You finished? or is there still some venting you need to do?