Re: Rana... -- The PM Refugees' Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:33:43 08/15/07 Wed
Author: Roger
Subject: Re: Rana...
In reply to: Rana 's message, "Re: Rana..." on 16:59:09 08/15/07 Wed

Your point is the point that I was making in the first place, that the borders were made up by the British and French, and perhaps if the Arabs and others had more input, the borders would have been more amenable to stability.

>>I was under the impression that there weren't many
>>borders, as such, in the middle east in pre 20th
>>century times, nor central government of the region.
>>Feel free to disabuse me of that notion, too, if you
>>wish. :)
>
>
>As I said, I am not very well learnt... but I think
>you are right. The current borders and division of
>countries were not there at the time of the Ottoman
>occupation. Ottoman occupation was superseded by the
>European colonization of the Arab world, who divided
>it and distributed dominance over its territories
>among the states who were victorious in the first
>world war.
>>
>>>>The Caliphs must have been tremendously responsible
>>rulers, with a great sense of responsibility to their
>>subjects,
>
>They were like that in the early days of Islam... like
>in the first 100 years or so after the death of
>prophet Mohammed (pbuh)
>
>> or totally despotic to keep the different factions
>in line.
>
>They became like this in later days, when they were
>blinded by the power and wealth they found in their
>hands and started drifting away from the real
>teachings of Islam and surrendered to their lusts for
>ruling and power.
>
>

>>>I think it's more like the opposite is true.
>>>More countries mean weaker countries and more
>>>conflicts (and maybe wars) among them. I am not very
>>>well learnt with regard to history, but I don't think
>>>the Kurds have ever had a state .. however, when Iraq
>>>was ruled by the Islamic caliphs, all people were
>>>treated equally.. all had same rights and same
>>>obligations, no matter whether they were kurds or any
>>>other ethnicity. You see, tearing the territories
>>>apart, and creating more countries in the region is
>>>something the European occupiers were keen to do so
>>>that no strong state emerges in the region, which
>>>makes it easier for them to continue dominating the
>>>resources of the region in one way or another.
>>>
>>>>And thank you, Rana.
>>>>
>>>>It has occurred to me a couple of times that the
>>>>solution to some of the problems in the middle east
>>>>may be to reorganize some of the territory, and
>>>>perhaps create more countries. Iraq was cobbled
>>>>together by the French and English at the end of the
>>>>first world war, and if they had more input from the
>>>>local tribes, they might have made a more sensible
>>set
>>>>of boundaries. Perhaps the Kurds should have had
>>their
>>>>own state, for example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Roger, you are both
>>really
>>>>>nice and I am glad to be friends with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Michael,
>>>>>I don't get what you mean by pan Islamic state..
>you
>>>>>mean like all Muslim countries unite and form a one
>>>>>big state? I don't think this is possible..
>although
>>>>>the idea is nice.. but I don't think it is doable.
>>>>>

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]