Trajan Octavian Titus

It was under British sovereignty it has NEVER been a separate state.

The Jews integrated the Jews why can't the Arabs do the same? Oh that's right because they want them just where they are.

Who did the Palestinians elect?

There was a mere 1/2 million Jews vs. the combined strength of five powerful Arab states.

MSgt

What about them? There is no doubt that colonialism brought with it the will to ensure a maintanence of economic stability. But, let's check out the circumstances surrounding the history of this region and these "kings" instead of just relying on the single fact of installment or "assignment" for which all Islamic tragedy is blamed.......



Saudi Arabia - The history of the House of Saud has been marked by a desire to unify the Arabian Peninsula and to spread what it promotes as a more purified and simple, though often criticized as less tolerant, view of Islam embodied by Wahhabism. The House of Saud has gone through three phases..the first Saudi State, the Second, and the current. The current state of Saudi Arabia owes its roots to Ibn Saud. He challenged the House of Rashid. Ibn Rashid appealed to the Ottoman Empire for assistance in defeating the Ibn Saud. The Ottomans sent troops to Arabia and temporary put Saud's forces down. With the Ottoman-German Alliance in mind, the British government attempted to cultivate favor with Ibn Saud and in 1915 made his lands a British protectorate. After a supply of weapons and finances and after WWI, finally in 1922, Ibn Saud defeated Ibn Rashid and by 1927 the British government recognized the House of Saud. In 1932, Saud renamed the land Saudi Arabia and proclaimed himself king.

Oil wouldn't be discovered in Saudi Arabia until 1938.

Iraq - After the Ottoman-German Alliance crumbled, the League of Nations gave "Iraq" to Britian. After being forced out of Syria by the French, Faisal was established as the client ruler. Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1932, on the urging of King Faisal. Shortly after Faisal died, the United Kingdom invaded Iraq in 1941, for fear that the government of Rashid Ali (Prime Minister) might cut oil supplies to Western nations, and because of his strong ideological leanings to Nazi Germany. The Hashemite monarchy was re-established with Faisal II. Then came Qassim to power in 1958, when he led a coup. He immediately established friendly relations with the Soviet Union, but his government lasted only until 1963, when it was overthrown by another coup that led into the Ba'ath Party. Under Saddam's Iraq, an aid pact with the Soviet Union was signed in 1972, and arms were sent along with several thousand advisers. However, the 1978 crackdown on Iraqi Communists and a shift of trade toward the West strained Iraqi relations with the Soviet Union; Iraq then took on a more Western orientation.

Jordan - After the Ottoman-German Alliance crumbled, the League of Nations gave Transjordan to Britian. Emir Abdullah, elder son of Britain's wartime Arab ally Sharif Hussein of Mecca, was placed on the throne of Transjordan. Britain recognized Transjordan as a state on May 15, 1923, and gradually relinquished control, limiting its oversight to financial, military and foreign policy matters. After capturing the 'West Bank' area of Cisjordan during the 1948–49 war with Israel, Abdullah took the title King of Jordan.

Syria - After the Ottoman-German Alliance crumbled, the League of Nations gave Syria to France. An independent Arab Kingdom of Syria was established under King Faisal of the Hashemite family. For daring to clash against French troops, he would be expelled after only a year or rulership and he became the King of Iraq (as mentioned above). Syria and France negotiated a treaty of independence in September of 1936, and Hashim al-Atassi was the first president to be elected. However, the gool old French reneged on the treaty and refused to ratify it for concerns of Nazi Germany and other issues in the locale. With the fall of France in 1940 during World War II, Syria came under the control of the "Vichy Government" until the British and Free French occupied the country in July 1941. Syria proclaimed its independence again but it wasn't until January 1, 1944 that it was recognised as an independent republic. On February 26, 1945 Syria declared war on Germany and Japan. Continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and British pressure forced the French to evacuate their troops in April 1946, leaving the country in the hands of a republican government that had been formed during the mandate.

Egypt - After the Suez Canal, Egypt fell heavily into debt to European powers. Ostensibly to protect its investments, the United Kingdom seized control of Egypt's government in 1882, but nominal allegiance to the Ottoman Empire continued until 1914 when as a result of the declaration of war with the Ottoman Empire, Britain declared a protectorate over Egypt and deposed the Khedive Abbas II, replacing him with Husayn Kamil his uncle who was appointed Sultan of Egypt. Great Britain issued a unilateral declaration of Egypt's independence on February 22, 1922. The new Egyptian government drafted and implemented a new constitution in 1923 based on a parliamentary representative system. Saad Zaghlul was popularly-elected as Prime Minister of Egypt in 1924, and in 1936 the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty was concluded. In the 1952 revolution, Nasser assumed power as President and declared the full independence of Egypt from the United Kingdom on June 18, 1956. After Nasser died in 1970, he was succeeded by Anwar Sadat. Sadat switched Egypt's Cold War allegiance from the Soviet Union to the United States, expelling Soviet advisors in 1972. In 1977, Sadat made a historic visit to Israel which led to the 1978 peace treaty in exchange for the complete Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. Sadat's initiative sparked enormous controversy in the Arab world and led to Egypt's expulsion from the Arab League, but was supported by the vast majority of Egyptians. Sadat was assassinated in Cairo by a fundamentalist military soldier in 1981 and was succeeded by Hosni Mubarak, who remains to this day.

And for good measure, let's throw in a Shia nation...

Iran - In 1921, Reza Khan staged a coup against the weakened Qajar dynasty with the British as the masterminds in order to halt the Bolsheviks penetration of Iran and the threat they posed on their colonial possession in India. An autocrat and supporter of modernization, Reza Shah initiated the development of modern industry, railroads, and establishment of a national education system. Reza Shah sought to balance the influence of Russia and Britain by seeking out assistance and technology from European powers traditionally not involved in Iranian affairs, but when World War II started his closeness to Germany alarmed allied powers Russia and Britain, Germany's enemies. In summer of 1941 Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to prevent Iran from allying with the Axis powers. The Allies occupied Iran, securing a supply line to Russia, Iran's petroleum infrastructure, and forced the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister and he began to assume the duties. However, he was reliant on the Tudeh (communist) Party and the British managed to convince America that something had to be done. in 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch (and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000...shhh...don't tell our critics who need to keep the event near and dear to their hearts). Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was allowed to returned to power. After encouragement from America and Britian to modernize Iran and to develop it into a proper ally, Pahlavi instituted his "White REvolution." This of course would be too extreme in it's modernizations and it encouraged great religious uprisings which would see the eventual emergence of Khomeini, for which Iranians would grow quite quickly to regret.


Now, Muslims in the Middle East will reflect fondly on only the aspects that shows Western tyranny as it installed a King here and a King there. But what they will not reflect on was how all of this encompassed a period of two World Wars and a nuclear stand off between two global super powers. As you can clearly see above, the Islamic lands have continually chosen the Ottoman-German Alliance, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union in its allegiances...and they have lost every time. No responsibility is given for the decisions their own leaders chose and the subsequent action of the victors to secure a sense of peace and stability in the region after each event. No responsibility given to their own religious fanatics who have taken advantage of every small event to further their agenda to preserve fundamental Islam at the expense of modernism. No responsibility is given to the memberships of these coups or assassinations for favor of blaming foreign devils for their roles during much larger dangers and threats - such a thing would place blame on their own Muslims you see.

And why have they chosen the Ottoman-German Alliance, Nazi germany, and Soviet communism consistently over time? It's not because Ottoman's were Muslim, because Arabs often defied Ottoman rule in various locations in the ME. It's because they are the closest thing to their ideologies. Better to be ruled by repressive Ottomans, Nazis, and Soviets then to be forced to modernize under the influence of the West, which they saw as a direct threat to the well being of that "age old religion." Of course, this only goes for the religious elements. For those nationalists governments that chose the wrong side, they simply chose what they thought was the future power.

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

Trajan Octavian Titus

What is your corraborating evidence that these warnings were ever really made? Furthermore; incomepetence or oversite can explain these descrepencies, do you realize the amount of intelligence that comes into the CIA? And nothing in your report confirms that there was any actionable intelligence IE it offers no names and nothing to go on, not only that there was this thing called the Clinton/Gorelick wall which prevented the CIA speaking to the FBI and the CIA is not allowed to conduct policing operations inside the US.

There was no stand down order this dispells most of the rumors regarding a stand down order if you have anything else that isn't answered let me know:

• Payne Stewart and the story of the “speedy” interception
• "It takes about one minute" for the FAA to contact NORAD about a problem plane, after which NORAD can scramble fighter jets “within a matter of minutes” to anywhere in the United States
• Fighter intercepts are routine, with 67 taking place in 9 months before 9/11
• A June 1st 2001 change in intercept procedures required all requests for assistance in hijackings to be approved by the Secretary of Defence
• Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD hijacking exercises on 9/11
• Eye-witness testimony casts doubt on the time NORAD claimed they scrambled jets to intercept Flight 11
• Intercepts of suspect planes normally happen within 10 minutes. Why not on 9/11?
• The hijacked planes should still have been tracked on radar, even if their transponders were turned off
• The many war games and exercises scheduled for 9/11 delayed military response to the hijackings
• Why were fighters not launched from Andrews Air Force Base, closest to Washington?
• When fighters were launched, they flew at suspiciously slow speeds
• General Myers initial story was that no fighters were launched until after the Pentagon was hit
• The 9/11 Commission say that NORAD didn’t recognise the threat from 9/11-type attacks until they happened, but that just isn’t credible
• Links to related sites

A) I'm not seeing any evidence that suggests 9-11 being a Mossad operation in that article.

B) None of their assertions are backed up with sources, not one, they simply make a claim and expect us the reader to accept it at face value.

Again what does this have to do with 9-11?

And your point? We've got spies in Israel and other allied nations too.

This assertion is simply false first of all their was infact a massive diesel fire in WTC7 the NIST has comfirmed this, here are photos of that massive inferno:



Secondly WTC7 colapsed because it had a 10-story gash on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building, and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior combined with a raging inferno in a building which was designed in such a way that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, this combined with a raging inferno caused the collapse.


This source makes claims and doesn't back them up with any evidence:

What is the source of this claim? What was the exact information given to the President verbatim?

According to who? Has the German ambassador corraborated these claims?

They give no evidence to back either of these claims, and their argument is itself suspect IE they argue that they have the evidence for this but then claim that no one from the German government will corraborate it because the U.S. government requested that they don't, this allows them to make what ever claim they want and then if asked to present the evidence to prove it they can just say that the government is covering it up. This is what we refer to as a unfalsifiable information, it's the same thing as people who claim that there are little green men but they can't present the evidence to back their claim because the government is covering it up, the theory itself encapsulates it from being dispelled, seriously don't believe everything you read.


A) She was in WTC6 which didn't even fully collapse:




B) Here is a site that explains the sounds of "explosions" :

Accounts of Explosions


See this is one of the most ludicrous proposition asserted by the conspiracists, now if 9-11 was a pre-text for war with Iraq then why in the hell didn't they frame Saddam instead of AQ???

Gardener

You need to keep in mind that a signifigant percentage of Israel's population used to live in that everything else, but yes -- they now have just a small sliver of land. What the world has seen is a winnowing of populations with the million Jews living in Arab lands being displaced and several hundred thousand Muslims likewise. So yes, why can't arabs just keep quite about it? THere has already been tit for tat.


There would be objections to Israel no matter its size. THe VALIDITY of the objections, however, is proportional to such size.



And Jews are still pissed for being kicked out of their homes in Arab lands. What's your point, though? Just because they are upset that the population they once subjugated to second class status is now prospering in their midsts, does that make such resentment valid or especially meaningful in the greater context? Are you suggesting here that Jewish people should have NO land and NO self determination?


I do tire of answering the same question time and time again.

I find it just short of amazing that you would bypass the hysterical raving about these scheming Zionist overlords conspiring to commit genocide and settle on this little map as illustrative of "propaganda". Kind of like ignoring nuclear explosion in order to warn somebody that they just lit a cigarette on fire.

I'm not sure what you meanabout "silly sophisty that attempts to illustrate there are no Palestinians", but if you are arguing against the fact that Palestinian identity is a modern phenomenon, then believe me -- the sophistry is yours.

__________________
You lack lust; you're so lackluster. Is that all the strength you can muster?

Simon W. Moon

I don't think that anyone thinks it's about the land they have. AFAICT, it about the land they lost.

IIRC, it's in part because they weren't the one to do the 'alotting'.

The attitude that "the Arabs have enough land" is somehow relevant is the primary silliness that's promoted by the map. "Enough land" is meaningless in this context. Arabs see it as though a foreign power diviied up Arab land and gave it to foreigners. The amount is not what's at issue. It's the foreigners divvying up Arab things amongst themselves that's the issue.

Allow me the indulgence of analogy to explain Arab position as I humbly understand it:

If someone stole $100 dollars from me it would not be relevant to me that I have plenty of other money. The upset is not about how much money I have left or what the fiscal disparity between me and the guy who ended up w/ my money is. I wouldn't find the argument that he only had <1% of what I have very interesting let alone compelling. That would be entirely irrelevant to me at that point.

I fully recognize that many folks (including myself) don't see things the way that many Arabs seem to. And that's fine and as it should be.

So we agree that the size disparity illustrated on that map is irrelevant, yes?

__________________
"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile."
- Napoleon Bonaparte to Berthier 11 Nov 1798 Napoleon on the Art of War

bub

Yeah but what for a small sliver of land!? Jerusalem and many holy areas (holy for the 3 monotheist religions). If Israel was on the coast of Lybia or Turkey there would probably not be all those problems.

But don't shout at me, Israel has the right to be where it is (after all they come from there), it's just a statement.

Israel should be granted the right to exist by every nation, just as Palestine, and the holy sites should remain neutral (international).

They should respect the borders decided by the UN. In fact, I don't really get why it is so difficult.

Probably because everybody mistrust the other (example: if I write something not clear enough about Israel/Palestine, some people will interpret it as anti-semite/anti arab and shout at me, and I'll answer rudely...etc. Same at the international scale)

People should calm down and see what really matters. Own a piece of desert, or care about the welfare of the local population (both Jew and Arab) ? Pride or reason?

I think there is too much testosterone, too many *******s* and too much gun powder in the M/E.
Burn those weapons, swallow your pride, close your holy book and let women rule.




(*those who pretend Palestinians/Israel have no right to be an independant nation and that there is a global jihad/jew-controlled propaganda)

__________________
===|:-)

Gardener

Such a false analogy. For your analogy to have any validity, you might have had 100 stolen, but you would have stolen 120,yourself, and then still resent the100.

__________________
You lack lust; you're so lackluster. Is that all the strength you can muster?

Simon W. Moon

So if Israel were larger, then the Arabs objections would all of a sudden become valid?
What percentage of which particular landmass would it take for the Arab objections to be valid?

That the American frameworks, ideas and concerns about the issue are often far removed from those of the participants. As such they're often not necessarily informative, useful or meaningful toward the goal of resolving the thorny issues at hand.


Are you?

Why? Do you feel you need some help with your side of the debate, or what?

__________________
"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile."
- Napoleon Bonaparte to Berthier 11 Nov 1798 Napoleon on the Art of War

Simon W. Moon

Since it was a crufted analogy to explain "Arab position as I humbly understand it" . . .

Are you saying that as you understand it the "Arab position" is that the Arabs stole 120 and that the Western powers / Israelis stole 100?

Are we to believe that your modifications represent your understanding of the Arab position as you understand it?

Or were you going somewhere else with it?

__________________
"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile."
- Napoleon Bonaparte to Berthier 11 Nov 1798 Napoleon on the Art of War

Gardener

You deal in absolutes here. THis is not a situation of absolutes. It is a situation of relativity.


Your framing the issue according to just one side is accomplishing what, exactly? It isone thing to note the complaints, but another matter altogether to validate them.When you take such a position without explaining why you do so, you give every indication that you ARE validating those positions.



No, just wondering why you would ignore the egregious example of propaganda in order to focus on that which you focused. Do you even have a side to the debate, or do you just play devil's advocate here? I often get the feeling with you that you are indulging in dialectics rather than voicing your opinion, so it is difficult to tell.

__________________
You lack lust; you're so lackluster. Is that all the strength you can muster?