Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Problems With The Middle East

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I think Zionism is the root cause as well Iskander. But why would there have to be anything "new" in discussing a historical problem? I dont get where you are coming from in your tone, or message.


It's similar to when a doctor lists all of the symptoms with out diagnosing the illness and recommending treatment.




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Careful there Isk, blaming Zionists for anything in this forum isn't kosher!...They are the little guys with the big stick. They control the Pentagon and the Senate. How arrogant would they be without having that kind of control.?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
It's similar to when a doctor lists all of the symptoms with out diagnosing the illness and recommending treatment.

Ahh, that was intentional. This is a thread for discussing anything to do with the Middle East, as such this thread was necessarily vague.

If you want to discuss any aspect of the Middle East you can use this thread. Thats what it is for.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Greetings Fellow Believers,

I was intrigued by the postings on this thread. Kudos also for acknowledging the monarchies.

However, I submit to you that westernized-democracies is not the way for the Middle East to find peace.

Overlooked by many politicos, the United States is NOT a democracy--it is a REPUBLIC. There are clear differences.

Democratic governments must be customized for the needs of the people. The people within these countries seeking some form of democratic government must have the will to do so. Forcing democracy on people who do not have the political knowledge to create the foundation of a government will either resist or fail to participate.

Failure to participate in a democracy will guarantee the failure of a government. Certainly the government could still function, but it would slowly lose touch with constituents. The government would then become oppressive.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   


They did not have legal authority in matters of capital crimes under Roman law at that time.


There's even a few verses in the bible showing that the Romans killed Jesus for breaking Roman laws.

"every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar." John 19:12

"And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King."; Luke 23:2

"Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus." Acts 17:7

www.sullivan-county.com...



Assuming that he really was crucified at all, the gospels show that he was crucified (not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment reserved exclusively for those guilty of crimes against the empire), in accordance with Roman (not Jewish) laws, by Romans (not Jews), for breaking a Roman (not Jewish) law forbidding sedition against the Roman Empire.




[edit on 18-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I think that the major problem with the Middle East and its tension goes back to who thinks what (or where) belongs to who. You have so many people making claims like: "This is my ancestral homeland, and I will die to keep or take it!" The problem with this is idea is that everyone in the Middle East has been conquered by everyone at one point. Each group has had its point on top. Egypt, Persia (Iran), Kingdom of David (Israel), Babylon (Iraq), Assyrians in present date Jordan and Syria, Muhammad’s Caliphate ruled out of the Arabian Peninsula, and the Ottoman Turks. Clearly, everyone has ancestral land that is claimed by someone else.

The simple answer is that no one has claim to anything! Plus, the map of the Middle East is a European creation. I don’t understand why the region as a whole doesn’t have a summit and acknowledge that these boarders are not their boarders and start all over. Israel would come out with nothing in this though, and that would be a big problem. It is just a big mess solvable by no one person or policy.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
The modern day state of israel was created by western powers and had alot of support in the western world. Therefore that problem automatically falls on their shoulders not just the people in the middle east, because they never created or wanted that state. It's funny how we are still reeling in the world from so many problems that the west went through. First the world wars then the state of israel. You combine that with near unflinching support for israel, and the fact the it's also a religious issue with the worlds hugest faiths and now it's everyones problem. See the thing is influence and control of the middle east has been fought over for centuries by major powers, partly because that's what major powers do, fight for world control. But also because it is such a strategically important region. So for centuries powers have risen in the middle east and outside of it fighting over it. That doesn't mean it has always been the worlds most violent region as a matter fact it hasn't and indeed the 20 century has seen more violent and bloddy conflicts elsewhere, especially in Europe and East Asia, even Africa, but one way or another the world's hugest powers have found their way there. So if you want to support israel, I'll go call on such and such to support me, and so on and so forth. That only adds to the problem. Question is how far does it go, does it become an issue of WW3, well it sure seems like it.

[edit on 1-4-2006 by NeoQuest]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoQuest
The modern day state of israel was created by western powers



Interesting whom you call "the western world" -

Israel was created by a vote of the United Nations to Resolution 181 (II)

Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting:

In favour: 33

  • Australia,
  • Belgium,
  • Bolivia,
  • Brazil,
  • Byelorussian S.S.R.,
  • Canada,
  • Costa Rica,
  • Czechoslovakia,
  • Denmark,
  • Dominican Republic,
  • Ecuador,
  • France,
  • Guatemala,
  • Haiti,
  • Iceland,
  • Liberia,
  • Luxemburg,
  • Netherlands,
  • New Zealand,
  • Nicaragua,
  • Norway,
  • Panama,
  • Paraguay,
  • Peru,
  • Philippines,
  • Poland,
  • Sweden,
  • Ukrainian S.S.R.,
  • Union of South Africa,
  • U.S.A.,
  • U.S.S.R.,
  • Uruguay,
  • Venezuela.

    (on a sidenote: UKwas one of the 10 members who abstained)


    Originally posted by NeoQuest

    the people in the middle east, because they never created or wanted that state.



    Interesting. The Jews in Middle East always wanted to have their homeland there.

    You think the Arab world does not want to have a new Palestinian State as a neighbour of Israel?



  • posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:53 PM
    link   
    Wow. A very touchy sounding response indeed. So are you saying the west had nothing to do with the creation of Israel?

    [edit on 1-4-2006 by NeoQuest]

    (mod edit: quote deleted)

    [edit on 5-4-2006 by Riwka]



    posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:30 AM
    link   
    A wise move would be to not mention Zionism in this thread. For the record and to end this, UK never backed the state due to Zionist terrorism against the British mandate (No matter what modern Israel is, it was founded on terrorism), which resulted in the bombing of King David Hotel (92 people were killed)(and to this day, that terrorist attack has not been denounced by Israel) Conspiracy theorists will always see Zionism as the head of a Global Cabal for World control. A wise move would be talking about that side of Zionism in the new world order.


    The main problem is probably Saudia Arabi, their current King is not a young man, mid 80s and looks like he only has a few years. After him, the House of Saudi is very split....Saudi Arabi is vital for balance in the Middle East.



    posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 01:46 PM
    link   
    One of the more interesting things about the middle east is its current seriously competing nationalisms. There are five competing nationalisms from Egypt to Iran and including Turkey.
    1. Arab Nationalism
    2. Jewish Nationalism(zionism)
    3. Kurdish Nationalism
    4. Iranian Nationalism
    5. Turkish Nationalism
    The calming of these nationalisms would do much to help the region. Interestingly these people are different "races" but they have one thing in common except the Jews, which is Islam.



    posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:36 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka

    Interesting whom you call "the western world" -

    Israel was created by a vote of the United Nations to Resolution 181 (II)

    Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting:

    In favour: 33

  • Australia,
  • Belgium,
  • Bolivia,
  • Brazil,
  • Byelorussian S.S.R.,
  • Canada,
  • Costa Rica,
  • Czechoslovakia,
  • Denmark,
  • Dominican Republic,
  • Ecuador,
  • France,
  • Guatemala,
  • Haiti,
  • Iceland,
  • Liberia,
  • Luxemburg,
  • Netherlands,
  • New Zealand,
  • Nicaragua,
  • Norway,
  • Panama,
  • Paraguay,
  • Peru,
  • Philippines,
  • Poland,
  • Sweden,
  • Ukrainian S.S.R.,
  • Union of South Africa,
  • U.S.A.,
  • U.S.S.R.,
  • Uruguay,
  • Venezuela.


  • Other than USSR, Philippines, and New Zealand[Which are Zionist themselves] they are Western nations.

    No Muslim majority nations voted for the creation of Israel.

    As a side note UNGA Resolution 181 was only a suggestion, not a binding Security Council resolution.



    posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:50 AM
    link   


    No Muslim majority nations voted for the creation of Israel.



    I would hope not. Especially since Islam wants the Jews destroyed. Voting for the creation of Israel would be hypocritical.

    And of course we all know that no religion is hypocritical don't we?



    posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:53 AM
    link   
    good thread, having seen several similar discussion boards on the net, i am plesased with the intelligence show by the majority of people here.

    I honestly dont know where the solution to the problems in the middle east would be, i can see arguements both ways, and i think the israel situation is going to be the hardest to come to a solution.

    When the creation of israel was decided, how did they come to the decision to situate it there?



    posted on May, 16 2006 @ 12:31 PM
    link   
    Well that tract of land was once controlled by Jews. Trouble is, it was also once controlled by Romans, Christians and until recently Muslims. Yet the latter dont have any right to the land if you listen to the Zionists.

    Shortly following the end of WW2 Zionist terrorists waged a terror campaign against the British mandate forces in Palestine. They blew up buildings and killed civilians in an effort to force Britain out of Palestine so that a Jewish state could be founded. However the huge loss of life that occured during the Holocaust (which some Zionists are known to have supported, and actually welcomed) garnered ample sympathy for their cause. They were not condemned as terrorists but actually rewarded with a partition of the territory for themselves.

    I wonder if Native Americans, or Aborigines started blowing up American or Australian buildings and then demanded their own homeland, would they get it? Of course not, but then again they havent had a recent holocaust to hide behind.



    posted on May, 16 2006 @ 12:56 PM
    link   
    In other news, has any one been keeping abreast of the burgeoning Kurdish state that is set to announce itself to the World in the coming months? The Kurds could well be the proxy army that Israel and the United States could unleash against the recalcitrant Iranians, and then eventually the Syrians. Three of Irans thirty provinces are Kurdish dominated, they are also the scenes of the recent bombings.

    Israeli assistance to the Kurdish MEK (Mujahadeen-e-Khalq) terrorists dates back to before the First Gulf War. Eyeing a potential Kurdish state as an ally in the region, the Israeli's sent funds, weapons and military instructors, to the MEK training camps. The MEK's aim of securing their own homeland is reminicent of the origins of Israel. Yet, a Kurdish homeland would likely comprise of Turkish, Iraqi and Iranian territory. The destabilisation to all three nations would play into the PNAC and Israeli strategy of the "Balkanisation" of the Middle East.

    If sectarian violence spreads into civil wars, and wars of independance the region will collapse into sectarian mini-states. These will be much easier to deal with from an Israeli security perspective. This plan is quite plausible given that sectarian allegiances are much stronger than nationalistic sentiment in most Middle Eastern nations. This stems from the artificial way most of the countries of the Middle East were "created" following the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1.

    These countries are comparitvely recent constructs with little national cohesion. The slightest spark (or instigation) can set the region off into a replica of the Balkans, which was also once comprised of artificial countries until war ravaged the region.



    posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:31 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
    In regard to HiddenReality's assertion that the Jews killed an Islamic prophet, I assume he is referring to Jesus, this not true.
    The Pharasees tried on numerous occasions to move against Christ but could not because the Jewish people would have ripped them to shreds. The Jews did not kill Christ. The chief priests made false charges, and a stacked deck made sure that Pilate crucified Christ rather than Barabbas.

    What is important is that it was not the Jewish community that crucified Jesus.


    TC you are making a distinction here that I don't think would hold up in a court of law. Modern law would probably find the Jewish priests at least guilty of conspiracy to cause the death of Christ. Unless my history is deficient on this subject, I believe the Romans would have paid no attention to Christ if not for the Jewish priests. So even though the Jews did not kill Christ directly, they, by their actions caused him to be killed.

    Of course another way of looking at Christ's death would be to say that he, by his own actions, caused his own death. Either viewpoint would be entirely correct. The Romans were simply pawns in the game and were forgiven by Christ even as they killed him.

    [edit on 16-5-2006 by Astronomer70]



    posted on May, 16 2006 @ 02:00 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Jack of Scythes
    Greetings Fellow Believers,

    Failure to participate in a democracy will guarantee the failure of a government. Certainly the government could still function, but it would slowly lose touch with constituents. The government would then become oppressive.


    I submit sir that your last sentence (prediction) is by no means a foregone conclusion. In as much as the people comprising the government are themselves constituents and would be networked throughout the country (at least on a personal level) they could just as easily become an even better government. As in any other human endeavor, it all boils down to the actual people involved.



    posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:28 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by bg_socalif


    No Muslim majority nations voted for the creation of Israel.



    I would hope not. Especially since Islam wants the Jews destroyed. Voting for the creation of Israel would be hypocritical.

    And of course we all know that no religion is hypocritical don't we?


    If Islam wanted the Jews destroyed why didn't they do it when they controled the land for 1300 years?

    The reason why is because its not Jews that they are against.

    Sephardic Jews lived at peace with Muslim Arabs.

    It was not until Ashkenazi Jews began immigrating to Palestine in massive waves that the problems began.

    If the Brits had not open the floodgates to the Jews of Europe there would be peace in the Mid-East today.

    They are the center of the conflict for if they were not there no conflict would exist other than which Arab was in control.



    posted on May, 20 2006 @ 03:40 PM
    link   
    Great points Malichai

    Its also worthwhile reiterating that Iran has no problem with Jews either. Their issues fall flat at the feet of the Zionists. Not all Jews are zionists as can be seen with the flat out refusal of zionist principles from many Rabbis across the globe. These Rabbis delcare Zionism to be heretical and the antithesis of Judaism.

    Also Iran has members of its parliament who are Jews, hardly the behaviour expected of the supposed neo-Nazi movement that is the Iranian government. Add this to the fact that Iran has the largest concentration of Jews of any country in the Middle East except, of course, Israel.

    The whole Zionist play-book is one filled with terrorism, lies, deception, treachery and greed. Zionists will one day be widely known to be the morally bankrupt heretics who prey off the misery of the Holocaust for their own nefarious ends. When that day comes we can seriously make head-way for a peaceful Middle East and an end to this phony War on Terror.






    top topics



     
    3
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join