Iran, The real issue, An open discussion

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by RimDaas

 

The point is they were once one country and due to civil strife between muslims and Hindus, they had to partition. What a mess it was. Trying to blend them back together could prove a sticky thing.

Nope. Both wanted to leave the British, and since they figured they can't live together well, one advocated for an Islamic State while the other a Hindu one.

Originally posted by RimDaas

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by RimDaas

 

The point is they were once one country and due to civil strife between muslims and Hindus, they had to partition. What a mess it was. Trying to blend them back together could prove a sticky thing.

Nope. Both wanted to leave the British, and since they figured they can't live together well, one advocated for an Islamic State while the other a Hindu one.

And that wasn't civil strife between hindu and muslim? Ok ...

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by sitchin

 

That's easy. The English came to North America and pretty much exterminated the native people there. Not you, not attacking you, but it seems alot of Brits are hypercritical of the US for exercising the same policies the UK has pulled for centuries, and its just ironic to me. Peace.

im sorry ,im not attacking the american people,ive traveled to the states many times and found everyone i met extremely friendly ..like the UK i believe american politics to be Corrupt ,ive also traveled to Israel from Cyprus and found the country very intimidating to say the very least

Originally posted by RimDaas

Bro Pakistan and India were partitioned. Pakistan does not belong to India, India does not belong to Pakistan.

Spain fought and defeated the Moors.

Again, the Ottomans overthrew the Persians.

Now Israel. Israel was forced into the Middle East.

Thank you. Those were my points, precisely. maps get rearranged, and now apparently there are those who want to rearrange them yet again, using outside impositions.

Just to clarify - you say that Israel was "forced" into the Middle East, somehow singling it out, so I presume that you believe somehow Ottomans overthrowing Persians, and Spaniards overthrowing Moors did NOT employ any sort of force?

You might want to consult a Pak on the question of whether Pakistan belongs to India or vice versa. Why would Spain have had to fight Moors in al Andalus, or Ottomans have to fight Persians, if neither the Persians nor the Moors had not first rearranged the maps to suit their own tastes?

As I said before, I now re-state:

History is rife with invasions and takeovers, lands being reassigned to new ownership. The Middle East is no different than the rest of the world in that respect,

So how far back do you want to go historically in rearranging maps? Would it not make more sense to deal with the world head on as it stands?

So how far do you want to go back in setting the maps straight, and zeroing them out with the "original" inhabitants inheriting the lands? What country do you live in? Who was it stolen from? Where will you return to when we start straightening this world and it's maps back out?

Originally posted by sitchin

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by sitchin

 

That's easy. The English came to North America and pretty much exterminated the native people there. Not you, not attacking you, but it seems alot of Brits are hypercritical of the US for exercising the same policies the UK has pulled for centuries, and its just ironic to me. Peace.

im sorry ,im not attacking the american people,ive traveled to the states many times and found everyone i met extremely friendly ..like the UK i believe american politics to be Corrupt ,ive also traveled to Israel from Cyprus and found the country very intimidating to say the very least

It's nothing to do with the people, when the PTB want war you'll get war and no not even the president can stop it.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by RimDaas

Bro Pakistan and India were partitioned. Pakistan does not belong to India, India does not belong to Pakistan.

Spain fought and defeated the Moors.

Again, the Ottomans overthrew the Persians.

Now Israel. Israel was forced into the Middle East.

Thank you. Those were my points, precisely. maps get rearranged, and now apparently there are those who want to rearrange them yet again, using outside impositions.

Just to clarify - you say that Israel was "forced" into the Middle East, somehow singling it out, so I presume that you believe somehow Ottomans overthrowing Persians, and Spaniards overthrowing Moors did NOT employ any sort of force?

You might want to consult a Pak on the question of whether Pakistan belongs to India or vice versa. Why would Spain have had to fight Moors in al Andalus, or Ottomans have to fight Persians, if neither the Persians nor the Moors had not first rearranged the maps to suit their own tastes?

Britain forced Israel into the Middle East, unfairly, taking Palestinian land. The Ottomans, the Spaniards both fought for their freedom. The Israelis were then treated to aid from the US and Britain to continue occupying Palestinian land.
I am Pakistani.

Originally posted by RimDaas

I am Pakistani.

I have to wonder why your narrative is so different from the narrative of my Pakistani friends here. it may be simply a matter of age. I don't know how old you are, but one of my friends here lived through that "partitioning" (what an antiseptic term for what happened!) and is still, to this day 60 years later, pissed off about it.

It was ALL "India", and now it's not. That cannot be changed other than by giving Pakistan back to India... and Bangaladesh... and most of the other " - stans".

Yes, the Andalusians were fighting for their freedom, but that in no way changes the fact that it WAS al-Andalus at that point. I still hear, from time to time, Muslims clamoring for the "return" of Andalusia, most commonly the same ones longing for the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

It's one way of looking at it to say that the Ottomans were "throwing off the yoke of the Persians". Another way of looking at it is that the Turks were rebelling against the empire. Yet another is to see that they had designs for an empire of their own, which eventually came to be.

Canaan/Israel/Palestine/Etc. has changed hands more times than most people change underwear. How is one to set an arbitrary time period to call the inhabitants the "originals"? How many of the "original" inhabitants, the Arab landowners of 1947, are still alive? How many of those clamoring for "their" lands back have lived all their days in refugee camps, since birth? An ancillary question is WHY have they not been integrated by their so called friends - who seem to prefer they STAY in those refugee camps?

Nothing ever stays static. lands change hands, empires rise and fall. Rather than looking back and longing for the "good old days" - and setting a precise point for just when those days were, as ownership changes with the times and the vagaries of war - I believe it's better to address the world as it is, rather than as we would like to see it.

reply to post by RimDaas


I see now, it's all Britain's fault.

For a change someone's not blaming the USA.

reply to post by nenothtu


I don't know why your friend is pissed. Maybe because India took Kashmir and some other land from Pakistan unfairly.
It was at that time ruled by the British. British India. The Indians didn't rule it. Not the Hindus or the Muslims. After advocating for independence, the British gave the states with a Hindu majority to now Modern day India and the states with a Muslim majority to modern day Pakistan.

I can tell you that in Palestin and occupied land, families still live there. These families have been living for generations before the creation of Israel. There are thousands of nomads still in Israeli occupied territory trying to scrape a living.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


thats a bit different, the usa sold nuclear energy to persia and a western influenced shah...
Good post slayer, however both sides are at fault just as much as they are victims.

iran has the right to nuclear energy, however they are building bomb tech secretly
Israle has the right to exist, however so does palestine.
we need a brave man on either of the sides to cede their position on goodfaith the other will meet halfway... Howver the usa will no let this issue go by as it is ripe for further ME resource control

Sadly, even if ahmadinejad and netanyahu asked for a doalogue the usa and uk wpuld step in and label iran as stalling for time.

Just like the usa elections the equation and result are a for-gone conclusion

Typed on a ifone

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
This is a confusing situation for me as I don't understand why Israel would support the FSA in Syria, knowing it is made up of hard core Sunni Islamist extremists.

That precise situation has been confounding me as well - not only the apparent Israeli support, but the "west" in general's support for the FSA. It seems a no-brainer to waste time picking sides in an internal war of this nature, where there are no good guys to root for. I'm developing a little conspiracy theory of my own in the matter, which is also taking into account the Egyptian revolution, and the Libyan, as well as a few other actions in the so-called "Arab Spring", AND the stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, who seem to have their fingers all over these pies, but I think I'll sit on it a bit longer to see what hatches.

If it's what it's starting to look like to me, it's not going to be a very good thing at all, for any of us little people, east and west alike.

Originally posted by RimDaas
Britain forced Israel into the Middle East, unfairly, taking Palestinian land. The Ottomans, the Spaniards both fought for their freedom. The Israelis were then treated to aid from the US and Britain to continue occupying Palestinian land.
I am Pakistani.

Your version of history is tottaly off course ... you should write a formal complaint to your school authorities.

The Ottomans and Spaniards, fought against invasion ... not their freedom. The persians, and the moors were invading Europe, just as Europeans have been trying to free the Holy land from their Occupation for two thousand years.. People of the middle-east have been trying to enter Europe, for two thousand years. This is where the legend of "Dracula" comes up. Let me itterate it for you ... There are many crests of Europe, each designating different people, and their royal house. One is the dragon, which you do not see anymore. This house, was the first defence against Persian invasion, and knowing they were far outnumbered, they defiled the bodies of their invaders, to scare off the main army ... the fierceness with which this was done, even scared the Europeans, so ... not needed to say, the house of draco no longer exists in Europe.

For Israel, there never was one. There are two houses in the middle east, the house of Juda, and the house of Israel. The house of Israel was broken and disperced among the nations, long before Judea was. And as you should know, Judea was broken by the Romans.

The people, currently referred to as Jews, are Europeans. For millenia, the Europeans have been argueing what religion is the true religion, and it has resulted in many factions of the Church. And there have always been those who believed that Jewism, was the only true one, because it's the original one. Both Christianity, and Islam, broke of Jewism (or was it called Judaism). The people of the middle east, known as Isrelites wandered over the world, long before the Romans entered Jerusalem and slaughtered the Jews (house of Juda). Because of this, and the biblical history of it, most of the people in Europe, refer to themselves as Israelites (or those that are religious), and not from Judea. Because, the Romans murdered all the Judeans. But fact of the matter is, that whatever remained of the Jews, got mixed with people in Europe over the two thousand years that have passed. Just as the Romans and society has been murdering Germanians, so did they other tribes. The result, has been a genetic mixture of peole in Europe, with various degree of mix. So, today there are no Germanias, or Jews ... just Europeans. Rome, and all the empires that followed. Took "ideology" away from the people, and forced them to mix ... blood being thicker than water. While in the middle east, books were stored and kept, while other populations were ... homogenized (it's a prettier word than exterminated). Both, were creating a homogeneus society through religion.

Brits took the middle-east, sure ... and so did the french. The people of the middle-east lost, yeah. But the problem with their victory, was that nobody wanted to "move" to the middle east. Unlike all the new territories, where it was easy to move people to them. The middle east, was a desert where the local population quickly attacked all attempts to colonize. You have enough stories, books and movies about this era to last you for life. The brits, and the french tried to make their prsence stick ... for over a century, without success.

Until "jewism" came along. When the religion of "Jews" came along, there was a desire amongs many of the European population, to return to the "holy" land. In reality, this desire is the same desire that drove Europeans over to America. The biblical promise of "the promised land". Every person, that is christian, is of the belief that they are of the house of Juda or Israel. This is the heart of Christianity ... that we are all from their house, not just the people with the religion, called Jewism. We, are the lost tribes of Israel. Remember this, because this is important ... Israelites, as referred to in the bible are mixed with gentiles and ... not really jewish. This is why, it's called "Israel" and not "Judea". If this country, was built by the survivors of the Roman mass murder of Jerusalem, it should be called "Judea" and not "Israel".

reply to post by nenothtu

The Middle East and including Iran...would not be even on the U.S. Radar if it were not for two reasons...1. OIL.
2. The U.S. Cold War planning to deny the Soviet Union the ability to invade the area...and they did have plans to invade.

It is sad in this day and age we are even still using Fossil Fuels as there is a good amount of evidence that several forms of Green Energy is being Held Back.

Efficient and Cost Effective Solar Power is a no brainer and if anyone thinks that we do not have the ability to efficiently generate cost effective Solar...they are kidding themselves.

Low Temp. Fusion. THIS...is a very close held secret and I would think that this tech is being held secret at all cost by those who benefit from Oil Sales and distribution. Split Infinity

Originally posted by RimDaas
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I don't know why your friend is pissed. Maybe because India took Kashmir and some other land from Pakistan unfairly.
It was at that time ruled by the British. British India. The Indians didn't rule it. Not the Hindus or the Muslims. After advocating for independence, the British gave the states with a Hindu majority to now Modern day India and the states with a Muslim majority to modern day Pakistan.

He's pissed at the British in general, and the partitioning in particular. he blames the Brits for the violence it engendered by partitioning at all. I've never heard him refer much to Kashmir - I don't think he cares much one way or the other in that matter, since the division was made to begin with.

I can tell you that in Palestin and occupied land, families still live there. These families have been living for generations before the creation of Israel. There are thousands of nomads still in Israeli occupied territory trying to scrape a living.

Nomads are nomads - they never have lands of their own, and seem to see land ownership in a different light from the sedentary. Of the settled families, are they not already living on their own land then? If not, whose land are they living on, and why? Since they've been living there for generations, on the same land, how is it "not" their land now, even though they are occupying the same spot as their forbears?

It's entirely possible this argument could sway me one way or the other, as I have land that has been "in the family" for hundreds of years, through several successive governments, most of them foreign. It's never really mattered to us - as far as the land goes - who sits in the Big House in the capitol. It's still our land. The only real difference is that we've claimed individual ownership rather than tribal, since the Feds have a disturbing tendency to claim tribal lands as "Federal", but can't really do so with private lands. How is this different, and why should I worry who sits in DC?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by nenothtu

 

So how far back do you want to go historically in rearranging maps? Would it not make more sense to deal with the world head on as it stands?

Good start will be bringing the Israel from right to the left.

The time you discuss that was full of invasion and takeovers has passed. Now , it is no time to manipulate a nation to takeover other lands.

Many international communities and organizations have formed to serve justice and prevent this.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


I think you've got that wrong, at least the way you think it.

The brits invaded the middle east, long before they knew oil was a commodity. They went from steam, to oil ... but they never needed the oil in the first place. And as you put it, yourself, so well ... we still don't need it.

And if you look at the oil companies, they aren't doing a whole lot of profit ... and if you look at the countries in the middle east. They're not buying a whole lot of "intellectual capacity" with their oil money. War isn't being fought to keep oil cheap, because it's skyrocketing over the roof ... being over taxed, there is obviously a conscious agenda, to reduce the consumption of oil

That's why the cry "it's all about oil", never works ... because it's really "cry wolf", in that it really isn't about oil. To some it is, and some benefit from the oil ... but the true agenda of TPTB isn't.

Originally posted by mideast

Good start will be bringing the Israel from right to the left.

The time you discuss that was full of invasion and takeovers has passed. Now , it is no time to manipulate a nation to takeover other lands.

Many international communities and organizations have formed to serve justice and prevent this.

Takeovers and invasions will never pass, as long as man walks the Earth.

So for you, you want to set "original" inhabitation at 60 years ago, and just turn back the clock a little bit to an "original" time favorable to people of 60 years ago?

Why pick that time, rather than dealing with present reality - or going even further back to a different "original"?

You don't have to answer unless you feel a compelling need to. You can probably already see where this is heading.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by mideast

 

Who is that other someone if it is not religious leaders?

edit on 19-8-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

It is beyond religion and sect. It is a mission for spies to find a desperate extremist in a city in the middle east.

It is quite easy to find him and tell him what to do with his children , where to get the money.

They work on him mentally , they find religious justifications wahhabism , give him false information to get the mission done.

But blood money won't work for anyone. He will be in hell for the rest of his life.

2500 American people work in US embassy in Iraq. What do you think they are doing ? Copying papers ? giving passport to Americans in Iraq ? cooking lunch and dinner for workers ?

Eventually...the Iranian Youth will no longer allow themselves to be held hostage in their own country and cries by the current Old Religious Guard Leadership that their plight is the fault of Israel and the U.S. is not something that works anymore to use an excuse for Iran's current problems.

Iran is a country that could turn things around dramatically as far as their Economic Problems as well as their Trade Issues. A New Leadership that is willing to eliminate Iranian Nuclear ambitions...would soon be able to Lead a Free and Democratic Iran into a New Age of Prosperity.

Currently...the only ones that are getting rich are the Small Minority of Old Religious Guard Leaders and their Henchmen who are paid to infiltrate the population and either Beat the Hell out of or out right Kill anyone with an idea that stands for Freedom and Free Elections as current elections are rigged.

Iran has created Iran's own problems but this has been done by a Tiny Minority of People who use the concepts of Religion and hatred of Israel to keep draining the country of it's wealth. The Majority of Iranians want good relations with the United States. This is a Far Cry from what the current regime want's as this would mean an end to their collection of Oil Wealth as well as Control of the Masses. This will not last and the desperation of the Iranian Leadership was shown when it publicly stated it might Close the Strait of Hormuz. This was a very risky statement as you do not make statements that would shut down the shipping lane of the majority of the Worlds energy supply.

If this was ever attempted...the U.S. would be forced to take action and this would be Military Action with multiple Goals...keeping open the Strait...elimination of the entire Iranian Navy as well as Air Force, Taking Control of all Iranian Nuclear Sites as well as Removal of the current Iranian Leadership and allowing the Pro-Democracy Movement to take over. The U.S. is capable of doing all of these things...quickly...but better the Iranians themselves do it as this would save many lives. Split Infinity

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by RimDaas
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I don't know why your friend is pissed. Maybe because India took Kashmir and some other land from Pakistan unfairly.
It was at that time ruled by the British. British India. The Indians didn't rule it. Not the Hindus or the Muslims. After advocating for independence, the British gave the states with a Hindu majority to now Modern day India and the states with a Muslim majority to modern day Pakistan.

He's pissed at the British in general, and the partitioning in particular. he blames the Brits for the violence it engendered by partitioning at all. I've never heard him refer much to Kashmir - I don't think he cares much one way or the other in that matter, since the division was made to begin with.

I can tell you that in Palestin and occupied land, families still live there. These families have been living for generations before the creation of Israel. There are thousands of nomads still in Israeli occupied territory trying to scrape a living.

Nomads are nomads - they never have lands of their own, and seem to see land ownership in a different light from the sedentary. Of the settled families, are they not already living on their own land then? If not, whose land are they living on, and why? Since they've been living there for generations, on the same land, how is it "not" their land now, even though they are occupying the same spot as their forbears?

It's entirely possible this argument could sway me one way or the other, as I have land that has been "in the family" for hundreds of years, through several successive governments, most of them foreign. It's never really mattered to us - as far as the land goes - who sits in the Big House in the capitol. It's still our land. The only real difference is that we've claimed individual ownership rather than tribal, since the Feds have a disturbing tendency to claim tribal lands as "Federal", but can't really do so with private lands. How is this different, and why should I worry who sits in DC?

The families houses and property is stated as illegal and they are kicked out. Permit or not, they are deemed as illegal occupants. This has been happening throughout Palestine and Israel.
Palestine had been under Islamic rule for a long period in the times of the rise of Islam. There weren't many successive governments.