EAK
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,838
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
but we will take all of kashmir
In your Dreams
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
but we will take all of kashmir
In your Dreams
ye sapna sacch hoga
Bahrain, UAE is a different case, their historical region was Bahrain for a short time though.
Countries names always change despite some ( Iraq, Syria can be found prior 1920 actually way longer ago during Islamic times and ancient times ).
The region of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, which are called artificial states by some because of the Sykes picot agreements, their borders are drawn though behind each there is their own history proving none of them belong to others.
So either you think Iraq or parts of Iraq belong to Iran and Turkey ? or Syrian land to Turkey ? if you manage to show us this evidence through history then try to convince me.
Jordan is part of the levant region, neither part of the region Arabia nor Mesopotamian Iraq. Theres historical differences between Syria and Iraq therefor they are seperated as well.
Meaning none of these "artificial states" belong to Turkey or Iran or Arabia, their inner disputes is something else. Despite that it’s better to have some unification with each other in the middle east, this useless nationalism from all sides will only bring trouble.
Mostly all correct Dorlitos11. I have to correct you about the Arabia part though. The Syrian Desert and the areas next to it were often also part of historical Arabia. Jordan especially Southern Jordan was also part of the ancient Hijaz region. Similar history and a shared Nabatean presence that left World UNESCO Heritage Sites such as Petra in Jordan and Mada'in Saleh in KSA (Northern Hijaz). Geographically they are similar too if not identical. Geographically Jordan is sometimes also included in the Arabian Peninsula - which btw is not a fully defined region in terms of geography. Sometimes people use the political borders, some use the Arabian Plate and others use some of the ancient maps.
Overall one can claim that every country in the Middle East has a historical legitimicy since all of them were once part of ancient civilizations. Some more defined than others. The only countries I can't find any legitimacy about is Kuwait, Qatar and UAE. If we presume that you need at least a millennia of independent history. Lebanon is also doubtful since it was basically curved out of Syria as a Christian colony by the French. At least they have the ancient Semitic Phoenician civilization to fall back on but Phoenicia was not only confined to current day Lebanon. This does not mean that those countries have no history. That is the mistake many often make. It just means that they were much longer part of civilizations, ancient historical regions that they only formed a small part of than the time that they have been "on their own" so to speak.
Modern borders are not precise either, Iraq’s desert region and Arabia’s northern desert bordering Iraq both fade into each other, tribes so I know what you mean, they are spread over larger areas. I know the same about Jordan, except most of their population is northwest anyway which is closer to levant which i think they are much closer to anyway / west bank.
Well, I thought we were only talking about geography/historical borders? In the case of Jordan then the native Jordanians are mostly of Arabian stock. They make up 60% of Jordan's population. The remaining population are Palestinians. The Levant and Hijaz at least has had a shared history for thousands of years. Especially Southern Levant (Palestine, Jordan and Southern Syria). Less so the remaining parts of Levant. Again we forget that the Levant is not a homogenous region. That's the greatness of the Middle East and it's weakness. So many considerations to take into notice. Borders shifting all the time, migrations from area x to y, influences from others etc.
For example historically even though the civilizations in Mesopotamia were all Semitic and close to each other they also differed greatly in many aspects. I mean the North and South divide. Also the geography looked different. The borders of the Gulf lied elsewhere.
Same with the ancient civilizations in Yemen. The rivalry and differences of Saba', Ma'in, Qataban, Hadramawt, Awsan, and Himyar.
In fact we can find such examples everywhere.
Anyway what we both can agree with is the stupid claim of just looking at the age of NATION states and make conclusions based upon seniority of those states without taking into account the ancient land of that country x or y and its history. Very stupid and ignorant if you ask me.
Your posts are large, hard focusing on the point.
It’s just to counter claims of countries being part of others due to some agreement instead of military action for forming borders.
Anyway what we both can agree with is the stupid claim of just looking at the age of NATION states and make conclusions based upon seniority of those states without taking into account the ancient land of that country x or y and its history. Very stupid and ignorant if you ask me.
Overall one can claim that every country in the Middle East has a historical legitimicy since all of them were once part of ancient civilizations. Some more defined than others. The only countries I can't find any legitimacy about is Kuwait, Qatar and UAE. If we presume that you need at least a millennia of independent history. Lebanon is also a doubtful case since it was basically curved out of Syria as a Christian colony by the French. At least they have the ancient Semitic Phoenician civilization to fall back on but Phoenicia was not only confined to current day Lebanon. This does not mean that those countries have no history. That is the mistake many often make. It just means that they were much longer part of civilizations, ancient historical regions that they only formed a small part of rather than the time that they have been "on their own" so to speak.
Bahrain, UAE is a different case, their historical region was Bahrain for a short time though.
Countries names always change despite some ( Iraq, Syria can be found prior 1920 actually way longer ago during Islamic times and ancient times ).
The region of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, which are called artificial states by some because of the Sykes picot agreements, their borders are drawn though behind each there is their own history proving none of them belong to others.
So either you think Iraq or parts of Iraq belong to Iran and Turkey ? or Syrian land to Turkey ? if you manage to show us this evidence through history then try to convince me.
Jordan is part of the levant region, neither part of the region Arabia nor Mesopotamian Iraq. Theres historical differences between Syria and Iraq therefor they are seperated as well.
Meaning none of these "artificial states" belong to Turkey or Iran or Arabia, their inner disputes is something else. Despite that it’s better to have some unification with each other in the middle east, this useless nationalism from all sides will only bring trouble.
The illustration below is the full map of the Sykes picot agreement. The different colors represent areas being mandated for control to certain powers. As you may notice, the geographical areas which the borders encompass include diversified ethnicities and religious affiliations, which certainly does not automatically out of thin air generate any source of evidence that “they each have an independent historical record”.