What's new

Politics/ Turkey is a superpower: Israeli deputy PM


I really have no wish to join this pissing contest that you guys have but really.... Saying that Mamluks were not Turkic is like saying Turks are not Turkic....

Mamluks were slave child soldiers trained for war in early ages adn they were crushing majority Turk and most of them couldn't even speak Arabic. There is a reason why most historians say that the time between 11th century and 18th century is golden age of Turkic family... They ruled from the gates of Viena to Pasific...
 
I really have no wish to join this pissing contest that you guys have but really.... Saying that Mamluks were not Turkic is like saying Turks are not Turkic....

Mamluks were slave child soldiers trained for war in early ages adn they were crushing majority Turk and most of them couldn't even speak Arabic. There is a reason why most historians say that the time between 11th century and 18th century is golden age of Turkic family... They ruled from the gates of Viena to Pasific...

I guess... I am, somehow, screwed here. Then why Egyptians whine over it with us. Next time, they will bاe sorry . I didn't know that, I gave the link in confidence you will not find anything prove your claims. But...:cry:
 
I mean no disrespect to any group of people. As it is, the Arabs of today, located in all these Arab countries between Morocco and Bahrain, have proved themselves to be politically incompetent. That's not to say other Sunni majority countries are politically successful but given that all these Arab countries at least understand each other better than any country outside the Arab world because of their linguistic and religious ties, given that these Arabs are in possession of some of the largest sources of hydrocarbons, solar energy, oldest civilizations and endowed with the true religion, the successful merger/union of Arab countries into an independent, potent force that would solve all its problems on its own and beyond, beside extending help and influence to regions beyond its world would have been an expected outcome.

In reality, Arabs like to think of other Arabs (or whoever else gets cozy with them) as enemies. That's why not a single Arab country has officially threatened USA, UK, or any Western power for all their atrocities against Arabs in the last 100 years. Not a single Arab country is even capable of developing any major military hardware on its own because they are not capable of cutting ties with the USA and the West.

There are certainly much poorer and more backward countries around the world than the Arab countries but it is doubtful if there are any group of people who are so incapable of deciding their own fate as the Arabs today. Most of them, from Jordan to Saudi Arabia to Algeria to Morocco and Syria, would be murdered if they utter anything against Americans that their regime does not like. Millions of Egyptians participated in a memorable revolution but they failed, which again shows Arabs in a bad light. Could they not have killed and smashed the heads of all Egyptian politicians and military officers that continue to shake hands with Americans and so called 'Israelis'? Were the Egyptians really that naive to believe that peacefully protesting against a single person would be enough to eliminate American control? What a shameful state are they in! And they are perhaps the most intellectually, culturally and in many other ways, the most accomplished groups of Arabs. Other Arab countries would probably fare even worse if they were to revolt. The result is Moroccans, Jordanians, Saudis and others are not even revolting, because they do not have the means to organize themselves.

The part in bold is the most significant aspect about Arabs, all 350 million or so Arabs today. They have not been able to organize themselves well to attain their political objectives at any level, whether you talk about Arab dictators, or Arab political parties, or Arab militaries, or militant factions, or freedom fighters, or entrepreneurs or so on.

Again, this is not to dishonour or to shame the Arabs because I want and like to see Arabs and all other Muslims as strong as a political block, as scientific powerhouses, as economies and in religion. The Arabs today have mostly abandoned their strength in all of these factors because of their lack of organizational capability, more than any other reason, in my personal estimate. This factor is not restricted to Arabs alone but is most pronounced amongst Arabs.

For example, a country like Bangladesh, or Pakistan, could not rival or outdo China or Russia in the next 30 years because of various shortages including in their population sizes, educated population, number of scientists and researchers, land area, natural resources, enemy pressure/schemes and so on. Compared with this situation, the Arabs have plenty of natural resources, many times more scientists and researches, about twice the population of either Bangladesh or Pakistan, land area about the same size as Russia, a declared enemy like so called "Israel" which is tiny in everything from economy to population to military in comparison with the Arab world, and undeclared but real enemies like the USA (at which not a single Arab regime dares to point finger) which are thousands of miles away and only able to place themselves in the region because of Arab regimes' own decisions to backstab their own populations. Then, the Arabs also have considerably greater numbers of educated people, entrepreneurs, intellectuals, better infrastructure, in general, than either of these two countries. Yet, the Arabs have repeatedly failed to make use of these factors, and always resorted to fighting, quarrelling, distrusting, backstabbing each other.

Some people only blame the "Peninsula /Gulf" Arabs. During Gaddafi's 4 decades of rule over Libya, what did Libya do for Arabs in its neighbourhood? Did not Egypt and Libya talk about merger? Not only did Arabs realize it is beneficial for all of them to merge, but they planned on doing so numerous times. All these plans failed all the time because of their leaders' intransigence. Gaddafi wanted to be the leader of "Libya+Egypt", while Egyptian leaders would not accept this. Same was the result when Syria and Egypt merged.

I hope our Arab brothers would not be personally offended, and I think most Arabs, if not in public, at least in private, would agree with most of my observations. Still, I would not mind to hear any inputs from Arab and informed non Arabs on the issue. Finally, it is my wish to see strong, determined Arabs solving their problems and merge with the entire Muslim world to form the Islamic Khilafah.
 
Millions of Egyptians participated in a memorable revolution but they failed, which again shows Arabs in a bad light. Could they not have killed and smashed the heads of all Egyptian politicians and military officers that continue to shake hands with Americans and so called 'Israelis'? Were the Egyptians really that naive to believe that peacefully protesting against a single person would be enough to eliminate American control? What a shameful state are they
I wouldn't disagree with you, it was a wrong move to let someone from Mubarak regime rule us believing he was with us. But, we thought at first that he was actually with the revolution because, what was published in media at that time proved that the army soldiers didn't shoot at Egyptians and protected them from the thugs whom the Egyptian corrupt authorities had set free.
After the revolution, people went home. Now, we have always tried to do protests to actually try to remove him from power but the fact that the revolutionists, mainly the Muslim brotherhood, were actually divided and the Muslim brotherhood looked for their share from power, not realizing that the SCAF can take whatever he can whenever he can. They realized it too late now, after the dissolution of the parliament of which the Muslim brotherhood had close to the majority of seats. The Muslim brotherhood always mocked us while were protesting after they had got the parliament because they wanted to keep the parliament, not caring about those who were dying in the streets, those hundreds who had died.
Sorry for this off-topic reply, but I had to reply and explain.
PteX said:
While i respect your points of view, agree with most what you said, something doesn't make sense.
Do you not realize that the same Arabs who betrayed Turks come from the same flock as the ones that are in the West Bank and Gaza? Supporting them is equal to supporting any other Arab who gains your disdain.

They are as much as greedy and without honor as any other Arab.

If you want to see an honorable Arab, you will find them living in Israel. They are called the Druze, they are by far remarkable individuals, they are patriotic and valiant. They have been persecuted by their fellow Arabs for centuries, for being different but they withstood and thrived nevertheless.
Pathetic.
 
I wouldn't disagree with you, it was a wrong move to let someone from Mubarak regime rule us believing he was with us. But, we thought at first that he was actually with the revolution because, what was published in media at that time proved that the army soldiers didn't shoot at Egyptians and protected them from the thugs whom the Egyptian corrupt authorities had set free.
After the revolution, people went home. Now, we have always tried to do protests to actually try to remove him from power but the fact that the revolutionists, mainly the Muslim brotherhood, were actually divided and the Muslim brotherhood looked for their share from power, not realizing that the SCAF can take whatever he can whenever he can. They realized it too late now, after the dissolution of the parliament of which the Muslim brotherhood had close to the majority of seats. The Muslim brotherhood always mocked us while were protesting after they had got the parliament because they wanted to keep the parliament, not caring about those who were dying in the streets, those hundreds who had died.
Sorry for this off-topic reply, but I had to reply and explain.

Thank you bro for your explanation.

I do not disagree with you, obviously you know better about me than Egypt. With your explanation also, you have also confirmed that in Egypt, the most populous Arab country, the people were unable to organize themselves well as a political unit to attain their goals. A simple stroke from the military council/SCAF forced the dissolution of a parliament that had no power.

I think you would also agree that the parliament was powerless from the very beginning. So even if this parliament was not dissolved by the SCAF, nothing would change because the SCAF is not much different from Mubarak when it comes to dealing with Americans. As you (Egyptians and Arabs in general) should have known, there is no essential difference between Americans and so called "Israelis" in political affairs. Unless you chop off the head of the American snake, you can not think of squashing the so called 'Israeli' dwarf.

I wouldn't disagree with you, it was a wrong move to let someone from Mubarak regime rule us believing he was with us. But, we thought at first that he was actually with the revolution because, what was published in media at that time proved that the army soldiers didn't shoot at Egyptians and protected them from the thugs whom the Egyptian corrupt authorities had set free.
After the revolution, people went home. Now, we have always tried to do protests to actually try to remove him from power but the fact that the revolutionists, mainly the Muslim brotherhood, were actually divided and the Muslim brotherhood looked for their share from power, not realizing that the SCAF can take whatever he can whenever he can. They realized it too late now, after the dissolution of the parliament of which the Muslim brotherhood had close to the majority of seats. The Muslim brotherhood always mocked us while were protesting after they had got the parliament because they wanted to keep the parliament, not caring about those who were dying in the streets, those hundreds who had died.
Sorry for this off-topic reply, but I had to reply and explain.

Thank you bro for your explanation.

I do not disagree with you, obviously you know better about me than Egypt. With your explanation also, you have also confirmed that in Egypt, the most populous Arab country, the people were unable to organize themselves well as a political unit to attain their goals. A simple stroke from the military council/SCAF forced the dissolution of a parliament that had no power.

I think you would also agree that the parliament was powerless from the very beginning. So even if this parliament was not dissolved by the SCAF, nothing would change because the SCAF is not much different from Mubarak when it comes to dealing with Americans. As you (Egyptians and Arabs in general) should have known, there is no essential difference between Americans and so called "Israelis" in political affairs. Unless you chop off the head of the American snake, you can not think of squashing the so called 'Israeli' dwarf.
 
First round: Turks vs Israelis
Second round: Turks vs Iranians
Third round : Islamist Turks vs Kemalist Turks
Fourth round: Turks vs Arabs
Fifth round: ?

:coffee:

The Aliens!!!!

I guess... I am, somehow, screwed here. Then why Egyptians whine over it with us. Next time, they will bاe sorry . I didn't know that, I gave the link in confidence you will not find anything prove your claims. But...:cry:

The wiki link you gace states that Mamluks were Cuman or Kipchak which both are Turkic and most of the Kipchaks and Cumans had to migrate to Turkey in Russian expention so yea... They are more related to us than they are to their own nephews Kazakhs :)

Man... What is this hate Legioner seriusly bro... History is history, it doesn't matter much expect for a good read in confortable chair...

We Turks supported Turks in Cyprus, Balkans, Azerbaijan and Iran and even Turkic people all around the world for their ethnic rights and sometimes independence but why is it bad that Arabs getting their own independence from us? We only study one side of the histoy. Do you know that Celal Pasha known as butcher in Arab world because of his massacres against Arabs who wanted independence? How would you feel if there was a foreign ethnic rule in our land they were massacering people because we wanted independence?

Do I think that Arab revolt was for people? No. Do I think that Arab revolt was more about tribal Arab leaders quest for power? Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that Arabs wanted to be free and they rightfully get it. Do I feel that they should have revolted agaist us in our weakest point of time when we needed supoort rather than betreyal? No. But do ı think that move was clever? Yes...

Like Sun Tzu said, war is deception, you need to find the weal spot of your enemy and that time we had weakness and Arabs took advantage of that whih was strategicly correct.
 
WHAT'S THIS MADNESS?
well , every nation had a rising and falling! turks arab, iranian, chineese , rome etc.... it doesn't mean that all of the lands that were captured in the past belong to us now!
for example it is a map of iran history, but iran is not that big! like KSA , turkey etc ...

71976046078849903622.jpg
 
The succesful 'Zero problem' policy's results.
=Syrians hate us;
=Iraq hates us; because of our relationship with the animal barzani
=Azerbajns like WTF?
=Irans like why a Radar base if you're against israil?
=Israils like 'You want us to say sorry? puffff :blah:'
=Russia's says first target would be the radar base in turkey in a war....

Jokes aside. It looks like israil is willing to be official allies again; well they should! There is Radar base keeping them safe from possible attacks from Iran...



Well nothing personal, but history shows that Arabs are kinda unreliable..

Agreed! Like when AssHat morons blame the Turks for their civil war or when Arabs for a long time have celebrated the fall
of the Ottoman empire completely ignoring the fact that:

1. If the Ottoman Empire never was broken apart Israel in it's current form and location would not exist today since the region would still be under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman empire.
2. The Arabs would not have had their oil stolen from them through unfair/biased deals until the oil crisis of the 1970's.
3. Transportation in and around Mecca would be far more efficient then the tin pot dictators have so far managed. LOL late era Ottoman period of transporting and taking care of pilgrim needs was far more efficient then today's shambles handling by the Saudi clowns.

Also:

4. It is the so called cultured West through Orientalism that looks down on Arabs and Muslims worldwide and not the Turks.
5. That blaming the Turks and the Ottoman empire has gotten you nothing but misery and rule by tin pot dictators who only honor family clan ties and not nation ties/responsibilities. Eg: Despite Arab nations having among the largest PPP in the world this result is heavily skewed by statistical outliers (****** literally Arab so called princes) when in fact the vast majority of people in Arab nations live in poverty.
 
Man i don't have time for this now... I'm leaving this as a placeholder, hopefully you'll read my response from here after... some hours

never mind it doesn't worth it
 
The Aliens!!!!



The wiki link you gace states that Mamluks were Cuman or Kipchak which both are Turkic and most of the Kipchaks and Cumans had to migrate to Turkey in Russian expention so yea... They are more related to us than they are to their own nephews Kazakhs :)

Man... What is this hate Legioner seriusly bro... History is history, it doesn't matter much expect for a good read in confortable chair...

We Turks supported Turks in Cyprus, Balkans, Azerbaijan and Iran and even Turkic people all around the world for their ethnic rights and sometimes independence but why is it bad that Arabs getting their own independence from us? We only study one side of the histoy. Do you know that Celal Pasha known as butcher in Arab world because of his massacres against Arabs who wanted independence? How would you feel if there was a foreign ethnic rule in our land they were massacering people because we wanted independence?

Do I think that Arab revolt was for people? No. Do I think that Arab revolt was more about tribal Arab leaders quest for power? Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that Arabs wanted to be free and they rightfully get it. Do I feel that they should have revolted agaist us in our weakest point of time when we needed supoort rather than betreyal? No. But do ı think that move was clever? Yes...

Like Sun Tzu said, war is deception, you need to find the weal spot of your enemy and that time we had weakness and Arabs took advantage of that whih was strategicly correct.

Plz read it with open minds.
The rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire goes back to 1821. Arab nationalism has its roots in the Mashriq (the Arabs lands east of Egypt), particularly in countries of Sham (the Levant). The political orientation of Arab nationalists in the years prior to the Great War was generally moderate.
The Young Turk Revolution began on 3 July 1908 and quickly spread throughout the empire, resulting in the sultan's announcement of the restoration of the 1876 constitution and the reconvening of parliament. This period is known as the Second Constitutional Era. The Arabs' demands were of a reformist nature, limited in general to autonomy, greater use of Arabic in education, and changes in conscription in the Ottoman Empire in peacetime for Arab conscripts that allowed local service in the Ottoman army. In the elections held in 1908, the Young Turks through their Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) managed to gain the upper hand against the rival group led by Prens Sabahaddin. The CUP was more liberal in outlook, bore a strong British imprint, and was closer to the Sultan. The new parliament comprised 142 Turks, 60 Arabs, 25 Albanians, 23 Greeks, 12 Armenians (including four Dashnaks and two Hunchas), 5 Jews, 4 Bulgarians, 3 Serbs, and 1 Vlach. The CUP in the Ottoman parliament gave more emphasis to centralization and a modernization programme. At this stage Arab nationalism was not yet a mass movement, even in Syria where it was strongest. Many Arabs gave their primary loyalty to their religion or sect, their tribe, or their own particular governments. The ideologies of Ottomanism and Pan-Islamism were strong competitors of Arab nationalism.
Arab members of the parliament supported the Countercoup (1909), which aimed to dismantle the constitution and restore the monarchy of Abdul Hamid II. The dethroned Sultan attempted to regain the Caliphate by putting an end to the secular policies of the Young Turks, but was in turn driven away to exile in Selanik by the 31 March Incident and was eventually replaced by his brother Mehmed V Reşad.
In 1913, intellectuals and politicians from the Arab Mashreq met in Paris at the first Arab Congress. They produced a set of demands for greater autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. They again demanded that Arab conscripts to the Ottoman army should not be required to serve in other regions except in time of war.


Conflicts

The Ottoman Empire took part in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, under the terms of the Ottoman–German Alliance. Many Arab nationalist figures in Damascus and Beirut were arrested, then tortured. The flag of the resistance was designed by Sir Mark Sykes, in an effort to create a feeling of "Arab-ness" in order to fuel the revolt.


Prelude

Because of repression by the Ottoman Empire and their Central Powers allies, Grand Sharif Hussein, as the guardian of the holy city of Mecca, entered into an alliance with the United Kingdom and France against the Ottomans sometime around 8 June 1916, the actual date being somewhat uncertain. This alliance was facilitated by the services of a mysterious young Arab officer in the Ottoman army named Muhammed Sharif al-Faruqi.

Hussein had about 50,000 men under arms, but fewer than 10,000 had rifles. Evidence that the Ottoman government was planning to depose him at the end of the war led him to an exchange of letters with British High Commissioner Henry McMahon which convinced him that his assistance on the side of the Triple Entente would be rewarded by an Arab empire encompassing the entire span between Egypt and Persia, with the exception of imperial possessions and interests in Kuwait, Aden, and the Syrian coast. Hussein, who until then had officially been on the Ottoman side decided to defect over the Allied camp because of rumours that Sharif Ali Haidar, leader of the competing Zaid family for the position of Sharif of Mecca was in increasing favour with the Ottoman government, and that he would soon be desposed. The much publicized executions of the Arab nationalist leaders in Damascus led Hussein to fear for his life if he were deposed in favour of Ali Haidar. On June 5, 1916 two of Hussein's sons, the Emirs Ali and Faisal began the revolt by attacking the Ottoman garrison in Medina, but were defeated by an aggressive Turkish defence led by Fakhri Pasha. The revolt proper began on June 10, 1916 when Hussein ordered his supporters to attack the Ottoman garrison in Mecca. In the Battle of Mecca, there ensued over a month of bloody street fighting between the out-numbered, but far better armed Ottoman troops and Hussein's tribesmen. The Hashemite forces in Mecca were joined by Egyptian troops sent by the British, who provided much needed artillery support, and finally took Mecca on July 9, 1916. The indiscriminate Ottoman artillery fire, which did much damage to Mecca, turned out to be a potent propaganda weapon for the Hashemites, who portrayed the Ottomans as desecrating Islam's most holy city. Also on June 10, another of Hussein's sons, the Emir Abdullah attacked Ta'if, which after an initial repulse settled down into a siege. With the Egyptian artillery support, Abdullah took Ta'if on September 22, 1916.
French and British naval forces had cleared the Red Sea of Ottoman gunboats early in the war. The port of Jidda was attacked by 3500 Arabs on 10 June 1916 with the assistance of bombardment by British warships and seaplanes. The seaplane carrier HMS Ben-my-Chree provided crucial air support to the Hashemite forces. The Ottoman garrison surrendered on 16 June. By the end of September 1916 Arab armies had taken the coastal cities of Rabegh, Yenbo, Qunfida, and 6000 Ottoman prisoners with the assistance of the Royal Navy. The capture of the Red Sea ports allowed the British to send over force of 700 Ottoman Arab POWs (who come mostly from what is now Iraq) who had decided to join the revolt led by Nuri as-Sa'id and a number of Muslim troops from French North Africa. Fifteen thousand well-armed Ottoman troops remained in the Hejaz. However, a direct attack on Medina in October resulted in a bloody repulse of the Arab forces.

Arab Revolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


@
Arabs were the pioneers in all scientific, literature, history, economic, management, medical...etc fields in the whole world. They were very influential and lived a great life before Ottoman rule. After Ottoman rule, they were the most poor and backward people in the world. You decide.
 
japan got nuked, and germany got nailed down decades ago, however, they are the leaders in technology, industry etc; however, arabs got ''freedoom'' from ottoman(and then the western colonization), however, they are still how they were 100 years ago.

Regards.
 
japan got nuked, and germany got nailed down decades ago, however, they are the leaders in technology, industry etc; however, arabs got ''freedoom'' from ottoman(and then the western colonization), however, they are still how they were 100 years ago.

Regards.

arabs are like 100 years ago ? :blink:
1-their cities had changed alot and they made it a good living place
2- they made their army much better with the US help
3- their economy is much better now ( if you say it's based on oil , yes but it's :blah::blah::blah:) the important thing is money the source is not important
this 2 is enough to a huge change
 
arabs are like 100 years ago ? :blink:
1-their cities had changed alot and they made it a good living place
2- they made their army much better with the US help
3- their economy is much better now ( if you say it's based on oil , yes but it's :blah::blah::blah:) the important thing is money the source is not important
this 2 is enough to a huge change

Actually to tell you what i mean is to wast of my time, you are pretty much like them, so my explanation is regarded as reasonable in the west, but in the middle east, it is just seen how you see(just matter of money), that is actually why you are in that position in the world.

ps: i would normally ignore the ones(except azerbaijani turks) from iran, because to talk to one of them is like talking to the air, as in the example in your post.
 
japan got nuked, and germany got nailed down decades ago, however, they are the leaders in technology, industry etc; however, arabs got ''freedoom'' from ottoman(and then the western colonization), however, they are still how they were 100 years ago.

Regards.

Don't come here pretending to be from a first world country! you go my friend check and see where we are now. Good luck :)

And BTW, your former allies Germany and Japan were defeated as well as you, I am just wondering? where you now and where are they?
 
Actually to tell you what i mean is to wast of my time, you are pretty much like them, so my explanation is regarded as reasonable in the west, but in the middle east, it is just seen how you see(just matter of money), that is actually why you are in that position in the world.

ps: i would normally ignore the ones(except azerbaijani turks) from iran, because to talk to one of them is like talking to the air, as in the example in your post.
uh thank GOD this guy is just from turkey not some countries like USA or canada.it(he) is a real troll kid!
 
Back
Top Bottom