The Young Turks--Precursor to the Arab Spring?
- Thread starter mghani
- Start date
Maybe it would make more sense to hear what one of the conspirators had to say about the supposed spontaneous uprising by Niazi. The conspirator in question is a certain Nazim Bey, one of the Donme Jews ? so essential to the Young Turk movement, writing for the New York Times in September 1908:
It was not the settled intention of the commitee to make its coup in July, but rather to take advantage of any crisis which might occur. In default of a more favourable opportunity, alternative plans were revolved for rising on the anniversary of the Sultan's accession, Sept 1 or in the Spring of 1909.
or to be more elaborate:
The Actual precipitation of the event was, however due to purely local happennings. The head of the genderamerie at Salonika was a certain Nazim bey, not the physician of that name [reference to the author himself], but a palace spy, who, curious as it may see, was the brother-in-law of Major Enver Ahmed Bey of the Turkish staff, and the the active head of the Young Turk Party. Until the arrival of field Marshal Essad Pasha some months ago as his new superior, Nazim Bey appears, after the familiar manner of the privileged mouchard, to have conducted himself as above authority and as de factor superior in command. The new commander, by setting his face against corruption and removing some of the most scandalous offenders, soon found himself at war with Nazim Bey and the party of reaction. Feeling ran high in the army, and on June 11, tha day of the Vali's fete at Salonika, Nazim was shot at by an unkown person, said to be an officer. He immediately fled to Constantinople and gave information that the young Turk Party was so strong that his life was no longer safe. A new commission was appointed, nominally to concern itself with the arsenals at Salonika, but really to unearth the Young Turk Leaders......
One of the first to be denounced was Nazim's own brother-in-law, Major Enver Bey. The denunciation resulted in the invitation which has led to the bottom of the Bosporus before now. Enver was invited to Constatinople, with a promise of great promotion and reward upon his arrival. He understtod at once the meaning of this treacherous offer; and realized that he could only save himself by flight.
It was clear that the committee was in danger of being broken up, and of losing its members, as Salonika and the provinces were being flooded with spies. It was resolved to act, and to act quickly. Niazi Bey raised the first standard of revolt at Resna and Enver Bey fled to him at once, and the constitution was duly proclaimed by the small force in the resna hills in the name of the Ottoman Committe of Union and Progress.
Nazim Bey on Nazim Bey
If you dont care or you dont know about what is going on Libya, just donot comment on it. You give the impression of one who just loves to revel in his own base ignorance.
Unfortunately that's how it always seem to work.
Or "Love for all things British and French" implying they were under British or French "softpower". Same difference.
This seems to be the entire basis of our disagreement. I've never denied the role of secret societies in the Young Turks movement. I don't think, however, that it's part of a Freemasonic/Anglo-French grand conspiracy for world domination. Unlike you, I appreciate the scale to which people disagree; the revolutionaries grouped under the "Young Turks" label included everyone from Turkist militarists to Islamists to nationalist separatists to genuine democrats. And yes, probably a few foreign agents in there, as with any movement. But the Western powers themselves never agreed among themselves on how to deal with the Ottoman Empire, either. I'm sorry, but I simply can't buy conspiracy theories without substantial evidence to back them up. Your theory is an interesting speculation but it remains just that, speculation.
That's a pretty weird definition of "Western-style democracy" you have there, considering it's neither democratic nor "Western-style" (most Western leaders aren't so stupid as to advocate completely taking their hands off the wheels of the economy, though this is becoming more common).
The Sultan was forced out of desperation to join hands with the Germans. Germany was always going to be a second-rate power behind Great Britain; alliance with the British was always preferable, but never possible. Not that the Germans were much more inclined to preserve the Ottoman Empire than the British and the French.
Abdulhamid II didn't get the name "the Red Sultan" for nothing, you know.
I'd actually argue that it helped to stabilise the Balkans, by giving political power into the hands of those who were most active in suppressing the various insurgencies in Makedonya at the time, considerably alleviating the conflict between the center and the provinces. Blame the Italians; they were the ones who started the war in Libya (and this was actually planned, before the Revolution), which gave the Montenegrins, Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks the opportunity to start the war in the Balkans.
I'd cult the theatrics if I were you.
Dachs in one sense is right to suggest that the Young Turk Revolution was a historical misnomer. The vast majority of the leading conspirators were not of Turkish origin. Many of them belonged to ethnic groups who had aspirations to break away from the Ottoman state, especially Eastern Europeans. Donme Jews especially stand out as leading conspirators. So it was not simply a case of a few foreign agents:
As far as the multiethnic composition of the conspirators is concerned, one need only read their names to verify their diverse background: Tserkès (Circassion ), Mehmet Ali, Xersekli (Herzogovinians), Ali Roushdi, Kosovali (Kosovars) and others. In many cases, the ethnic origin of the conspirator was not evident from the name: Ibrahim Temo was an Albanian, as was Ismail Kemal. Murat Bey Dagestanos and Achmet Riza had an Arkhazian father and an Austrian mother. One of the theoreticians of the movement was Ziyia Ngiokali, a Kurd, while one of the major planners of tactics and theory was a Jew from Serres who went by the name of Tekìn Alì (real name, Moshe Cohen).
The telegraph-office clerk who became one of the ruling troika of post-revolutionary Turkey, Talaàt Pasha, was Bosnian, Pomack, or Gypsy; the point being that he was not a Turk. We should also make note of the fact that the Committee of Union and Progress admitted many members from areas outside of the Ottoman Empire, and that some of these even served on its Central Committee.
Nemesis. by Ioasif Kassesian
I think such a fact is relevant. And my speculation is also informed by the warmth with which the British and French were received by the young Turks and vice versa. And the role of the Free Masons cannot be exagerated; it was not possible to be an Ithiad or conspirator without being a mason. If we accept Freemasonry as an extension of Western Soft Power, why is it so unreasonable to imagine that a movement inspired by such soft power was meant in some way to promote Western political interests. In this case, the Young Turk Revolution was responsible for precipitating the political chaos and anarchy which at the end of it all left the French and the British in control of strategically important and oil-wealthy Middle East. The Young Turk Movement had many conspirators who believed in ethnic nationalism ( as oppossed to the Ottoman Sultanate who run his empire based on Pan-Islamism). Ethnic nationalism we know was used by the French and British, especially the British in tearing away the Middle East from the Ottoman state. Was it also the same intention of the European conspirators who made up the Young Turk movement, who coincidentally as i said before, belonged to Eastern Eurpoean Ethnic natinalities who also gained their independence with the break up of the Ottoman sultanate?
I think you need to read the OP again. The Germans were on the verge of becoming the leading world power before the outbreak of war. They had already overtaken Britain in industrial production; the only advantage the British had or even has over Germany even today is the wizardry of its Financial markets in London (along with New York), which is the center of the Economic and financial rot which the world suffers from today. Again even today the Germans remain the most impressive and healthy industrial economy in the Western world. More impressive than the US which produces or manufactures almost nothing; while the Germans compete quite effectively against industrial production in China, where the wages are much cheaper. This is is what the Germans were on the road to achieving before the outbreak of war. With the defeat of world war I, the British and French were demoniacal in their attempt to impose severe economic punishments upon Germany to prevent this from ever happennig. Something which eventually failed, considering that Germany today out does every major Western country in terms of economics.
I think it was that dessicated mummy of British Imperialism, Margaret Thatcher ( with the more subtle and secretive support of Francois Mitterand) who told Gorbachev:
"We do not want a united Germany..." And for good reason I might add.
And more than that--- the German economic model then as now provided an alternative to the neo-liberal economic policies of Imperialist Britain, centred so heavily on financial wizardry, speculation and oligarchy as oppossed to healthy industrial production. Abdul Hamid for sometime seemed keen on emulating the German model. And furthermore the Germans had every interests in preserving the ottoman empire. They despearrately needed that railway to continue their remarkable cultural and economic renaisance during that period. The rival powers of France and Britain were overseas empires, with their econmic wealth based on sea or coastal trade, where as German economic wealth and trade was land based, and depended heavily on rail. The Ottomans under the Wise Sultan were quite aware of that fact and so favoured the Germans as oppossed to British contruction of the Railway:
The railway offered the Turks definite advantages over lines proposed by othere European powers..... The Germans...unlike the other European powers, were not likely to attempt annexation of territory served by the Railway.
Arthur P. Maloney on the Berlin-Baghdad Railway
The annexation of Ottoman Territory the Germans knew would accelerate the break up of the Balkans through which the Rails run. And this actually did happen. The Germans were the only ones with anything to gain from keeping the Ottoman empire intact.
Well I respectfully disagree. And so would many Ottoman citizens, at the time. The Young Turks lost standing in the eyes of many of them, as the revolution was seen as responsible for the loss of territory.
Abdulhamid may have been far from perfect. But I think its fair to say he got the name Red Sultan for the same reason the Islamic leaders of Iran got the name Mad Mullahs. or that Gaddaffi got the name Mad Dog of the Middle East, by Reagan, who was arguably the maddest dog of them all. Abdulhamid was vehemently anti-British and anti-French. Moreover his empire was based on pan-Islamism, which had the potential to seriously challenge British or French domination or designs in Islamic territories. ( something which the French counteracted by cultivating and promoting Arab Nationalism) You can always judge the strength or threat of someone to Western Imperialist designs by the extent to which that leader is demonized, by Western press.
You only consider them theatrics because you are wallowing in your base ignorance.
@mghani: I said I haven't been following the events in Libya in great detail, but what I do know already contradicts your statements. If someone who isn't even keeping track of the situation there knows enough to realise you're spouting crap, how much more must some of the obsessives in OT - RRW and Formaldehyde, for example, assuming they're both still around - know?
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,222
something ı noticed at home and not directly involved in the discussion is a minor nitpick . Kemal was in Damascus in 1908 , exiled for he was good in being hostile to the Sultan . After the Meşrutiyet he was taken back , because he could also turn against the Ittihad , that is how he got involved in the Action Army thing .
I CALLED IT! IT WAS US JEWS!
You are aware of the thesis, held by many to be the correct interpretation of the outbreak of WWI, that Germany wanted the war specifically because of how weak it was compared to its neighbours? That it was little more than a pre-emptive strike against Russia and France to prevent an encirclement by those two powers?
The German ambassador to London was in tears when Grey informed him that the UK would back France in the case of war, just a week before it broke out. Germany was behind all three of the Entente powers in terms of economic, military and colonial strength. Her industrial output was excellent, yes, but she was totally outclassed in every other field, and simply could not industrialise quickly enough to compensate. In fact, Russia was industrialising faster than Germany was.
I seem to remember Britain having this big thing, you know, on the ocean? What's it called again... The Royal Navy? I would think that would be somewhat advantageous.
Really? Because the global economy wasn't even close to what it in this day and age, so it would be pretty difficult for any nation to establish the export-driven manufacturing economy that modern-day Germany has without a tonne of colonies to export to. The US was basically an economic appendage of the British Empire by this point, which is where its economic wealth came from. It was later to benefit from the break-up of the British Empire by taking the motherland's place as the primary exporter to the UK's former colonies. Do you see Germany willingly subverting its economy to Britain, France, or Russia, in order to gain similar benefits, especially when it was not in nearly as strong an opening position as the US? The post-WWII world was very different to the pre-WWI world.
Germany's modern-day economic success has absolutely no relation whatsoever to their economy in the early-20th century. For one thing, most of Germany's infrastructure needed to rebuilt after WWII, meaning that the underlying infrastructure of the pre-war years has nothing to do with economic success later. Also, different people were in charge, the very system of government was different and Germany was on much better terms with most of its neighbours, all of whom desired it to become stronger, which wasn't the case in 1914. No need for a strong Germany to fight the Soviets, when the Soviets don't exist.
Britain's economic policies were not neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism did not even exist prior to WWI.
Abdulhamid was vehemently anti-British and anti-French.[/quote]
Where are you getting that?
Gandhi was a huge threat to Western imperialists, yet received quite positive press. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because something is true in one case, it is true in all.
So thats your hangup.
You are aware of the thesis, held by many to be the correct interpretation of the outbreak of WWI, that Germany wanted the war specifically because of how weak it was compared to its neighbours? That it was little more than a pre-emptive strike against Russia and France to prevent an encirclement by those two powers?
The German ambassador to London was in tears when Grey informed him that the UK would back France in the case of war, just a week before it broke out. Germany was behind all three of the Entente powers in terms of economic, military and colonial strength. Her industrial output was excellent, yes, but she was totally outclassed in every other field, and simply could not industrialise quickly enough to compensate. In fact, Russia was industrialising faster than Germany was.
Russia was industrializing faster than Germany was, really? You must have a very funny idea of what the word industrialization means.
Anyhow here is FW Engdahl on the economic rise of Germany as economic rival to Britain. You are free to provide me with the quotes or citations which prove that Russia was industrializing faster than Germany. More and more am beginning to think yours is the history of an alternate universe:
Beginning the 1870’s the German Reich, proclaimed after the Prussian victory over France in 1871, saw the emergence of a colossal new economic player on the map of Continental Europe.
By the 1890's, British industry had been surpassed in both rates and quality of technological development by an astonishing emergence of industrial and agricultural development within Germany. With the United States concentrated largely on its internal expansion after its Civil War, the industrial emergence of Germany was seen increasingly as the largest "threat" to Britain's global hegemony during the last decade of the century.
After England’s prolonged depression in the 1870's, Germany turned increasingly to a form of national economic strategy, and away from British "free trade" adherence, in building a national industry and agriculture production rapidly.
From 1850 to 1913, German total domestic output increased five-fold. Per capita output increased in the same period by 250%. The population began to experience a steady increase in its living standard, as real industrial wages doubled between 1871 and 1913.
In the decades before 1914, in terms of fuelling world industry and transportation, coal was king. In 1890, Germany produced 88 million tons of coal while Britain, produced more than double as much at 182 million tons. By 1910, the German output of coal had climbed to 219 million tons, while Britain had only a slight lead at 264 million tons. Steel was at the center of Germany's growth, with the rapidly-merging electrical power and chemicals industries close behind. Using the innovation of the Gilchrist Thomas steel-making process, which capitalized on the high-phosphorus ores of Lorraine, German steel output increased 1,000% in the twenty years from 1880 to 1900, leaving British steel output far behind. At the same time the cost of making Germany's steel dropped to one -tenth the cost of the 1860's. By 1913 Germany was smelting almost two times the amount of pig iron as British foundries
Isnt that what my whole OP was about? Maybe you should go back to read it.
Germany was the leader in the manufacture and export of pharmaceuticals and electronics in the pre-world war I era. Again your history belongs to an alternative universe.
Am making reference to the German attitude and philosophy when it came to economics. Which has outlasted system of governments and geopolitical realities.
I meant to say the Free Trade model which morphed into today's neo-liberalism.
From one of Dach's historians-- Feroz Ahmad:
The Young Turk Revolution of 1908 was a turning point in Great Britains relations with the Ottoman Empire. The revolution destroyed the anti-British regime of Abdulhamid and the palace, and replaced it with a constitutional regime which sought encouragement and inspiration from Britain. German Influence at Constantinople, totally dependent on the good will and patronage of Abdulhamid, also declined. The first manifestation of this decline was the dismissal of the pro-German Grand-Vizier Ferid Pasa on July 22, 1908, on the very day he received the German order of the Black Eagle. Hereafter the door was wide open for the expansion of British influence in the Ottoman Empire.
SnowlyWhite
Emperor
disregarding the wwI and young turks part(which frankly, after everyone telling you you're wrong... it'd be a waste for me to tell you the same thing):
you do realize that the arab spring comes with a strong smell of islamism(while the young turks didn't) and in 3 out of the 4 countries it managed to topple the regime, it toppled a strongly pro western regime?
Iran can't be hit, so your point there is moot; and anyway, Iran might actually gain from this(though ok, between secular regimes and sunni islam ones, don't know what exactly they'd prefer) and Syria... really, after a dumb dictator leaves the country in charge of his... son and this thing lasts for 40 years what do you expect?
"About one million Syrian workers came into Lebanon after the war ended to find jobs in the reconstruction of the country. Syrian workers were preferred over Palestinian and Lebanese workers because they could be paid lower wages."(wikipedia, of all things). Really, if you're cheaper than palestinian or lebanese, probably you have some reasons to mutiny...
Your other "icon" figure is, of all ppl... Ghadaffi; I'm sure the libians are all in tears that he died... the crazy wako with the tent... Sure, it'll be replaced by another, probably as corrupt, wako or less wako dude, but saying that his toppling is equivalent of... dunno, Mossadegh(or anyone who was toppled while having strong popular support) makes you a ridiculous conspiracy theorist and nothing more.
And anyway, the libian regime wasn't a strong independent(from whom?) regime; eventually was one where the guy in charge was more expensive to bribe. Sure, an annoyance, hence the help to give him the boot - but from this to saying what a blessing he was for libians makes up for waaay too much fictional history.
p.s. - your point is as absurd as saying that the Eastern European revolutions in late eighties were the product of "western influence". Even accepting there was some western influence(dubious, but let's assume) that doesn't change the fact that 90%+ of the ppl. were fed up with those regimes. Which I'm quite sure it's the situation in Libia too(and Syria, but al Assad survives for the time being and nothing is decided yet). And in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen the west kinda *uck it up and I fail to see their reason for joy.
pps - the only places of anglo american involvement in the last decades in the middle east(and predating by a ton the arab spring which, again, bar your conspiracy theories, don't have much to do with the west) are Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the "the sheer genius of this demoniacal Anglo-American Imperialist elite"(really... what a pathetic expression) only managed to deliver Iraq(or the relevant part of Iraq) to Iran sooner or later. Which frankly only proves that Bush is an... idiot(but I presume that was already generally accepted even before Iraq). The fact they get their behinds kicked in Afghanistan was to be expected and is rather irrelevant, but the ability of making the whole British construct(Iraq) implode in the hands of "enemy" is indeed a proof of genius
.
Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq(minus for west), Afghanistan(neutral - unwinnable to begin with) & Iran getting the bomb(let's say neutral - also unwinnable), Lybia(plus for west). 1 - 4 - sheer genius indeed - that if you consider Iraq only 1, which, given their importance, is abit unfair(even I would've managed a better score, so definitely it's a proof of genius to lose so badly)...
you do realize that the arab spring comes with a strong smell of islamism(while the young turks didn't) and in 3 out of the 4 countries it managed to topple the regime, it toppled a strongly pro western regime?
Iran can't be hit, so your point there is moot; and anyway, Iran might actually gain from this(though ok, between secular regimes and sunni islam ones, don't know what exactly they'd prefer) and Syria... really, after a dumb dictator leaves the country in charge of his... son and this thing lasts for 40 years what do you expect?
"About one million Syrian workers came into Lebanon after the war ended to find jobs in the reconstruction of the country. Syrian workers were preferred over Palestinian and Lebanese workers because they could be paid lower wages."(wikipedia, of all things). Really, if you're cheaper than palestinian or lebanese, probably you have some reasons to mutiny...
Your other "icon" figure is, of all ppl... Ghadaffi; I'm sure the libians are all in tears that he died... the crazy wako with the tent... Sure, it'll be replaced by another, probably as corrupt, wako or less wako dude, but saying that his toppling is equivalent of... dunno, Mossadegh(or anyone who was toppled while having strong popular support) makes you a ridiculous conspiracy theorist and nothing more.
And anyway, the libian regime wasn't a strong independent(from whom?) regime; eventually was one where the guy in charge was more expensive to bribe. Sure, an annoyance, hence the help to give him the boot - but from this to saying what a blessing he was for libians makes up for waaay too much fictional history.
p.s. - your point is as absurd as saying that the Eastern European revolutions in late eighties were the product of "western influence". Even accepting there was some western influence(dubious, but let's assume) that doesn't change the fact that 90%+ of the ppl. were fed up with those regimes. Which I'm quite sure it's the situation in Libia too(and Syria, but al Assad survives for the time being and nothing is decided yet). And in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen the west kinda *uck it up and I fail to see their reason for joy.
pps - the only places of anglo american involvement in the last decades in the middle east(and predating by a ton the arab spring which, again, bar your conspiracy theories, don't have much to do with the west) are Iraq and Afghanistan.
And the "the sheer genius of this demoniacal Anglo-American Imperialist elite"(really... what a pathetic expression) only managed to deliver Iraq(or the relevant part of Iraq) to Iran sooner or later. Which frankly only proves that Bush is an... idiot(but I presume that was already generally accepted even before Iraq). The fact they get their behinds kicked in Afghanistan was to be expected and is rather irrelevant, but the ability of making the whole British construct(Iraq) implode in the hands of "enemy" is indeed a proof of genius
.Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq(minus for west), Afghanistan(neutral - unwinnable to begin with) & Iran getting the bomb(let's say neutral - also unwinnable), Lybia(plus for west). 1 - 4 - sheer genius indeed - that if you consider Iraq only 1, which, given their importance, is abit unfair(even I would've managed a better score, so definitely it's a proof of genius to lose so badly)...
First off I'd like to say that I'm not a very happy person at the moment, so forgive me if there are any dickishness in this post.
Come on now. First you argue that the conspirators followed Pan-Turkism that led to ethnic conflict, and now you're proposing that the conspirators aspired to separatism. Both are, in fact, true of different individuals within the movement; the main goal of the movement, however, was the restoration of Constitutional rule.
Good relations = conspiracy now?
Source please.
It isn't.
Stop flogging the dead horse.
Really, Abdulhamid II run the empire based on loyalty to Abdulhamid II (Hanioglu). The Hamidian regime was pan-Islamic in the same sense that the Stalin dictatorship was internationalist.
If China becomes the world's biggest economy today, it still wouldn't be as powerful as the United States. Same with Germany-Britain at the turn of the last century.
Irrelevant.
In Abdulhamid's case it's actually an accurate description.
Yes, so very anti-British in fact that he gave Cyprus to the British...
I'm not going to argue with you, though, Abdulhamid was much less inclined to pursue friendly relations with the British than his predecessors. However, as the Cyprus example shows, he still had to deal with real world situations and keep the Powers reasonably happy, including the British.
Oh yeah, it is a good way to measure it, and Abdulhamid was demonised, quite badly, in his lifetime. Then again, though, he really was a giant douchebag with quite a considerable number of domestic enemies; liberals, the Porte, the military, each with their own reasons to want him out all of which are quite unrelated to Western manipulation.
Believe it or not, this forum actually has quite a reputation for "protecting Muslims and pedophiles" (sic) and (except for Dachs) "hating America". If you think you're being treated badly, wait until a colonialism apologist comes along (oh boy, that was fun). Point is, we're not arguing with you because we heart imperialism or anything like that, but your theories (and Engdahl's and all the rest of them) are really fringe theories bordering on or are actually speculation that is very thinly supported by historical evidence, or not at all, or simply backed up by your strong conviction in the influence of Freemasonry and/or Western colonialist/neo-colonialist conspiracy, which just ignores so much of the complexity of actual interactions between actors.
Come on now. First you argue that the conspirators followed Pan-Turkism that led to ethnic conflict, and now you're proposing that the conspirators aspired to separatism. Both are, in fact, true of different individuals within the movement; the main goal of the movement, however, was the restoration of Constitutional rule.
Good relations = conspiracy now?
Source please.
It isn't.
Stop flogging the dead horse.
Really, Abdulhamid II run the empire based on loyalty to Abdulhamid II (Hanioglu). The Hamidian regime was pan-Islamic in the same sense that the Stalin dictatorship was internationalist.
If China becomes the world's biggest economy today, it still wouldn't be as powerful as the United States. Same with Germany-Britain at the turn of the last century.
Irrelevant.
In Abdulhamid's case it's actually an accurate description.
Yes, so very anti-British in fact that he gave Cyprus to the British...
I'm not going to argue with you, though, Abdulhamid was much less inclined to pursue friendly relations with the British than his predecessors. However, as the Cyprus example shows, he still had to deal with real world situations and keep the Powers reasonably happy, including the British.
Oh yeah, it is a good way to measure it, and Abdulhamid was demonised, quite badly, in his lifetime. Then again, though, he really was a giant douchebag with quite a considerable number of domestic enemies; liberals, the Porte, the military, each with their own reasons to want him out all of which are quite unrelated to Western manipulation.
Believe it or not, this forum actually has quite a reputation for "protecting Muslims and pedophiles" (sic) and (except for Dachs) "hating America". If you think you're being treated badly, wait until a colonialism apologist comes along (oh boy, that was fun). Point is, we're not arguing with you because we heart imperialism or anything like that, but your theories (and Engdahl's and all the rest of them) are really fringe theories bordering on or are actually speculation that is very thinly supported by historical evidence, or not at all, or simply backed up by your strong conviction in the influence of Freemasonry and/or Western colonialist/neo-colonialist conspiracy, which just ignores so much of the complexity of actual interactions between actors.
Is it not true that after the revolution that Pan Turkism was the driving motor behind the regime? Am not saying that the conspirators aspired to separatism, am simply saying that inviting different ethnic nationalities to take part in a movement to overthrow a stable government in a crumbling, multinational empire would lead inevitably to chaos, which it did. As I said the vast majority of the Young Turks were not ethnic Turks. If we accept that Pan-Turkism was deliberately encouraged by the Imperialist agents supporting or Coopting the Young Turks, then it was a brilliant idea. As Pan-Turkism led to a range of rival nationalist movements in the Balkans and the Middle East which led to the ultimate destruction of the Ottoman state, which I have stated and demonstrated earlier was the purpose of the British and French Imperialist long before the event. So what am saying here is quite consistent.
Dont oversimplify my argument, please. Am saying that Good relations with the British Imperialists which was the immediate result of the Young Turk revolution serves as supporting evidence that the British Imperialist agents had reason to support the revolution. And we need to look at the nature of these relations also. After the Young Turk Revolution, we had the very elite members of British Banking Establishment setting up a National bank in Turkey! Here is Engdahl once more on that point:
In 1909, the National Bank of Turkey was founded following a trip, on request of England’s King Edward, by the influential London banker, Sir Ernest Cassel. Cassel was joined by the mysterious and wealthy Ottoman subject, of Armenian origin, Calouste Gulbenkian. The bank had no representation of Ottoman origins. Its board included Hugo Baring of the London bank, Earl Cromer, Barons Ashburton, Northbrook and Revelstone. At the time Lord Cromer was Governor of the Bank of England. This elite British entity in Constantinople then created an entity called the Turkish Petroleum Company, in which Gulbenkian was given 40% share.
I have already given it. But here it is once more. The words of an Itihat Refik Bey:
It's true that we receive support from Freemasonry and especially from Italian Masonry. The two Italian lodges [of Thessaloniki] -- Macedonia Risorta and Labor et Lux -- have provided invaluable services and have been a refuge for us. We meet there as fellow Masons, because it is a fact that many of us are Masons, but more importantly we meet so that we can better organize ourselves."
Le Temps, Paris Newspaper
Would it be enough to point out that no less a figure than Lawrence of Arabia himself pointed out Aubrey Herbert, British MP and British Intelligence officer as head of the Young Turk Movement at one point in time. Here are three writers on the point of British Influence through Masonic lodges on the Young Turk Movement:
In 1908, the Committee for Union and Progress, otherwise known as the Young Turks, carried out a military coup, overthrowing the Sultan and seizing power over the Ottoman Empire. Launching ethnic cleansing campaigns against all non-Turkic peoples, including Armenians, Greeks, and Bulgarians, the Young Turk regime played a pivotal role in provoking the 1912-13 Balkan Wars, through their brutality towards the minorities. By their own accounts, the Young Turks based their revolution on a version of Pan-Turkism that had been devised by an advisor to the Sultan in the 1860s who was, in fact, an agent of Britain's Lord Palmerston. The Young Turks also preached a rabid anti-Russian ideology, which was inspired by Wilfred Blunt, a top British Intelligence official, whose own ideas about playing an "Islamic card" to destroy Russia predated those of Britain's Bernard Lewis by a full century.
The actual founder of the Young Turk movement was an Italian Freemason and grain trader named Emmanuel Carasso. Jewish by birth, Carasso had been a founder of the Italian Masonic lodge in Salonika, called the Macedonia Risorta Lodge. Virtually all of the members of the Young Turk leadership were lodge members. The forerunner of the Macedonia Risorta Lodge was founded by a follower of another Palmerston agent and revolutionary provocateur, Giuseppi Mazzini.
Carasso was a leading financier of the entire Young Turk insurrection, and during the Balkan Wars, he was not only the head of Balkan intelligence operations for the Young Turks; he was in charge of all food supplies for the Ottoman Empire during World War I, a lucrative business which he shared with Parvus.
Carasso also financed a number of newspapers and other propaganda outlets for the Young Turks, among them the newspaper The Young Turk, which was edited by none other than Vladimir Jabotinsky. Another of Carasso's "business" associates was Parvus, who became economics editor of another Young Turk journal, The Turkish Homeland. Parvus also became a partner of Carasso in the grain trade, and in the arms business, and became independently wealthy.
The Young Turk operation was headed, from London, by Aubrey Herbert, a grandson of one of Mazzini's controllers, who himself died while leading revolutionary mobs in Italy in 1848. Aubrey Herbert headed all British Intelligence operations in the Middle East during the period of World War I, and no less a figure than Lawrence of Arabia identified Herbert as the actual head of the Young Turk insurrection. Herbert's career is the subject of the historical novel, Greenmantle, by World War I British intelligence official John Buchan.
Emmanuel Carasso's pivotal role in the Young Turk movement and the resulting Balkan Wars of 1912-13, is of significance from one additional standpoint. Carasso was a protégé and business partner of Volpi di Misurata, the leading Venetian banker of the early 20th Century, who not only sponsored the Young Turk insurrection, but also promoted the Black Shirt takeover of Rome and went on to run the Mussolini Fascist regime from his various posts as Minister of Finance (1925-28), member of the Grand Council of Fascism, president of the Fascist Confederation of Industrialists, and, most important, as the chief public representative of a group of aristocrats around Count Piero Foscari, of the ancient Venetian dogal family.
The Venetian banker Volpi was closely allied with City of London financiers throughout. And the Young Turks, once they took power, made no secret of their London ties. In 1909 the Ottoman Navy was put under the command of a British admiral; the British Royal Family's own banker, Ernst Cassel, established and managed the National Bank of Turkey; and British officials advised the Ministry of Finance, the Interior Ministry, and the Ministry of Justice. The Young Turks also denounced and blocked further construction of the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad.
Jeffrey Steinberg, Allen Douglas, and Rachel Douglas
That is a somewhat flawed comparison. The gap between the US and chinese military technology is just too large. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the rivalry between the British and the Germans took on a different nature. It was based on the advent of oil technology replacing coal technology for the Navy. The Germans had just launched a program geard towards modernising their own navy to match the British; and besides i believe the Germans were also pioneers in developing aerial warfare strategy. On top of that it was German engineers like Gottleib Daimler, who pioneered new oil technology such as the petroleum-motor for road vehicles. There was every chance of Germany, undevastated by world war I surpassing the British, in terms of new petroleum technology. This is the basis of my whole argument. The Berlin Baghdad Railway would have been the means by which the Germans secured the oil resources meant to fuel their future navy; it would would also have meant the means by which they secured their future economic expansion in the absence of an overseas empires, dependent on coastal trade like the French and British empires had.
It wasn't really significant until after Enver Pasha came to power.
How else would you do it? To exclude non-Turkic nationalities, especially powerful, numerous ones with friends in high places, would lead to a more rapid disintegration.
And you'll find that not many of those were Turkists.
Turkism emerged as a response to rival nationalist movements, not the other way around. Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Armenian, etc nationalist movements were already active well before some of the founding members of the CUP was born.
And this proves what exactly?
This addresses none of what you claimed.
Whose accounts? Who was this advisor?
Yeah, the Turks had no reasons to hate the Russians, the British must've told to them.
Re: funding of the Young Turks - again, what exactly does this prove? That the Young Turks were supported by some in the West? (not in dispute). That they recieved money from various sources? (not in dispute). That some in the West supported the Young Turks hoping for financial gain for themselves? (not in dispute).
Economic expansion at the expense of Ottoman power... wait... isn't this what the French and the British were doing?
You know, I seem to remember posting in a thread recently about how the Young Turks were primarily Pan-Ottomanists rather than Pan-Turkists. And that they actively fought against Pan-Islamist and Pan-Turkish elements in the Empire, right up until Enver Pasha took over. Pasha then proceeded to pursue a policy which was pretty much the exact opposite of the CUP prior.
SnowlyWhite
Emperor
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3237cheney_permwar.html
la rouche as source? what's next?
your article starts like... "It was never a secret that the ranks of today's Washington neo-conservative war-party are filled with former first and second generation Trotskyists—personified by Irving Kristol, the former Shachtmanite Trotskyist, self-described "Godfather" of the entire neo-con apparatus, and the father of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol. What was ignored was the fact that both they and Vice President Dick Cheney are still fanatically committed to former Bolshevik minister of war".
really, it's the 1st time when I'm rooting for Cheney...
somehow, I think one of us is on the wrong forum. Or at least the idea of what constitutes a source seems to differ
la rouche as source? what's next?
your article starts like... "It was never a secret that the ranks of today's Washington neo-conservative war-party are filled with former first and second generation Trotskyists—personified by Irving Kristol, the former Shachtmanite Trotskyist, self-described "Godfather" of the entire neo-con apparatus, and the father of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol. What was ignored was the fact that both they and Vice President Dick Cheney are still fanatically committed to former Bolshevik minister of war".
really, it's the 1st time when I'm rooting for Cheney...
somehow, I think one of us is on the wrong forum. Or at least the idea of what constitutes a source seems to differ
And this changes my argument how?
It does not get any more rapid than loosing a 400 year old empire in ten years. The Balkan part was lost in 4 years after the Turks came into power. Have you not been listening? My point is the Young Turk movement was coopted by people whose goal was to destroy the Ottoman empire which was successfully and efficiently achieved within 10 years of the Young Turk revolution. You seem to assume that there was something noble and good and grand in restoring the Constitution of Turkey which the Young Turks achieved. I make no such assumption. How else would I do it you ask. I would rather there had never been such a thing in the world as Young Turks! But that's just me.
Which is besides the point. Turkism was the driving force behind the Young Turk movement after the revolution. This Turkism accelerated ethnic tensions and turmoil which led to genocide and the loss of the Balkans. This I say was the whole purpose or motivation of the british influence which coopted the movement.
What I meant to say is that the promotion of Turkism which was not the official policy of Abdulhamid accelerated ethnic national tensions within the Balkans and Arab provinces, which led ultimately to destruction of the Ottoman Empire.
That British commercial and imperialist interests benefited form the pro-British Young Turk Movement.
How does a Young Turk admitting to be a mason; and admitting that masonic lodges were a center of their movement not prove that (ummm... how shall i say this you make this so hard) well masonic lodges were the center of their movement.
The Young Turks. Arminius Vambery was the advisor in question. You can google his name. But on the other hand, since you love being spoon fed, here is what Wikipedia of all institutions had to say about him:
Vámbéry was one of the Jewish Orientalists, like Kurban Said (Lev Nussimbaum), who assumed Muslim identities and wrote about Muslim life. He converted four times. He was a double agent and a double dealer. He was close to the Ottoman sultans.
or even more deliciously: In 2005 the National Archives at Kew, Surrey, made files accessible to the public, and it was revealed that Vámbéry had been employed by the British Foreign Office as an agent and spy .... Crazy Conspiracy Theorist that I am.
Vambrey, double agent & possible Inspiration for Van Helsing
Yeah, the Turks had no reasons to hate the Russians, the British must've told to them.
Here you go again with your silly and juvenile oversimplification. Do you deny that Wilfred Blunt promoted anti-Russian Ideology and had influence on The Young Turks? Would you like me to provide evidence of such influence? Because if you are humble or modest enough to request such information, I may just do so.
It proves that the Young Turks were coopted by Western commercial and inperialists interests whose goal was to take apart, control and own the Ottoman Empire, especially the strategically important and oil wealthy so called Middle East or South West Asia and make it part of the British-French geopolitical sphere of influnce. This goal was effectively achieved within 10 years of the Young Turk revolution. In other words a demoniacally genius plan which worked!
Economic expansion at the expense of Ottoman power... wait... isn't this what the French and the British were doing?
Am sure that my writing is intelligible enough. The problem seems to lie not with my reason, but with your reading comprehension skills. Germany's expansion was not designed to contend with that of the Ottoman Empire. Under Abdulhamid it was a relationship of mutual benefit. The Ottoman empire had the consumer markets and oil resources which the Germans needed to serve their industrialization purposes; the Germans had the technology required to modernize the ottoman state. If you are not able to get such a simple point, allow me to illustrate with a case study, which is the Berlin-Baghdad railway link. This is from a piece by Arthur P Maloney, who lucky for you writes even more intelligibly than I do:
the Railway was a quiet commercial
venture during these years. The Germans ran their railways effectively
and honestly, and the Turkish Government was very favorably impressed....
In 1897, the Turks had won a war with Greece in which the German
railways had been a material factor in their success. This, more than
the much publicized second visit of the Kaiser to Constantinople,
induced the Sultan to push for continuation of the railway project.
......
The Railway offered the Turks definite advantages over lines
proposed by other European Powers. The main factor was that the line
would tie together Turkey's scattered provinces. This was not true of
lines ending at the Mediterranean below Anatolia. Such lines tended to
detach Turkish territory. A second advantage was that the line went
through the Tauras Mountains of western Anatolia rather than along the
sea coast. This meant the Railway was safe from interdiction by
European naval guns in time of war. A third advantage was that the
Germans, unlike the other European powers, were not likely to attempt
annexation of territory served by the Railway
This is smart of you.
What does that have to do with anything? My point is the Young Turk movement was manipulated by Western Intelligence in the same way that the so called Arab Spring was manipulated by Western intelligence. Egypt was a strong Pro-Western regime but not a hopeless puuppet of the US. Egypt for instance would have never voted within the Arab League for the suspension of Syria as happened recently, under Mubarak. The Purpose of the US and Great Britain are simply interested in launching a war against Iran with the backing of Arab puppet regimes like Kuwait or Bahrain. The US would prefer that every regime in the mIddle East was as slavish as Bahrain or Saudi Arabia is to its interests.
Iran cant be hit? The entire purpose of this engineered Arab Spring is to launch a war against Iran. What planet do you live in? You are not awre of American designs in regard to Iran? Even now there are intelligence reports claiming an Israeli strike against a nuclear plant in Iran ( The iranians ofcourse deny it) Why do you put so much faith in the sanity of the British-American military establishment? Any how here is an article in the Guardian about the ongoing covert war against Iran, which you say is so unlikely, never mind it is already taking place:
Starting in January 2010, there were a series of attacks in Tehran on Iranian physicists with links to the nuclear programme. The first target was Masoud Ali Mohammadi, a physicist and lecturer at the Imam Hussein university, run by the Revolutionary Guards. He was on his way to work when a bomb fixed to a motorbike parked outside his house exploded and killed him instantly.
In November that year, assassins on motorbikes targeted two Iranian scientists simultaneously as they were stuck in morning traffic. In both cases, the killers drove up alongside their targets' cars and stuck bombs to the side. Majid Shahriari, a scientist at the atomic energy organisation, who had co-authored a paper on neutron diffusion in a nuclear reactor, was killed.
The other target, Fereidoun Abbasi-Davani, suspected by western officials of being a central figure in experiments on building a nuclear warhead, was only injured. Three months later he was promoted to the leadership of the nuclear programme.
A third scientist, Darioush Rezaeinejad, was killed in an attack in July this year, when gunmen on motorbikes shot him in a street in east Tehran. He was initially described in the Iranian media as a "nuclear scientist", but the government later denied he had any involvement in the programme.
Iran has blamed the attacks on the Israeli secret service, Mossad...
Covert War against Iran by Israel and the West
The way in which some people on this thread revel in their own ignorance is something I simply cannot fathom. Why should you sound so hostile and strident about issues you are so abysmally ignorant about?
You seem not to think very highly of the worth of Arabs.
You would sooner find me advising you to go and Screw yourself before you ever catch me apologizing to anyone for being opposed to the Mass Murder which Nato unleashed on Libya and the Green Jamariyah. Maybe you being where you are and what you are dont have a problem with the murder and carneige being carried out by the death squads backed and trained and enabled by Nato, however I do. No amount of demonizing Gadaffi absolves the murderers who make up Nato of the crime they continue to committ in libya. And in any event here are a few examples of what Gadaffi was able to achieve for libya and Libyans:
Public Health Care in Libya prior to NATO's "Humanitarian Intervention" was the best in Africa. "Health care is [was] available to all citizens free of charge by the public sector. The country boasts the highest literacy and educational enrolment rates in North Africa. The Government is [was] substantially increasing the development budget for health services.... (WHO Libya Country Brief )
Confirmed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), undernourishment was less than 5 %, with a daily per capita calorie intake of 3144 calories. (FAO caloric intake figures indicate availability rather than consumption).
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya provided to its citizens what is denied to many Americans: Free public health care, free education, as confirmed by WHO and UNESCO data.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO): Life expectancy at birth was 72.3 years (2009), among the highest in the developing World
and also this:
The adult literacy rate was of the order of 89%, (2009), (94% for males and 83% for females). 99.9% of youth are literate (UNESCO 2009 figures, See UNESCO, Libya Country Report)
Gross primary school enrolment ratio was 97% for boys and 97% for girls (2009) .
(see UNESCO tables at http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/..._Language=eng&BR_Country=4340&BR_Region=40525
The pupil teacher ratio in Libya's primary schools was of the order of 17 (1983 UNESCO data), 74% of school children graduating from primary school were enrolled in secondary school (1983 UNESCO data).
Based on more recent date, which confirms a marked increase in school enrolment, the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in secondary schools was of the order of 108% in 2002. The GER is the number of pupils enrolled in a given level of education regardless of age expressed as a percentage of the population in the theoretical age group for that level of education.
For tertiary enrolment (postsecondary, college and university), the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) was of the order of 54% in 2002 (52 for males, 57 for females).
and also this:
With regard to Women's Rights, World Bank data point to significant achievements.
"In a relative short period of time, Libya achieved universal access for primary education, with 98% gross enrollment for secondary, and 46% for tertiary education. In the past decade, girls’ enrollment increased by 12% in all levels of education. In secondary and tertiary education, girls outnumbered boys by 10%." (World Bank Libya Country Brief, emphasis added)
Price Controls over Essential Food Staples
In most developing countries, essential food prices have skyrocketed, as a result of market deregulation, the lifting of price controls and the eliminaiton of subsidies, under "free market" advice from the World Bank and the IMF.
In recent years, essential food and fuel prices have spiralled as a result of speculative trade on the major commodity exchanges.
Libya was one of the few countries in the developing World which maintained a system of price controls over essential food staples.
World Bank President Robert Zoellick acknowledged in an April 2011 statement that the price of essential food staples had increased by 36 percent in the course of the last year. See Robert Zoellick, World Bank
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had established a system of price controls over essential food staples, which was maintained until the onset of the NATO led war.
While rising food prices in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt spearheaded social unrest and political dissent, the system of food subsidies in Libya was maintained.
These are the facts confirmed by several UN specialised agencies.
And here is an example of How Nato has conspired to steal so shamelessly the wealth of Libya:
Libya`s frozen overseas financial assets are estimated to be of the order of $150 billion, with NATO countries holding more than $100 billion.
Prior to the war, Libya had no debts. In fact quite the opposite. It was a creditor nation investing in neighboring African countries.
The R2P military intervention is intended to spearhead the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya into the straightjacket of an indebted developing country, under the surveillance of the Washington based Bretton Woods institutions.
In a bitter irony, after having stolen Libya's oil wealth and confiscated its overseas financial assets, the "donor community" has pledged to lend the (stolen) money back to finance Libya's post-war "reconstruction". Libya is slated to join the ranks of indebted African countries which have driven into poverty by IMF and the World Bank since the onsalught of the debt crisis in the early 1980s:
The IMF promised a further $35-billion in funding [loans] to countries affected by Arab Spring uprisings and formally recognized Libya’s ruling interim council as a legitimate power, opening up access to a myriad of international lenders as the country [Libya] looks to rebuild after a six-month war. ...
Getting IMF recognition is significant for Libya’s interim leaders as it means international development banks and donors such as the World Bank can now offer financing.
The Marseille talks came a few days after world leaders agreed in Paris to free up billions of dollars in frozen assets [stolen money] to help [through loans] Libya’s interim rulers restore vital services and rebuild after a conflict that ended a 42-year dictatorship.
The financing deal by the Group of Seven major economies plus Russia is aimed at supporting reform efforts [IMF sponsored structural adjustment] in the wake of uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East.
The financing is mostly in the form of loans, rather than outright grants, and is provided half by G8 and Arab countries and half by various lenders and development banks. (Financial Post, September 10, 2011,
And Yet you talk about Gadaffi being the thief or the one being too expensive to bribe. Sometimes i think Westerners or at least apologists for Western Imperialism simply project their own villiany on the persons or countries they opress. In your case you make statements which come close to being anti-arabic, questiong the worth of Arabs. And you assasinate the character of Gadaffi, after his country was pointlessly destroyed by Western Mad men and after he was brutally murdered by thugs contracted by Nato. Its like a criminal who rapes and murders a woman and defends himself by saying:
If she had agreed to have sex with me, I would have never raped her. If she had not struggled while I raped her, I would have never choked her to death. And besides you know she was a whore, anyway!
This is the racist criminally insane logic of Western Imperialism. I give my support to any man who dares to oppose the madness. And am willing to say Go Screw yourself to anyone who supports it or apologizes for it.
SnowlyWhite
Emperor
your point is that the west will go toppling the regimes that are pro west(while those which aren't western friendly don't seem to have much problems). Your logic... kinda fails.
Your other point is that the west needs the backing of the arab world(no clue why - never needed till now, but whatever) against Iran. Newsflash - beside Syria, noone's fond of Iran. You don't need to change Mubarak for that(bar your bathroom scenario). Mubarak was kicked, because, like the rest bar Lybia, didn't have enough reserves to keep bribing a high enough % of his population.
because the pentagon keeps you updated.
It's a difference between wanting and being able. And yes, each country on this planet, gasp, tries to attains it's strategic goals... I'm sure Israel wouldn't mind dropping some bombs on Iran, it's a good chance that they'll even try, I doubt it'll have any success(hence the hesitations - really, adding 1+1 usually gives 2 - that's why conspiracy theories get those funky looks - you're usually the one coming up with... 3).
and your reading abilities are abit impaired. Or your history. The comparison was between syrians and :
1. lebanese(a country torn by 30+ years of civil war at that moment)
2. palestinians(those don't even have a country for already 50 years at that moment). The other 2 people cited in that quote.
If your regime provides you with less economic opportunities than ppl. in: a) a country with 30+ years of civil war; b)some folks without a country
then basic logic(the one from point 1 too) would say that your regime kinda... *ucks. And that ppl. would rightfully be pissed and want you out.
from this point on... really, don't expect me to comment the rest of your post. I'm sure it has... lotsa history in it.
this post of yours reveals nothing more but the peurility of an ignorant and Juvenile mind. Soomeone who gets their notions of geopolitical realities from the likes of Anderson Cooper and the rest of CNN. Here is a more cogent analysis of whats goin on in Syria; and its not original to me, it really is quite mainstream among people who care to study such things:
This summer a senior Saudi official told John Hannah, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, that from the outset of the upheaval in Syria, the king has believed that regime change would be highly beneficial to Saudi interests: "The king knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria."
.........
The origins of the "lose Assad" operation preceded the Arab awakening: they reach back to Israel's failure in its 2006 war to seriously damage Hezbollah, and the post-conflict US assessment that it was Syria that represented Hezbollah's achilles heel – as the vulnerable conduit linking Hezbollah to Iran. US officials speculated as to what might be done to block this vital corridor, but it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who surprised them by saying that the solution was to harness Islamic forces. The Americans were intrigued, but could not deal with such people. Leave that to me, Bandar retorted. Hannah noted that "Bandar working without reference to US interests is clearly cause for concern. But Bandar working as a partner … against a common Iranian enemy is a major strategic asset." Bandar got the job.
The Great Game of Syria--Iran
because the pentagon keeps you updated.
I'm sure Israel wouldn't mind dropping some bombs on Iran, it's a good chance that they'll even try, I doubt it'll have any success(hence the hesitations - really, adding 1+1 usually gives 2 - that's why conspiracy theories get those funky looks - you're usually the one coming up with... 3)...
because the pentagon keeps me updated? wow thats really cute. really really cute. But no its not an issue of me being updated by the Pentagon, but instead relying on geopolitical analyses of people who care to study such things. Unlike persons like yourself who revel in your own base ignorance. And did you just admit that the Pentagon wants to invade Iran, but just are not able to. And you say am the one being updated. Unreal! What the hell prevents the only military superpower in the world from Invading a 3rd world country like iran?
This is like saying that the large number of chinese workers in Africa working on a number of economic projects over there, for wages lower than that paid to Africans is evidence that African economies are more impressive than that of the Chinese. Which is crap. SYria is a larger country; has a larger labour force than Lebanon, hence the cheaper wages. Also, the economy in Lebanon at the time was most likely experiencin a postwar construction boom, hence the many Syrians there looking for work. And cheap wages in a global economy is not unique to Syria. I hardly think a doctor in Eastern European countries like Ukraine of Bucharest Romania, make as much money as their counterparts in Western Europe. maybe they should call in Nato to bomb stuff up so that wages over there could increase.
No I think that thoughtless sentence of yours has more to do with what you think of Arabs. There is no economic or logical justification of it.
I knew it was a waste of time. Why did I ever bother. Next time am gonna follow the advice of Jesus himself who warned about never casting pearls to swine.
Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming - again - please keep the tone civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Similar threads
