Best turkey history books according to redditors

We found 261 Reddit comments discussing the best turkey history books. We ranked the 78 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Turkey History:

u/000066 · 82 pointsr/worldnews

You serious? Because the British literally selected the tribal leader Ibn Saud and gave him control of what we now call Saudi Arabia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#Rise_to_power

The Brits mistakenly believed that the King of Mecca was like a Muslim pope and everyone would fall in line behind him. So they created the boundary lines for Iraq and Jordan and placed his sons on the thrones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_bin_Ali,_Sharif_of_Mecca#Following_World_War_I

The founding of Israel was guaranteed by ex prime minister Balfour and later the Sykes-Picot agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement


Suggested reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453911664&sr=1-1&keywords=a+peace+to+end+all+peace

http://www.amazon.com/Kingmakers-Invention-Modern-Middle-East/dp/0393337707

u/Chappit · 72 pointsr/AskHistorians

Hopefully someone can chime in with a more complete answer on this, but I believe answer is yes. During the Greco-Turkish war Greece got a bit uppity because they thought that they had the full support of the Allies despite being a relatively weak nation. They attempted to steal a bunch of territory from the fledgling state of Turkey. Turkey pushed them back and managed to retake all of the land claimed by Greece in their initial conquest. At the end of that war there was a massive population exchange in which all of the "Turks" were evicted from Greece and sent to Turkey and all of the "Greeks" were evicted from Turkey and sent to Greece. To me this exchange of populations suggests that both Turkey and Greece were interested in expanding their territories further but decided it was easier to just accept things as they were and switch around the controversial portions of their populations.

Despite the population exchange, the Turks and the Greeks still lived in close quarters in Cyprus because Cyprus was, and still is, an independent nation; except for Northern Cyprus which was claimed by the Turks following the 1974 coup in Cyprus. The Turks claimed that they took over the territory in an effort to protect the Turks that were living on the island, but to this day they have never given back the land they took over which implies that they were interested in more than protecting the Turkish Cypriots.

It is also important to remember that the original Turks were mainly Ottomans who were used to living in a massive empire. Many of those that went on to create and fight for Turkey had fought throughout the Middle East in WWI trying to defend the Ottoman Empire. The diaries of many ex-Ottoman officers have shown that they were loyal to the empire until the very end. So I don't think it is unlikely that during the establishment of Turkey there would have been feelings of resentment towards the Allies and a desire to procure more land and reestablish the mighty Ottoman Empire.

For a succinct overview of the Turkish history mentioned here I would check out chapters 10 and 14 of Cleveland and Bunton's A History of the Modern Middle East. For more insights into how Ottoman military officers felt about the empire during and after WWI I recommend Leila Parson's The Commander.

u/tinkthank · 49 pointsr/islam

Can we stop spreading this misinformation please?

I keep hearing this and its flat out not true and I hate that it keeps getting brought up.

The vast majority of Arabs did not fight against the Ottomans, they fought for the Ottomans. Did you all really think the Ottoman Army consisted of only Turkish soldiers? 1/3 of the Ottoman military consisted of Arab officers and soldiers. Many of them fought against the British at Galipoli and in Iraq, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. Unless you're talking about members of the Jordanian or Saudi Royal Family, or are affiliated with them, most Arabs did not fight against the Ottomans. Hell, even the Saudis didn't directly fight against the Ottomans until well towards the end of the war, since most of the anti-Ottoman fighting was done by the Hashemite family.

The majority of Arabs fought for the Ottomans, despite the fact that Enver Pasha (the guy responsible for the Armenian Genocide), arrested, tortured, and executed many innocent Arabs because of his own paranoia that they were somehow plotting to have him killed. In fact, we didn't learn until much later that there was no major movement to overthrow the Ottomans in favor of an Arab nationalist government. In fact, even after the Ottoman Empire was defeated, there were many Arabs who were working hard to expel the British and return back to the Ottoman Empire, but when the Mustafa Kemal declared a Turkish Republic in 1923, and all hopes of returning were lost, and that is when we started to see Arab Nationalism really start to take off as an anti-Imperialist movement.

I'm an Indian and let's not forget, that many Indian soldiers, Muslims included did fight against the Ottoman Empire. The explanation that was given to them by their British commanders were that they weren't fighting to overthrow the Caliphate, but to free it from those who have "taken the Sultan hostage" (i.e., the Three Pashas and The Young Turks).

If you want me to recommend one, let's start with this one.

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin

The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire, 1516-1918 by Bruce Masters

More information:

The forgotten Arabs of Gallipoli | Al Jazeera

If you want to learn more about the history of the Ottoman Empire, its life, culture and the people that made up the Empire, then I suggest you subscribe to:

The Ottoman History Podcast

where they actually interview historians and experts in the field.

u/rabidpenguin3 · 39 pointsr/AskHistorians

The decline of the Ottoman Empire can be traced back as early as the 1600's. The peak of the empire is often considered to have happened in 1520-1566 under Sulaiman the Magnificent and gradually declined in power from this point onward. Like all complex situations, there were several issues that caused the decline of the Ottoman Empire but I will be only examining economics and military aspects related to actions with Europe. I gathered my information from Peter Mansfield's book, 'A History of the Middel East'.

During the medieval era, Europe experienced a time of both economic and social stagnation. This was not the case in areas controlled by the Ottoman Empire (most of which is geographically considered the Middle East). Reasons for Ottoman dominance can be traced to the powerful system the sultans maintained over their empire. Sultans held great power and used it to create a strict institution based on the preservation of Ottoman culture. With little political resistance against the sultan, he was allowed to keep the empire on track and prosperous while neighboring European countries were lost in disorganization.

Mansfield argued that the tide of dominance between the Ottoman Empire and Europe begins to change in the 1600's because of the emergence of capitalism. Feudal societies are often attributed as the first steps towards modern capitalism and could be seen in effect in many places throughout Europe. The Ottoman Empire did not begin this development as early as Europe because of overconfidence amongst the Arab and Turkish people and also because of the rigid and ultra-conservative control by the sultans. Throughout the centuries, the Ottoman Empire began to decline in economic terms compared to Europe and its more efficient capitalist system. In order to reverse this trend, Ottoman sultans attempted to open up the Turkish economy for European investors. Many deals, known as the Capitulations, were made with European nations that allowed European merchants to move more freely within the Ottoman Empire. Examples of certain Capitulations includes European citizens not being help to laws in the empire ( which operated mostly under Sharia law) and paying very few taxes.

Mansfield concluded that through economic means Europe was able to peacefully infiltrate into an empire that they saw as hostile and slowly weaken it. Europe was able to further outpace the empire because of the one-sided trade environment that was created. It also didn't help that many European merchants abused the Capitulations by breaking laws or avoiding the minuscule tax all together. By the 1900's, the Ottoman Empire was only able to continue to exist because of European nations propping it up. The empire was able to last until the end of the First World War because European powers feared its collapse would cause a power vacuum which would lead to a sort of European civil war. After WWI this sort of became irrelevant because of Germany's collapse. France and Britain also wanted land holdings in the Middle East and had no moral problems carving up their vanquished Ottoman foe into different spheres through the Sykes-Picot agreement.

u/SoItGoes487 · 33 pointsr/history

As a matter of fact, yes! David Fromkin wrote a wonderful book on the subject, "A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East." It is engaging and very informative!

http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/gzcl · 28 pointsr/gzcl

Thank you everyone for the laughs and the subtle concern. As mentioned here, I've been incredibly busy. This is all good stuff and I'm truly blessed. A few of the goings on:

  • I am currently on the east coast for my brother's graduation from US Marine Corps Warrant Officer Basic Course. He enlisted with me in 2005 and has been killing it ever since. Last year he completed his masters degree in electrical engineering from North Carolina State and now he's moving on to be an electronics maintenance officer. I'm incredibly proud and spending as much time as I can with the guy since we've hardly been able to see each other since we both stepped on those yellow foot prints at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego. Picture related.

  • If you're thinking, "Damn, Cody looks skinny." You're right. This is intentional and unfortunately a bit unintentional. I've got some injuries (military) that have been seriously aggravated since the move and early spring they got fired up again. So I've been nursing those and thus training hasn't been exciting at all. In addition to that I had a big wake up call that came in the form of sleep apnea, which of course was weight related. I'm not one to live my life on machines and value my health and independence (thus the cabin) and so I've made a concerted effort to regain my respiratory and cardiovascular health, which brought about the needed weight loss. I'm lighter now than I have been in a long time but I'm happy with it because I'm no longer snoring like a hellbeast and I'm also breathing while sleeping again, whereas I wasn't before, multiple times per hour each night. So while I may not be hyuge right now, at least I'm not suffocating myself to death at night. (My wife is also very thankful.)

  • I had some technical hurdles recently that put a damper on my YouTube production abilities. From this I've purchased a new video camera, whereas before I was using my wife's DSLR video feature. Not nearly as good. Still high quality, but I hope this new camera turns out even better videos than you've seen on my channel previously. As some of you may have noticed already the editing on my channel has improved a little and so has the creativity of the content itself. Whether it's the Bench Press Form Check video or the new Gainsline or Summon the Gainer 3 you'll notice my abilities have gone up. I credit this to doing much more film study and attempting to apply some of those same concepts into a micro adaptation within my YouTube. I get pretty much zero dollars from YouTube because I get so few views, but that's not what it's about for me. I genuinely enjoy making videos and I see this as the next step in advancing my own enjoyment. My only hope is that all of you enjoy them just the same. And please, if you have a request or recommendation please let me know, because I'd like to help the best I can and I'm always eager to learn something new.

  • In addition to the above I'm also taking my own education seriously. Having wrapped up a semester of full time college earlier this month I'm now on summer break and so brings - FREEDOM! If you're wondering, which you're probably not but I'm going to tell you anyways, I got an A,A,B,A this semester across my four classes. None of them being underwater basket weaving or nontraditional interpretative dance therapy. That last A is an elective however, for drawing.

  • To wrap up this update I'm also working on a personal writing project that requires some heavy research. As previously mentioned and well known in these parts, I'm a US Marine. What may not be known so well is that I served as an infantryman (0311) for five years and did another 4.5 as an MCCS Marine (4133). During my near decade on active duty I had four deployments, one to Iraq, two to Afghan, and one aboard ship at sea. Two of those I volunteered for. My last one I fought to go on. My time in the Corp gave me the love of lifting but also the love of studying warfare, in particular insurgencies. I've had my nose deep in the books doing lots of research for a book I plan on writing. Here's bigg'un I just got as a gift from ma and pa and I can't wait to start it. I've already broken a promise to myself on timeline, so who knows when it'll be finished. But I'm happy that I've had the discipline to begin putting paper to pad. When it is finished I hope some of you enjoy it, even though it will be far from the topic of weight lifting. It's fiction and about war, and that's all I will divulge at this time.

    Once more, thank you all for the laughs and subtle concern. Thank you /u/linuxuser86 for making this post. If any of you have questions please email me any time: [email protected]
u/[deleted] · 20 pointsr/AskHistorians

First of all, the first thing to ask should be: "Why should they have tried?" European powers explored and expanded their empire did it to gain something Ottomans already had: Some control over spice trade that was flowing over Egypt. Portugese discovered America while trying to create trade routes to India and China. Their biggest motivation was to get the control of Egypt and Holy Lands, which Ottomans already did.

Second, historians always downplayed the Ottoman efforts of "exploration" in the Indian Ocean, since there was little attention and knowledge on the issue. But recently historians realized that Ottomans did not sit on their butt during the age of exploration. For example, they involved in a huge struggle against Portugese in Indian Ocean, in a great region included Madagascar, Swahili, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, India and even Indonesia (Aceh). They have disrupted Portugese trade and hegemony in the region. They even tried to create a global alliance of Islamic world, and they have used the authority of caliphate very wisely. You see elements of Ottoman regime everywhere in the region during 16th century. You see Ottoman ships fighting against Portugese even around Indonesia.

But most crucial part was(repeating what I already set): Ottoman Empire already hold positions that Portugese and other European powers wanted to hold. Ottoman efforts were mostly directed towards protecting these positions. Discovery and colonizing of Americas were a side product of this struggle and was an accident (which turned out to be a game changer accident)) There is a reason why Columbus was disappointed when he realized he in fact found a new continent, not went to Asia, and he insisted for a long time he reached Asia.

One problem for Ottomans during this time was they had many frontiers to focus. They had one epic struggle against European powers in Mediterranean Sea(Venice & league of christian nations). They had to struggle against Austrian Empire. They had to struggle against Persian Empire on the east. Indian Ocean was the least important frontier for them during 16th and 17th century, other frontiers were more about the existence of the empire whereas Indian Ocean was about profits. All the enemies had to focus on one of these frontiers most of the time, which made everything extremely difficult for the Empire. Depending on the Sultan and viziers of the time, struggle in Indian Oceans gained more attention or was not seen as important. This fact caused lack of consistency of Ottoman actions against Portugese in a vast geography.

And here is a wonderful book to read, written by a smart academician:

http://www.amazon.com/Ottoman-Age-Exploration-Giancarlo-Casale/dp/0199874042/ref=la_B003BWYZZU_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347656608&sr=1-1

There is a version of book on scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/79042382/The-Ottoman-Age-of-Exploration-Giancarlo-Casale). I can't recommend that book enough, please buy it if you can. It is interesting for everyone whether a historian or someone with little knowledge; and written in a clever way.

u/trader27 · 18 pointsr/facepalm

I understand this is reddit but, Honestly are you just repeating what you have heard people say or do you understand how guerrilla warfare and insurgencies work and their history? There is a vast amount of material to study on this subject and many history lessons (https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Armies-History-Guerrilla-Warfare-ebook/dp/B007P9M034) <great book on the subject and multiple expanses of how extremely hard insurgencies are to fight and why governments usually always lose in them including the United States. If the US military wanted to destroy the entire country and have just ashes left then yes they could win but, thats not what would happen and history shows us that. Tyrannical rulers do not want to rule over ashes.

Can you identify and address the moral, cultural, geographical, economic, and infrastructural problems the US government would face if it turned on its own armed populace?

A few examples would be...

Do you think our volunteer army (composed of citizens) would actually kill their fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, and fellow veterans just because they were ordered to (especially when most are there just to get a few years in and free college) ?

The US military only needs to lose 20% of its man power to become seriously degraded and at 30% becomes combat ineffective (source below). That means only 2/10 people would have to refuse to fight. If we can use Vietnam as a comparison for the unwillingness to fight an unjust war then, we know the tyrannical US government would be facing major problems right there

https://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/us-military-power/

Would the militaries civilian contractors and logistics arm continue to do the same?

Would regular citizens continue to produce the massive commercial productions of oil, food, munitions, etc... that are helping fuel the military that is killing and/or oppressing their own families?

According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 90 firearms for every 100 resident. Do you know the history of governments trying to fight an insurgency that is way less armed (from your comment, you do not)?

Can you explain why the United States has never been able to win a counter insurgency war but, for some reason you think they would be able to win the one against their own populace which is heavier armed and more well trained than any in the history of warfare?

u/SleepyTimeNowDreams · 18 pointsr/Turkey

Nobody is denying that thousands of Armenians have died, BUT not with the intention of massacring them. Most of them died due to starving and sickness. There were also some massacres in some villages, but has nothing to do with the government. The government never tried to massacre anybody. The reason for this all was caused by the Armenians by themselves, cause during the World War I they allied with the Russians and started invading villages, such as the city of Van. All of this forced the government to relocate them, and not all of them, those living in the East.

If you don't believe what I say, or any Turk say, please then believe scientists/historians.

The most important expert in Middle East history from Princeton Bernard Lewis. Or from Oxford Norman Stone. Look up Justin McCarthy's lectures on Youtube, who shows you it. There are multiple other professors from famous universities (and I am not naming one Turkish source). Read Guenter Lewy's book who himself is a Jew. And someone posted here this link a while ago. Here you can read proofs from a professional french historian:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/52kppi/clarifications_about_the_armenian_genocide_claims/?st=it1x9zhz&sh=24d56c00

u/WearingAVegetable · 18 pointsr/AskHistorians

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: The radicalization of Islam in the Middle East ties into the division of the region by the western powers after WWI, and further during the Cold War, when the U.S. (not only, but in particular) supported the rise to power of radical religious figures in opposition to communist/leftist parties & figures who might be sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and therefore potentially threaten U.S./U.K. access to oil in the region. This included aiding in the over-throwing of democratically elected governments in favor of autocratic but U.S./U.K.-favored leaders - most notably the U.S.-led 1953 coup d'etat in Iran, when Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown. The 1978 Iranian Revolution began as a popular uprising against the Shah who replaced him.

For more extensive reading on the subject:

Inventing Iraq by Toby Dodge (I have some major issues with Dodge's conclusions post 9/11, but the historical analysis that makes up the majority of the book is solid)

Spies in Arabia by Priya Satia, and Lawrence in Arabia are good histories of imperial ambition during the WWI period and its after-effects

Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan for the political maneuvering of the Western powers

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin

I also recommend Edward Said, if you're looking for cultural analysis as well as history

u/Rey_del_Doner · 18 pointsr/Turkey

Guenter Lewy, a Holocaust survivor and Professor Emeritus of Political Science, successfully sued the SPLC after an Armenian employee convinced an editor to write an article claiming Lewy was “part of a network of persons, financed by the Turkish government, to promote the denial of the Armenian Genocide.” In settlement, the SPLC entirely retracted their claims and apologized.

His 2006 book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide refutes most of the arguments Armenians have used to promote their genocide allegations.

C-SPAN Book Discussion

Solarz: To what extent was the seizure of Van, and the Turks who were killed by the Armenians, the development which precipitated the deportation decision?

Lewy: At the Paris Peace Conference, the Armenians bragged that the uprising of Van had distracted entire Turkish divisions, who had to be removed from the Caucasus Front back to Van to suppress the uprising. There’s no question that this was a seminal event in reaching the decision for deportation.

Interview

Lewy talks about how most non-Armenian, non-Turkish scholars of Ottoman history do not accept the Armenian version of events.

u/EstacionEsperanza · 16 pointsr/islam

A Peace to End all Peace by historian David Fromkin covers this in great detail. It's a great read if you want to be sad and angry and confused.

u/hobblingcontractor · 16 pointsr/badhistory

Instead of stepping on a possible landmine, I'd recommend asking her about it to learn as much as you can from her. The national narrative differs quite a bit from most books.

So you've got the standard Fromkin:
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation-ebook/dp/B003X27L7C/

Karen House as an overview:

http://www.amazon.com/On-Saudi-Arabia-People-Religion-ebook/dp/B007MDK5GM/

Then you've got the . . . interesting take on it from Alexei Vassiliev.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Saudi-Arabia-Alexei-Vassiliev-ebook/dp/B00F21X5Y0/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

There's more stuff but that should give a fairly comprehensive overview for what you're looking on.

u/Logical1ty · 13 pointsr/islam

> And I cannot join together the image of a relatively peaceful religion of pretty great people (which I say really without any irony or quote marks) with all the wars that are caused by Islam itself and by its internal differences.

Christianity went through pretty much the same phase, but even more violent and bloody. And unlike the Muslim world, it wasn't precipitated by external forces meddling in internal political affairs. It just spontaneously happened.

I suggest reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting in Iraq because of greed, a massive political power vacuum, and the spark that ignited the blaze was Al-Qaeda in Iraq (now ISIS) targeting Shi'ites and their Mosques for attacks, purposefully stoking a civil war (so they could have a chance at seizing control once the civil war took down the government and chased out the US... they wanted to rule over the ashes of Iraq). It failed because the US got the Sunnis to turn on the extremists (the Sunni Awakening). But then Syria collapsed into civil war, so the Iraqi insurgents went there and reorganized, took land, then swept back into Iraq.

A modern Western country could wipe ISIS off the face of the Earth in a ground campaign in probably a few weeks (or less if they were willing to put up with a few casualties). I think they'd prefer just watching what happens and bombing from afar (even when their own citizens become targets of ISIS, desperately trying to get the people behind the bombers to engage them on the ground so they can actually shoot back at them).

The Sunni-Shi'ite conflict in Syria/Iraq played into the pre-existing wider regional conflict between Iran and Saudi-Arabia with Iran's influence extending over Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the Assad government in Syria (as well as the Shi'ites in Iraq and Shi'ite minorities in the Persian Gulf). This conflict has been raging since 1979 after Iran's Islamic Revolution (watch the intro to the movie Argo for background on that), after which the CIA instigated their man in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, to fight Iran in a disastrous decade-long conflict.

Sunnis and Shi'ites, like Protestants and Catholics, don't usually just fight and aren't usually at each other's throats but if the situation pushes them enough, they will turn on each other (see: Northern Ireland, which was in modern times, not centuries ago).

This is an extreme simplification.

u/LIGHTNlNG · 11 pointsr/islam
u/iloveyoujesuschriist · 9 pointsr/todayilearned

>We didn't kill the Armenians because they were Armenians or because we wanted to exterminate their whole race like Hitler, but because it was war and they were our enemies.

People such as Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, who was an early member of the Nazi Party, and Hans von Seeckt spent time in Ottoman Turkey and drew inspiration from what was happening. Even Rudolf Höss, who would later be the commandant of Auschwitz, was there. He joined the German forces in Turkey.

Yes, there was an armed Armenian insurgency, but the Turks responded to that but going to every single Armenian village and slaughtering every single Armenian they could get their hands on, without respect to age or gender. The vast majority of which had absolutely nothing to do with that insurrection. Turkish soldiers took babies and bashed their brains out on rocks. They enticed the help of the Kurds in carrying away the women to be raped. Railways and cattle cars were used to transport Armenian people from one end of the empire to the other, which shares parallels with the trains used to transport Jews to death and labour camps.

Enver Pasha told Henry Morgenthau that the Armenians were being sent to "new quarters", just as the Jews were latter to be "resettled".

Morgenthau himself stated: "Persecutions of Armenians assuming unprecedented proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate systematic attempt to uproot peaceful Armenian populations and through arbitrary arrests, terrible tortures, whole-sale expulsions and deportations from one end of the Empire to the other accompanied by frequent instances of rape, pillage, and murder, turning into massacre, to bring destruction on them. These measures are not in response to popular or fanatical demand but are purely arbitrary and directed from Constantinople in the name of military necessity, often in districts where no military operations are likely to take place."

Furthermore, Taalat Pasha said this in an official document to his prefect: "You have already been advised that the Government, by order of the Djemiet, has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons [Armenians] living in Turkey.

Their existence must come to an end, however tragic the means may be; and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to conscientious scruples."

How on earth can you describe this as anything other than genocide?

EDIT: In case you think that Morgenthau's account is not credible since he was representing a country at war with the Ottoman Empire, I point you towards von Wagenheim, a German ambassador who lead a diplomatic mission to the Ottoman Empire, who recounted that Talat had admitted that the deportations were not "being carried out because of 'military considerations alone'". One month later, he came to the conclusion that there "no longer was doubt that the Porte was trying to exterminate the Armenian race in the Turkish Empire"

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

Thanks to DrPoop_PhD

u/Ian56 · 9 pointsr/worldpolitics

Israeli history Professor Shlomo Sand The Invention of the Jewish People https://www.amazon.co.uk/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234

Ashkenazi Jews originated in the Caucasus and converted to Judaism in the 8th Century AD. They have no ancestral and no DNA relationship to the Middle East.

First Customer Review:-

A thorough and interesting update on 'The Khazar Hypothesis'. In this book Shlomo Sand goes into considerable detail about the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews, providing considerable support for the view that they are of Khazar origin, and are a Slavic, not a Semitic people.

Arthur Koestler's pioneering book, 'The Thirteenth Tribe' from 1976 was subjected to all the ire that the powerful Israeli propaganda machine could throw at it. Sand's book is much better researched, and written in a less provocative manner.

More on the Origins of Ashkenazi Jews, the Origins and History of Israel, and the real reasons why Israel bombed Gaza in 2014 http://ian56.blogspot.com/2014/07/an-honest-israeli-jew-tells-real-truth_11.html

u/Usernamewhichtaken · 9 pointsr/Turkey

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/lies-damn-lies-and-armeni_b_211408.html - Huffington Post, Bruce Fein

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/10/turkey-armenia-genocide - Newstatesman (i don't know about this guys but it says about Turkey's proposal to Armenia, let's build a joint historical commission.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#1914_Ottoman_census - Wikipedia, demography of the Ottoman Empire @1914 which says ~1.1 million Armenians were living in Ottoman Empire (Armenians say ~1.5 million Armenians got killed by Turks)

http://www.eglencelitarih.com/?Syf=26&Syz=418032 - A Turkish website called "Funny History", website has some photos (some of them can't be read and most of them written with arabic alphabet) but you can use google translate for the "structure" of it. But i'm going to write a few from the website;

"Armenian bureau, in Tbilisi, published a report that states Armenians joined Russian army as volunteers, with the help of Russia they will be independent and flag of Russia will be hanged to the Istanbul and Canakkale (then there is a photo)"

"Eygpitian newspaper, pblished in 21 October 1915, made a news about Armenians; Thinking that it isn't possible to defend our villages we took food and supplies then moved to the Musa Mountain. We were 5000 people as 6 Armenian village. Survivors are 4049 in total, childrens under 4 years 413, 4-14 year old girls are 505, 4-14 year old boys 606, more then 14 year old women 1449, more then 14 year old men 1076."

"As a requirement of your instructions, talked with Malezian and Damadian. In Cyprus there will be 5000 Armenians as ready to attacking North Syrian coast. .." (UK ARCHIVES FO 371/2485, No. 115866)

"After the growth of rebellion Ottoman Empire made a decision, moving Armenians to the Syria and (another place). They were given 1 week of time for preparing."

http://bit.ly/2qAHdjP - Imprescriptle, a french website, writes about Pierre Loti on this page which shows that Armenians attacked and killed Turks and Bedouins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-XxG2alJv0 - Interview with Guenter Lewy about his book (http://amzn.to/2qyyONs) which is called Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkish. Why did i put him there ? Because he was called "connected with Turkish Government, financed by Turks".

http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/what-do-real-historians-and-experts-say - A website dedicated to Armenian Genocide (or whatever you call), talks about historicans who mostly deny using genocide word.

https://ricochet.com/archives/the-voltaire-project-i-deny-the-armenian-genocide/ - Ricochet, i don't know this site either but there is a statement.

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/gilles.htm - Another website dedicated to Armenian genocide, this webpage is about Gilles Veinstein.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/5ov46v/up_to_1917_up_to_600000_turks_and_kurds_were/ - From the Turkish subreddit, a post about what Armenians done to Turks and Kurds up to 1917.

https://en.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitaplar-1418 - General Directorate of State Archives of the Prime Ministry of the Republic of Turkey, shows about Armenians and Allies (WWI) (books are Turkish unfortunately but books say they have benn translated to English too).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS65RvEGEh8 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r917rWj8cgA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJsyI8Lr9T4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2NA8K9c_os - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKkA8q23ol4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bg2n_4rRbE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNZ8JMKlRKY - A speech made by Prof. Justin McCarthy.

I failed to find about smth but as i know Carter Vaughan Findley made researchs about Turks (or mostly Ottomans). He probably talked about this. This are all i could found in like 2 hours.

-I have listed a few source about Armenian thing(genocide,massacre etc.) but you are the one who is going to accept or deny it.

What is wrong using bitly reddit what is wrong ?

u/boedoef · 7 pointsr/Turkey

bahsi geçen kitap.

u/FlavivsAetivs · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

For a solid read/introduction, try Carter Vaughn Findley's The Turks in World History.

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0195177266/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I6P1BHLGDYRDX&colid=34L2ZEROOHSDL&psc=0

u/estacado · 6 pointsr/movies

From page 498 of A Peace to End All Peace:
>The public believed Thomas's account; so that when Lawrence became an adviser to Winston Churchill, his appointment over-shadowed all others. His reputation grew. He passed off his fantasies as history, and in the years to come, Lawrence was to claim far more credit for his share in Churchill's achievements as Colonial Secretary than was his due.
.....A few years later Thomas wrote a book called With Lawrence in Arabia, based on the show,repeating the story he had told to his mass audiences of millions around the world. It was an immensely readable, high-spirited write-up of Lawrence's service career—much of it untrue—that made its points through hyper-bole.

Here's a screenshot of the page for more context.

u/houseofbeards · 6 pointsr/Showerthoughts

Read it here. The author mentions that such voyages are mentioned in the geography text of al-Masudi from the 900s.

Now please send Hawaiian Punch.

u/chazwmeadd · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

They were referred to as Janissaries, but they were essentially just state sponsored pirates. The Barbary Coast was for a time the western periphery of the Ottoman Empire, but the relationships between the beys/deys of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli (not so much Morocco) was more of a formality than anything. The Barbary States paid their taxes and weakened the economies of other European nations while in return they were provided with all the benefits associated with being under the protection of the Ottoman Empire. Casale talks about all of this in his book The Ottoman Age of Exploration.

u/SploonTheDude · 6 pointsr/syriancivilwar

There are many books, museums and even documents on the topic. But a good book to start on is: https://www.amazon.com/They-Live-Desert-Nowhere-Else/dp/0691147302

u/323c08f3-79c4-4508-b · 5 pointsr/worldnews

Another Israeli historian Shlomo sand actually wrote a whole book about israel.
As far as i know, he still a professor in University of Tel Aviv.
source

u/duggatron · 5 pointsr/politics

Well there's even more to the situation than this article mentions. The US was actually helping to arm both Iraq and Iran with the goal of helping to inflict casualties on both sides. A weak Iran and Iraq tipped the power scales in the middle east toward Israel and Saudi Arabia, which was and is the US's desired balance in the middle east powers.

To learn more about it, read Reset by Stephen Kinzer. It's a great book, as are Kinzer's other books.

u/evilregis · 4 pointsr/worldnews

The media is useless. Honestly, just do some reading. I highly recommend History of the Middle East. It's a very in-depth, impartial look at the Middle East starting with a quick one-chapter primer to get you up to speed from ancient to modern times, then going much more in-depth starting around 1800 up to modern day problems such as the Arab-Israeli conflict.

If you want to confine your reading to the Arab-Israeli conflict, then I would recommend The Iron Wall which will start you off around 1947, post WWII.

The Israel/Gaza fiasco is just the latest in a looooong chain of events. Again, anyone coming down solely on one side over the other is simply ignorant of all of the facts. There's no such thing as an innocent player in this and to pretend there is is simply foolish.

u/AshesToPhoenix · 4 pointsr/lebanon

Beirut - Samir Kassir
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beirut-Samir-Kassir/dp/0520271262
I also suggest researching the author :)

u/shimmyyay · 4 pointsr/videos

If you are interested in further reading about their impact as well as the making of the modern Middle East following WWI, I highly suggest this book. http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/thelasian · 4 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

What rubbish.

There was no such thing as "The Jews" nor was Israel their "homeland":

https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234

https://www.amazon.com/Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754


Even the rabbis are facing some facts:


>Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books/new-torah-for-modern-minds.html


Even if you accept Bible as history, in total "The Jews" were politically dominant in the area for a grand total of 600 years out of the thousands of years of history there.

In fact the whole idea of a "national homeland for the Jews" was Manufactured in Europe based on the same 19th century "Blood and Soil" ethnocentricism that created Nazism.

And considering how many wars and conflicts have resulted from the creation of Israel, saying that it has somehow secured them is absolutely silly. And in any case why should we prioritize the security of Jews over that of Palestinians? Why should a Palestinian suffer because Jews were treated badly in Europe?

u/Cetian · 4 pointsr/socialism

Books on the subject are somewhat hard to come by, but here is one related by TAORT Kurdistan (translated by Janet Biehl), about the organization of north kurdistan, which later inspired the organization of west kurdistan, or Rojava:
http://www.amazon.com/Democratic-Autonomy-North-Kurdistan-Liberation/dp/8293064269/

Declaration of Democratic Confederalism by Öcalan:
http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=10174

Kurdish Communalism:
http://new-compass.net/article/kurdish-communalism

A Case for Communalism in Kurdistan:
http://new-compass.net/articles/communalist-alternative-capitalist-modernity

Libertarian Socialist perspective (from August):
http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-struggle-autonomy/

Edit: Fixed info on sources.

u/mephistopheles2u · 4 pointsr/lebanon

As an American who grew up in Beirut I can only tell you how jealous I am.

My advice:

1)Learn Arabic. Yes it's hard, and no you won't master it. And yes, everyone speaks English, French or both...but do it.

2) Learn the history - it's very interesting and people will be impressed that you cared enough to do so.

Start with: http://www.amazon.com/Beirut-Samir-Kassir/dp/0520271262/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348796298&sr=1-1&keywords=Beirut

http://www.amazon.com/Beware-Small-States-Lebanon-Battleground/dp/1568586574/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348796349&sr=1-1&keywords=beware+of+small+states

3) Almost everybody has a home town/village. Learn the geography and accept all invitations to visit. Beirut is great, but you learn Lebanon from the small towns.

4) Yes, Americans are appreciated and given some slack. But get yourself an informal coach there and give them permission to enlighten you on the cultural norms. They are very different than the US and if you can make mistakes only once, you show you are interested and care.

5) The Lebanese food is the best in the Middle East and they are very proud of it. Learn it before you go and try everything....over and over again. Even the stuff you don't like to begin with will grow on you.

6) Find a brie (drinking jug) and learn to drink out of the spout (this means swallowing while the water is still coming out. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cP-2t4P84Og/TI4r2ji5hxI/AAAAAAAABCg/C5ZmKwrNSYI/s1600/IMG_1257.jpg

u/babak1980 · 3 pointsr/ArabIsraeliConflict

> Jews had the Jerusalem as their capital for centuries.

For about 800 years, even assuming that the Bible is true

out of a total how many years of civilization there?

And they stole it from the Canannites, yes?

But in fact the Jewish residents of Jerusalem welcomed the Arabs in the Siege of Jerusalem, which at the time was under Byzantine control and not Jewish control -- the Byzantines had massacred the Jews in fact. Under the Muslims, the Jews were able to once again practice their religion, FYI

There has never been a country called Florida either, does that mean you get to steal that land and drive out its inhabitants to manufacture a fake version of a non-existent past?

And speaking of national identity, who are these "The Jews" you speak of at all?

The Invention of the Jewish People
by Shlomo Sand

http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234

u/elizadaring · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

There is an excellent book called A Peace to End all Peace.

It gives a great view of WWI with all the actors in the Middle East from the perspective of a bunch of different people like Winston Churchill, Lawrence of Arabia, and Ataturk. It is also really easy and entertaining to read (I read it at the pool).

u/isorfir · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

I was also going to make a note but when I looked it up on amazon, it's apparently only $2.91 with free shipping (prime), so I just ordered it.

u/Arkansan13 · 3 pointsr/changemyview

> These are all very rare occurrences in history and generally deal with inhospitable terrain and other factors that would have made it rather irrelevant here.

Nope. Guerrilla warfare was well understood in both the ancient and medieval world and became an increasingly frequent feature of conflict with the rise of gunpowder.

Here is the in depth wiki article on the subject.

Here is a work arguing that guerrilla warfare has been a defining feature of human conflict.

Beyond that there was a long standing tradition of guerrilla warfare in the America's stretching back to the Spanish expeditions in the mid 1500's. It was extensively practiced by the French and Indian war. In fact during the American Civil war it was practiced, the border regions Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee became hotbeds of low scale guerrilla conflict that later spawned more organized guerrilla units like Quantrill's Raiders.

Terrain most certainly would be a factor. The south has several mountainous regions, deep forests, extensive rivers etc. Beyond that the real advantage of terrain in Guerrilla warfare is that one side typically has a much more intimate knowledge of the area than the other, giving them more tactical options in relation to maneuver. The terrain need not be difficult itself for locals with an excellent knowledge of it to make it difficult for an occupying force.

>Guerrillas need to eat.

Everyone needs to eat. This isn't really a relevant statement the way you think it is. Typically Guerrilla forces don't require the extensive supply trains that standing conventional armies do to keep fed. Guerrillas typically source the provisions from local support, raiding, and foraging. Beyond that you are talking about the South in a time when the majority of it's populace practiced sustenance level agriculture, it would have been very feasible to keep small units fed than it would have been a standing army.
The Confederacy's trouble supplying it's armies was partially based on it's poor internal infrastructure and inability to transport what goods they had. This isn't the same kind of concern for a small force operating out of a localized area.

>Why not? The transcontinental railroad was built with less pomp and circumstance than you're proposing here.

No it wasn't. The transcontinental railroad was a massive undertaking that required tremendous funding, manpower, and planning.

>The north's moral position was that the south unconstitutionally tried to leave the union, and that then the south instigated a war. That position is unassailable.

The North's moral position was rooted in a political conflict over slavery. Had slavery not been the issue at hand it would have difficult to garner the support to continue the war in the early years as the North suffered a string of defeats in the first two years of the conflict that saw many wanting to draw a peace with the south. It required a great deal of political maneuvering and an involving of many church networks in the north to drive home the idea of the war as a moral issue of more than just succession. Turning around and selling off Confederate soldiers likely would have caused a crisis of public perception in a populace already shaken by the assassination of President Lincoln.

u/merlin318 · 3 pointsr/islam

Pretty sure the pic is from the Lost Islamic History book.

u/Outofmany · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

There have been hushed mutterings from a few geneticists that the Jews' heritage doesn't go back to the roots one might expect. I should warn that even taking an interest in this topic makes you an anti-semite, so since you're already cursed, the two main books are:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Thirteenth-Tribe-Empire-Heritage/dp/0445042427

http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407268340&sr=1-1&keywords=shlomo+sand


u/AndrijKuz · 3 pointsr/history

A PEACE TO END ALL PEACE by David Fromkin. In my opinion, you should start with this before anything else. Well researched, respected in the academic community, well written. It's absolutely one of the best books on the subject, and the first place I would go.

Bonus FYI: the "redrawing" period went on from 1918-1922.

Also, this book is primarily focused on the Middle East, so you won't get as much on post-war Germany, or the African continent. But it will give you tons of context for what happened during the peace conference.

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805088091/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_zs7iDb51WDZHF

Edit spelling.

u/Elliot_Loudermilk · 3 pointsr/islam

Biographies of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

Martin Ling's "Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources"
| Amazon
| PDF
| Audiobook

Sheikh Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarkpuri "The Sealed Nectar"
| Amazon
| PDF (Older edition)


Autobiographies

Muhammad Asad "The Road to Mecca"
| Amazon
| PDF

Jeffrey Lang "Even Angels Ask: A Journey to Islam in America"
| Amazon

| PDF

Alex Haley and Malcolm X "The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley"
Amazon
| PDF

Other recommendations

Firas Alkhateeb "Lost Islamic History"

Hamza Tzortzis "The Divine Reality: God, Islam & The Mirage Of Atheism"

Given your background, some speakers you may find beneficial:

Sheikh Hussain Yee - From Buddhism to Islam

Abdur-Raheem Green - How I Came to Islam

Joshua Evans - How the Bible Led Me to Islam: The Story of a Former Christian Youth Minister

u/BrentPurpose · 3 pointsr/MuslimNoFap

Wa 'alaykum as salam wa rahmatul lahi wa barakatuh

I hope you're okay and in good health, brother /u/alienz225 - May Allah cure you and firm you upon the deen.

Bismillah...

Arabic books:

  • Kitab At-Tawheed - Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahab - PDF

  • Al-Qawaa'id Al-Arba'a - Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahab - PDF

  • Talbees Iblees [Devil's Deception] - Ibn Al-Jawzi - PDF

  • 'Umdat Al-Fiqh - Ibn Qudaamah - PDF

    English books:

  • Don't be Sad - A'id al Qarni - Buy from Amazon

  • A Thematic Commentary on The Qur'an - Muhammad Al-Ghazali - Buy from Amazon

  • Riyadul Saliheen - Imam An-Nawawi - English Commentary.

  • Lost Islamic History - Firas Al-Khateeb. Buy from Amazon

  • 40 Ahadith - Imam An Nawawi - Buy from Amazon -- AMAZING!!!!!!

  • Gems and Jewels - Abdul Malik Mujahid -- Buy from Amazon

  • Talbees Iblees [Devil's Deception] - [Translated by Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips] - PDF

    ---

    Some of the best books, after the book of Allaah [i.e The Qur'an] in: Aqeedah, Hadeeth, Tafseer, Arabic Language, Seerah, Methodology of Da'wah etc According to Sheikh Muhammad Bazmool (May Allah preserve him):

  • Tafseer for the beginner - Tafseer Al Baghawi - PDF - Arabic -- Then you can move onto reading Tafsir Ibn Kathir, even.

  • In the issues of 'Aqidah required by the Muslim - Kitab At Tawheed - Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab [First Book - Look up there, inih]

  • The Best explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari - Fat'hul Bari - Imam Ibn Hajr Al-'Asqalaani

  • Regarding the ahadeeth dealing with good ettiquettes (or manners) -- Riyadul Saliheen by Imam An Nawawi

  • In the science of Hadith [Marifatu Anwaa' Uloom Al Hadeeth]

  • Meanings of the word in the Arabic Language - [Mu'jam Maqayees Al-Lughaa - Ibn Faris] [BrentPurpose's Note: A good Arabic-English dictionary site is Almaany]

  • Refutation against the Shia' : Minhaaj As-Sunnah - Ibn Taymiyyah

  • The general prophetic guidance - [Zaadul-Ma'ad - Ibn Al-Qayyim]

  • Acquaintance with the Sahabah - [Al-Isabaah' - Ibn Hajr Al-'Asqalaani]

  • Seerah of the Prophet: As-Seerah - Ibn Hisham

  • Explanation for Muwatta' Imam Malik - [At-'Tamheed - Ibn Abdul Barr]

  • Methodology of Da'wah: Manahajul Al Anbiyaah Fid Da'wati Il-Allaah! - Shaikh Rabee'

    End Quote.

    Of course, the majority of these books are just beginner books. You could always try to find the works of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Al-Qayyim... considering their books are so well-known, it's safe to assume some of their books have English translations.

    A great Tafseer book is - Tafseer ibn Kathir.

    Also try to check out Al-Fawaa'id - Ibnul Qayyim.

    Lectures to follow:

  • Tawheed Series - Sh. Ahmad Musa Jibril Link Here - English - Really beneficial!

  • The Life of 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab - Anwar Al-'Awlaki Link here -ENGLISH

    I'm assuming the recommended sources will be of benefit, insha'Allah! I ask Allah to bless us and guide us and May Allah protect us from His wrath and punishment and May Allah admit us into Jannatul Firdous.
u/pandazerg · 3 pointsr/movies

A History of the Modern Middle East

An earlier version of this book was part of my university curriculum, and I found it to be fairly unbiased. It examines the middle east over the past 200 years, from the roots of modern conflicts through to the present strife in the region.

u/itsfineitsgreat · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Dude, I've read...lots and lots of books on the subjects. Saying its "the fault" of the West is highly, highly simplifying a rather complex situation. lol "read wiki".

Dude, read this. Don't ever think that you got informed on something from a wiki article. The West had a role, but it's not like, oh, I dunno, the people of the Arabian Peninsula were just on the sidelines, passively observing.

The same goes for Afghanistan.

u/rogersiii · 3 pointsr/politics

I guess not being genocidal war criminals is not an option then? I guess not when you have to find some way to justify murdering people and stealing their lands to create an ethnically-purified mythical "homeland" for a made-up people. http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234/

u/emp_omelettedufromag · 2 pointsr/worldnews

> to really understand what's going on today in the middle east, you pretty much have to go back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1, and then work your way forward from there

Absolutely. Actually one of my 2016 objectives was to gain a better understanding in Middle Eastern history which was something I really lacked. I am in no way an expert now but have a better idea on how everything unfolded post Ottoman Empire fall and I am genuinely disturbed at seeing how absolutely no one ever mentions any bit of relevant history in the media. The lack of any attempt at explanation is really bothering me :/

If you're interested, this book taught me a lot: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Lots of very interesting stories about how the Middle East was built post-Ottoman empire!

u/mhk2192 · 2 pointsr/history

There's a book called: A Peace to end all Peace
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

It was a great book and helped me have a decent understanding of how the West screwed over rebelling Muslims during WWI which eventually led to the conflict we see today. It doesn't directly reference Hamas but it talks about why the Middle East is screwed up and tensions between the Jews and Arabs following WWI.

u/dassitt · 2 pointsr/islam

Martin Lings is great! Also, if you're looking for a book that doesn't delve too much into the history of Islam's theological development but discusses Islamic history throughout the ages and Islam's impact on the world, Lost Islamic History by Firas Alkhateeb is gold!

u/deleted_OP · 2 pointsr/WarCollege

Lots of great answers everyone. I see that I have a lot of reading to do and that is a good thing. Just for anyone also interested I compiled all of the named books into a list and sourced them, for your reading pleasure.



The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen

Counterinsurgency by David Kilcullen

Out of the Mountains by David Kilcullen

Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons From Malaya and Vietnam by John Nagl

Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods by John Poole

Modern War: Counter-Insurgency as Malpractice by Edward Luttwak

A Savage War of Peace by Alistar Horne

The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Lester Grau

Invisible Armies by Max Boot

Vid Putivla do Karpat by Sydir Artemovych Kovpac

Fire in the Lake by Frances FitzGerald

Inside Rebellion by Jeremy M. Weinstein

u/studdbeefpile · 2 pointsr/changemyview

You literally just described how the borders of the middle east were drawn after ww1. And I mean literally literally. How'd that work out?

u/ubermynsch · 2 pointsr/changemyview

didn't Cyrus the great, (the persians) free the jews? lol. Also the continuity of jewish history is adequately questioned in this book, http://www.amazon.ca/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417045798&sr=1-1
but this is besides the point,
the real question is, who has the power to, often anachronistically, create history in the first place?

>most white people have nothing to do with black's people's predicament

there are some people in the world who have historically benefited from the oppression of others, regardless of their intentions (although that was made clear in the earlier quote i gave). In western society, racism is intrinsically linked to white supremacy; as such, only those who benefit from white supremacy, only those who have access to this "privilege," may be identified as racist. When non-whites are negatively biased against one another, who benefits in the end? In a similar vein, when a supplier and a consumer engage in a trade, sure they each benefit, but who are those that ultimately benefit? In the first case, it is those who have access to white privilege, and not those affected by internalizing and believing the illusions that they are inferior races (if you are a dark skinned black women, take a moment to google image the term 'beauty'.. how would it affect you to see light skinned people as the prime idea of what this term encompasses?'). In the second, it is those who have access to printing currency and determining its trajectory. Of course, this is why intersectionality is important: those who ultimately benefit in both cases are the same people. the fact that some of the oppressed have been able to climb out of the hole and others have not been able to, doesn't really matter. all of this requires empathy.

Take for instance, the idea of ‘ethnic solidarity’; where migrants and minorities provide economic and social support that is biased against or excludes white communities. Those who claim that this exclusion is racist against whites; or that, by prejudicing and categorizing their own and/or other non-white communities as being vulnerable, they are perpetuating ‘the problem’ are missing the point all together: that the problem of racism is nothing without power. In other words, oppressive institutions, in this case involving race and economic/social power (class), are necessarily interconnected and cannot be understood separately. The more precise our level of analysis would like to be, the more context dependent it becomes.



u/unclepj60 · 2 pointsr/todayilearned
u/stackedmidgets · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Price and use would be a good indicator of this.

>They were largely indiscriminate, in terms of race and sex.

This is quite wrong. [1][2][3] They used different peoples for different purposes. I've only read summaries of [3]. You couldn't actually say this unless you were pretty unfamiliar with the Ottomans.

My comment was a bit of a dark joke. The concept of 'racism' is an artifact of 20th century Allied war propaganda (and Soviet anti-American propaganda), and doesn't really apply to older societies. Recognized differences between peoples was ordinary. And it's still ordinary on a worldwide basis. It's even fairly ordinary in a lot of European countries that provide state funding to different religious groups that cater to different ethnic groups.

[1]http://jreuter.hubpages.com/hub/The-Harem-Luxuries-and-Enslavement-within-the-Sultans-Palace
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
[3]http://www.amazon.com/Women-Slavery-Late-Ottoman-Empire/dp/1107411459

u/RunShootDrink · 2 pointsr/battlefield_one

A Peace to End All Peace isn't directly about WWI, but it does a great job of explaining how the war and its aftermath led to the modern Middle East.

u/feedtheoctopus · 2 pointsr/worldnews
u/5BagsOfPopcorn2Sodas · 2 pointsr/news

And it worked, until Maliki's horrible governance undid everything we achieved. "Hearts and minds" is a key tenet of any successful counterinsurgency; it's why the surge was successful, it's why the British in Malaya were successful, and its absence was why Vietnam was such a disastrous campaign.

If you want to learn more about insurgencies and how they are defeated, I'd strongly recommend checking out this book.

u/Convexreflection · 2 pointsr/socialism

It has to do with oil and the imperialism, all the contemporary wars in the area was because of oil and colonization. Centuries ago everywhere was war. :) Because of the oil peace has never reached the middle East. Just like Africa and it's minerals.
Iran and the Ottomanian empire made several peace treaties and border definition in 15th and 16th century. They never attacked each other after that.
Edit: I really suggest you to read the book "a peace to end all peace: the fall of the Ottomanian empire and the creation of the modern Middle East", before making such comment. It is from a Westerner's point of view not complete but very informative.
https://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/beesupvote · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

A Peace to End All Peace

It's not a general history of WWI, as it deals with the war in the Ottoman theater. To my knowledge, it's the definitive history of WWI and its aftermath in the Mid-East for a general audience.

u/czulu · 1 pointr/history

If you're quite interested, I'd recommend Invisible Armies by Max Boot. It'll take some time to get through but it covers every major insurgency in recorded history and he's a pretty good writer so the read goes faster than expected.

u/lizzieb_23 · 1 pointr/worldnews

Nonsense, and nobody said facts matter less than feelings. It is a FACT that Palestnians have been ethnically-cleansed by Israel. Note that not ONE jew is sent to refugee camps, only Palestinians are, and not ONE Palestinian is granted an automatic "Right of return" from anywhere in the world to enjoy state-subsidized housing in settlements in Israel, only Jews are -- do you think that's a coincidence?



Anyway, first of all Jews have and had been in the Middle East for a long time before Israel's creation, they're well integrated in the rest of the world too, and if anything it is Israel itself that is placing "the jews" in danger


Second, there is no "The Jews", it is a manufactured identity
https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234

https://www.amazon.com/Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754

Anyway, why should the Palestinians have to pay for Europe's antisemitism

https://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553

u/Mithras_Stoneborn · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

"A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East" by David Fromkin is the book you are looking for.

https://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/irishwristwatching · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

I took a Modern History of the Middle East overview class in college, and the Cleveland book already recommended was our main textbook for the course.

We also read [From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East] (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/104039.From_the_Holy_Mountain), which is not an objective overview, but rather an engaging travel narrative through the region which helped to make many of the complex historical nuances and religious conflicts much more 'real' and understandable for me.

u/chjones994 · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

Europe

Its a geopolitical history of the continent, not a social one. Not much on say, slavery, but a lot on shifting alliances and battles for position or power.


Private Empire: Exxon-Mobile and American Power

Big Oil & US foreign policy

Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present

goes into the difference between regular wars and guerrilla wars, sort of a history with tons of short chapters focusing on different wars, starts with Rome vs the jewish rebels

u/Theinternationalist · 1 pointr/worldnews

The present regime is heavily based off of a few core values:

  1. Anti-Israel: Lots of Muslims/Arabs hate it, and acting as the prime lightning rod for anti-Zionism would theoretically get a lot of support from Arabs who would otherwise ignore their Persian ally. Many, if not most, Persians don't actually care about Israel and view it as an Arab issue; in fact, the Shah regime recognized the Israeli state and it isn't inconceivable that a post-Islamic Republic state would either. This may be outmoded however; Turkey had decent relations with Israel under Erdogan pre-Marmara and was never seen as an Israeli patsy. Still isn't, now that they're getting renormalized. Tangent aside, it's really just to play well with the Sunni crowd. Speaking of which...

  2. Shiite supremacy: I'm a little sketchy on the religious aspects, but Iran has acted in a similar capacity to Shiite groups in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and others that other "missionary" (I made that up) states like the USSR and ex-colonial states do: they intervene in the affairs of other states by saying "your government doesn't represent your pro-Labor values/your ethnicity, we do!" Even if the US dropped its alliance with Saudi Arabia and Israel tomorrow for one with Iran, it would have to contend with its other Sunni allies that resent/fear Persian manipulation/support for the downtrodden.

  3. Anti-Big Satan: Let's be perfectly blunt. Even if Iran could forswear any desire to help Hamas and other such groups win back their land militarily and stop annoying Saudi Arabia with its attempts to improve the lives of the Persians' co-religionists, there's the simple matter that the US supported the Shah and hasn't exactly been nice since the Shah. There's a bit of he-said, she-said/You sanction and let the Saudis/Lebanese/whoever suppress the Palestinians/Shiites, we attack (or other way around, I'm not sure and both sides will say the other started it by this point). There have been some attempts, including an Iranian offer to talk soon after the fall of Baghdad, but it all seems to be stuck at the moment. I just hope that things improve.

    Too Short, Need Meat: Check out Stephen Kinzer's book. It actually speaks to your question about America's relationship with Turkey and Iran vis a vis its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's good.
u/sockpupet999 · 1 pointr/Israel
u/imk · 1 pointr/history

I'm not sure that I would call it "the best", but I heartily recommend Lords Of The Golden Horn by Noel Barber. The history of the Ottoman Empire had plenty of the same kookiness that makes Roman history so intriguing.

u/rodandanga · 1 pointr/CFBOffTopic

A Peace to end all Peace

It has been really good, I am glad I had a decent knowledge of the subject before starting it.

u/this_guy_says · 1 pointr/worldnews

> Until the US overthrew Saddam and the Arab Spring, the region was generally stable. A hell of a lot more stable than ti is now

So in turn the US created a power vacuum... Instability in the Middle East has been the goal for over a century. Read something, like http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091


And what about the CIA's major role in overthrowing democratically elected politicians?

u/SnackRelatedMishap · 1 pointr/worldnews

> this being pretty common and undisputed knowledge.

While that's the commonly held belief, it is not undisputed.

Shlomo Sand, a professor of Israeli history at Tel Aviv university, posits in his book The Invention of the Jewish People that Ashkenazi jewry is not in fact descended from the Jews who once lived in Judea and Samaria, but rather that they are decended from peoples who converted to Judaism in the middle ages. He draws on a wide range of archaeological, historical and demographic evidence to support his claim, and presents a persuasive argument.

While this book has come under heavy criticism in the West, it's worth mentioning that it was well received in Israel, and was on the bestseller list there for nineteen weeks.

Edit: I see that Sand now has a follow-up book, called The Invention of the Land of Israel. The Guardian has a review here, for those interested.

u/ThirtyAxes · 1 pointr/Masastan

This map including your video on youtube is complete BS. You have no idea on the nature of Jews and you are just peddling Jewish mythologies that have no basis in reality. The scientific papers you reference use vague genetic findings that make assumptions based on those vague findings to align with Jewish mythologies which can be easily disproven by actual history and other more rigorous scientific papers. In fact, there was no "Roman exile" from Palestine (the original Jews were only banned from the old city of Jerusalem to the surrounding area) and practically all Jews today are descended from converts from various locations outside of the Levant, mostly North Africa (Berbers), Europe, Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Russia, and Yemen. Many of these Jews may have intermixed with one another to form a "pseudo-race" but that doesn't mean they originated from a single location like your map and video suggests. The descendants of the original Jews of Palestine are known as Palestinians today.

Go read "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Israeli professor and historian Dr. Shlomo Sand.

u/eric_ts · 1 pointr/history

I recommend "Peace to end all Peace" By David Fromkin http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/arjun10 · 1 pointr/socialism

I just finished reading Blood and Belief: The PKK and the Kurdish Fight for Independence. Pretty well written and a balanced look at the PKK, its history, and its evolution.

u/Billmarius · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Are you claiming that Judaism arose spontaneously, out of thin air? Perhaps the Hebrews just sprang out of the ground somewhere? Are you arguing that Judaism is the first, or earliest religion? That it has no historical antecedent whatsoever? That monotheism was not, in fact, predated by polytheism? Have you conducted any research to support these claims?

The segments in my post are well-cited. Perhaps you'd like to refute the authors of the research? By all means, look up the citations and compose angry, emotionally-based retorts to this historical and archaeological research.

Educate thyself. The following works are by Israeli authors:

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts

Authors: Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, an archaeologist, historian and contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.

The Invention of the Jewish People

Author: Shlomo Sand, Professor of History at Tel Aviv University





The Wandering Who

Author: Isreali-born Gilad Atzmon



Review:

It is a scholarly and truly monumental work, deeply profound and, of course, controversial. (Alan Hart, British Journalist and covert diplomat in Middle East, ITN's News at 10, BBC's Panorama)




u/socialkapital · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

I haven't read the newest edition, but I'd recommend Mehran Kamrava's The Modern Middle East.

Dan Smith's The State of the Middle East: An Atlas of Conflict and Resolution does a great job presenting things visually.

u/Nymeria2015 · 1 pointr/asoiaf

Cannot agree more.

Here is a book I thought was brilliant book.

https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Armies-History-Guerrilla-Warfare/dp/0871406888

u/400-Rabbits · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

The Turks In World History by Carter Findley would be a good starting point, as it covers Turkish history from Steppes to the present day in an accessible manner. It's a broad approach, but should be able to give you a framework to discover topics you may want to explore in more depth.

Since the Turks are a Central Asian people, you may want to learn more about Central Asian history in general. Grousset's The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia is the authoritative tome, but be forewarned, it's dense, really dense.

u/agfa12 · 1 pointr/counterjihad

> there is no concept of these nations beyond belonging to whatever ruling clan or tribe

And that is very much a description of Israel.

>Your phrase "manufactured state" is curious. What could it mean?



It means a nation built on an artificially constructed sense of national identity such as that which the Zionists created in order to manufacture "Israel":

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1844676234

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754



>The polls prove nothing.


LOL, I'll take the word of multiple independent polls over some ass on reddit anyday

u/CalvinMcManus · 1 pointr/history

There are a lot of leftist groups in South America which have had some real longevity, if not success, such as The Shining Path and FARC. There's the Taliban, who really started out as a protection racket for the Pakistani ISI and bloomed into a Islamist revolutionary army, and then a state, and then an insurgency. The Bush War between the Rhodesians, especially the Selous Scouts, and groups like the ZANU is pretty fascinating. Probably the most successful was Giuseppe Garibaldi who started as an insurgent fighter in both South America and Europe before eventually unifying the Italian state.

I'd highly recommend Invisible Armies by Max Boot. I think it would be right up your alley.

EDIT: After rereading your post I think you may be looking more toward "unconventional warfare" teams than "Guerrilla groups". I'd check out the CIA and Special Forces operations with the Montagnards in Southeast Asia, who ran five or ten man teams with local fighters against communist forces in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. The Brandenburgers of the German Abwehr were also really fascinating. They ran teams of commandos who were often bi-national or born overseas to run operations in their respective ethnic areas behind enemy lines in World War Two. One of their more famous ops had Russian speaking commandos dressing up as NKVD troops in Crimea and then directing Soviet troop formations on the way to the front in the wrong direction. After the war quite a few of them disappeared, with some ending up in the French Foreign Legion, if legends are to be believed.

u/blackstar9000 · 1 pointr/BooksAMA

As far as I know, the book is still representative of the current state of scholarship concerning the period. It deals exclusively with the period between 1914 and 1922, which is, by this time, relatively declassified in terms of documentation, so I wouldn't expect another book to eclipse it any time soon, unless someone happens to write a better synthesis of the available material.

It looks like the publisher recently released a 20th anniversary edition with an afterword from the author. That wasn't the edition I read, but I would imagine Fromkin's afterword serves as an index of more recent developments in the study of that period.

As for follow-up reading, my plan is to go regional, with a string of books about the development of the nationalisms that got their start in that period. So, on the one hand, I want to start digging backwards into the Ottoman Empire prior to the Young Turk movement (which more or less starts APTEAP), and on the other, I'd like to examine the modern histories of Transjordan, early Jewish nationalism, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Before I get to all of that, though, I've got A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani, which ought to keep me occupied for a while, once I start it.

u/jahdropping · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

Mehran Kamrava's The Modern Middle East, Third Edition: A Political History since the First World War is a good place to start. It covers topics relating to the Middle East overall, but there are (substantial) parts dedicated to conflicts surrounding Israel.

u/kerat · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

>of course nationalism is connected to language because nationalism is all about believing in the same thing and loving the same thing. To do that you must speak the same language to convey ideas to each other. But it could have been English for all I care! the fact the Jews spoke Hebrew had nothing to do with the UN vote. If you show me a source then there would be something to talk about.

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you tell me it had nothing to do with it, now you're telling me of course it does.

And I didn't say anything about the UN vote. The UN vote was secured by other means.

>Again, you keep saying the same thing without backing it up. You keep saying the fact that Jews spoke Hebrew was a major role in our claim to the country. Show me a source that says that

It is the logical conclusion of the statements I made earlier, which you have verified as true. Why don't you show me a source that says it isn't?! Hahaha..who says the burden of proof is on me here?? I just made a logical argument and you agreed to it.

Language plays a key role in nationalism and culture, and they could not have created the zionist pretence of "return" to a "national homeland" without having any single thing unifying the populace other than some shaky self-identification as "jews". Without a single thing unifying them, Ethiopian Jews and Yemeni Jews had absolutely nothing in common with secular Jews coming in from Germany, or Russian peasant jews, or American Jews showing up from Brooklyn. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the language played an extremely important role for zionism.

If you can't provide a source to dispute that, then at least provide a logical argument other than "no it didnt".


>So you think millions of people decided to only speak Hebrew just as a ruse that the Jews have a connection to Israel??

No, people didn't decide as some ruse. They wanted to believe in it. They wanted to feel like a unified nation.

>The purpose of Zionism was to go back to their roots, to what they used to be. And that was having a sovereign country, with a unique language.

This is exactly my point. It is an artificial identity. It is as artifical as a bunch of people invading Israel from Syrian and Lebanon and "modernizing" the Canaanite language. Their culture isn't Canaanite, they have the cultures of the Arabs, French, Greeks - whatever. Just as the Jews had the culture of the Germans, the Russians, etc. It is a nationalist myth. Many countries do this. The Finns, when striving for independence from Russia, concocted a nationalist architecture that was made up. They copied other scandinavian architecture and tweaked it and everyone acted as if it was some kind of indigenous Finnish architecture.



>If Hebrew (for some weird reason) caught on and was spoken in all the major countries, it would still be the native tongue of Israeli Jews.

Yes and if Hebrew wasn't artificially reconstructed, then what would Israel's national language be today? Russian? Arabic? German? Yiddish? Farsi? Ethiopian? All of them? How would this nation of cousins speak to each other? They wouldn't!


>And yes. If you learned Jewish history like I did, there was an exile from Israel. Some people went to Europe, and some people went to the arabian peninsula and north africa. But they all come from the same place... At the end of the day, both sects of Judaism are simply that. Jews. And that is the root that zionism is trying to get back to.

This isn't even agreed on!

I suggest you read The Invention of the Jewish People

Jews are not some ethnically united group. They didn't even 'leave'. Most stayed, and just converted to other religions. Those would be the Palestinians.

And getting back to some nationalist mythical culture is as artificial as Egyptians reviving the Pharaoh culture, or Lebanese and Syrians and Iraqis reviving Canaanite culture. It's artificial. It's fake. It's just there to make people happy and give them some sense of self-respect.

That is what zionism is about. Not returning or any of that shit. Theodore Herzl and the other founders of zionism were largely secular atheists. Zionism didn't take on the aire of "return" or any of that shit till later. It's easily proven - look at how many people who made aliyah to Israel "hebrewized" their names. People wanted to feel like they were 1 national group, so American jews coming in with names like John Carpenter or some shit are all of a sudden Avi Ben Ami or some shit. If you can't understand what I'm saying you are living in the same nationalistic dream land. Nationalist ethnically pure nation-states was a concept that died in the 20th century my friend.


u/michaelmalak · 0 pointsr/conspiracy

WWI smashed both Christendom (rule by Christian monarchs) across Europe, and the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. In its place were installed democracy (rule by puppets whose political campaigns were paid by the shadow elite) and dictatorship (rule by puppets installed by the military controlled by the shadow elite). Prior to WWI, the Christian and Muslim empires fought for territory but did not fight amongst themselves within their own territory. After WWI, the Middle East was divided and conquered, and European society was no longer Christian. The shadow elite was now able to enjoy power, wealth, and sex.

See http://www.amazon.com/1917-Red-Banners-White-Mantle/dp/0931888050 and http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091

u/robert_steele · 0 pointsr/IAmA

Mossad

  • I have worked with a couple of them. I respect them for being very very good at what they do. That is completely separate from the fact that much of what they do is off the scale on criminal.

    How Israelis look.

  • Israel is an invented nation. Every Arab (and every Jew) should read the following book: The Invention of the Jewish People at below URL:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1844676234/ossnet-20

    what about Jonathan Pollard?

  • Pollard is a traitor who has been mythologized by Israel. He tried to sell secrets to several other countries until Israel bought him. If I were president and Israel asked me to free Pollard, I would hang him on the front lawn of the White House and leave his body to rot--and then expel the entire Israeli Embassy from the USA.

    Kuwait and Iraq.

  • I have no direct knowledge. I do believe the US Ambassador Gillespie made a mess of things. However I also observe that the US Congress allowed itself to be lectured by the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador about babies being thrown from incubators as if she had been there, and I have to marvel at the stupidity of all of us in allowing such fraud to take place.

    Abu Gharib ?

  • Abu Gharib is an eternal shame on every American. The US Government broke the social contract with the National Guard, and in invading Iraq on the basis of 935 now-proven lies (truth-dig), cost the US citizens over three trillion, then a broken economy, and the loss of legtimacy in the eyes of anyone with a brain. Combined with the CIA's rendition flights and torture, and now the CIA drone program, I must confess to being very ashamed of all that is done in our name and at our expense. There is a great deal of good in the USA, there is still an America the Beautiful, but the chasm between We the People and those who kill and torture others in our name has never been greater.

    why does some americans support the female?

  • Most Americans do not support the female. She looks like a moron with no intelligence and no integrity. In breaking the social contract with the National Guard the US Govenrment also put tens of thousands of people into Iraq who were not fully professional. Our flag officers have also sacrificed their integrity for several generations. We have too many of them and most of them care more about their rank than their mission.

    Iraq roads

  • The best book I can recommend is this one:

    We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805094369/ossnet-20

    Terrorists

  • It is known that both Israel and Iran has an interest in making it difficult for the Americans to succeed in Iraq, but Americans are their own worst enemy. General Garner was intent on getting us out of Iraq within 90 days, but Dick Cheney committed treason, in my view, by firing Garner and sending in Bremer.

    Finally, ... how come no US military wether low or average rank is waking up

  • Many of them have. I have no direct knowledge but Private Manning is an example of both a severely vulnerable US system of communications, and of what can happen when a lower ranking person has a chance to do something. We have eighteen veterans a day committing suicide, that is the best indication to me of their realizing they were screwed by their own government.

    why is it the west call us backwards but when we show them buildings and education also entertainment they call us Show Offs ? and ignore the positive and useful for negative and useless ? why cant they say good job and well done?

  • The West is not known for its grasp of multi-cultural nuance. The Ugly American has been with us for a very long time, and sadly, it only takes one Ugly American (Blackwater hires them by the thousands) to undo the good of the many Peace Corps and AID and other good people we send out.

    why do they always ask for prostitiution, alcahol and nudity? instead of asking for a meeting and having normal conversations, drink pepsi and wear just clothes that does'nt show cleavage and ass?

  • Cultural ignorance. Have you seen the photo of the completely naked Arab girl protesting her government's lack of legitimacy? There are some who believe that Arab men mistreat their women. This would be a good subject for an open space technology discussion.

    why is that they say boohoo poor women in middle east but when she visits she gets snarled at ?

  • Americans are conflicted. They mean well. Women wearing veils in the US or France makes the Western men react in a very negative way.
u/rogersII · -1 pointsr/worldnews

Yes yes, we're all aware of the "new antisemitism" wherein every criticism of Israel is defined as anti-semitic but sorry no one is buying it. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Yes-all-criticism-of-Israel-is-anti-Semitic

There is no such thing as a "Jewish people" -- this is a recently manufactured identity according to Prof Shlomo Sands at Hebrew University http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1K0K6CEMKZXZWMFEGKPC

This is one of the many myths of Zionism -- there was no Roman Expulsion, there was no "King" David, there was exile from Egypt either, etc. etc. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/643380/posts

and even if there is, their "right of self-determination" is not superior to that of the Palestinians whom the Zionists ethnically-cleansed, and whose very existence the Zionists have sought to deny. "There are no such things as Palestinians" - Golda Meir.

u/Arel_Mor · -2 pointsr/science

The ashkenazi jews come from the old Khazar kingdom

u/Usenetmail · -3 pointsr/todayilearned

What's with the "tribe" stuff. Genetically related to the Khazars. Historically related to the Khazars. The main city, Atil, (NW Caspian Sea) was wiped from the face of the earth by the Rus - "not a grape, not a leaf on a branch". Disporia into what became Russia and Poland. Not, as "historically" presented, from the eastern meditteranean. Jews but not Semites. Palestinians are Semites forced to convert to Islam.

Edit: Read Schlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People