So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West?

I'd like for us to have a discussion of how we ended up in the current situation in the Middle East. Since it's unlikely we can cover all the issues I suggest we start with the Ottoman Empire, and then step by step move on from there.To begin with, here is a map of the Ottoman Empire on the eve of WWI. AbE: Mod provided a more up to date map that can be seen in Message 8. Please refer to it.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Before WWI all of what we today call the Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire. This had been the case for over four centuries and the borders between the Ottoman Empire and the West were relatively settled and peaceful, All of North Africa was part of the empirer. The Balkans was the line of contact between the West and the Ottoman Empire and split between the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungary.None of the current nations of the Middle East were independant nations but rather just administrative divisions within the Ottoman Empire.Edited by jar, : spalling errors

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ha ha I see what's coming. Some European and British actions ticked em off a few centuries ago and that explains -- and JUSTIFIES -- their murdering Americans now. Oh and "we" ticked em off by daring to counter their imperialist conquests of previous European territory.Edit: You've already started off whitewashing the Ottoman Empire which was hated by all its conquered territories.This should be rich. Where's Canadian Steve?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

To get an idea of how the area was viewed by the Western Powers, a good starting place is to look at the agreement drawn up between England and Russia dividing up Persia and outlining their individual spheres of influence. You can see this in the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907. That agreement was between two superpowers where they basically divided up Persia for their mutual benefit without regard to the will or wishes of the peoples of the area.The view among the West, the Superpowers, was that the rest of the world was just something to be used. This is important because, like India, at the time Persia was not part of the Ottoman Empire. Like much of Africa it was seen as open territory, land to be used.I begin with this document because it sets the mood, the thinking that will become the mode of operation after WWI. Like India, it was also the frontline in the "Great Game" between Russia and the British Empire.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

but let's try to keep to the facts and stop misrepresenting what other posters say. Unless you can support that assertion I expect you to retract it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'd say that where you go from here depends on whether Faith can support her assertion. What's next?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Manchester has a lot of Muslims living in it, and I used to live in one of the most famous Muslim gathering places in the UK. The small minority of extremists that I encountered would hearken back to the defeat of Constantinople (1453). For reasons that are not anti-Islamic in nature, it ranks highly on my non-existant list of historical events that I would change if I could.Anyway, the height of the Ottoman empire was not for another couple of centuries when (and it surprises many to learn it) it stretched as far as Austria. This culminated in the 1683 battle of Vienna which the Turks lost (nobody messes with the Hapsburgs!), and this was the start of the (slow) decline of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks didn't just give up and go home, and the battle for Austria continued. However, just over a decade later they were forced to sign the Treaty of Karlowitz which meant they lost Hungary, and some of eastern Europe (Transylvania included...actually it's my interest in Translyvanian history that provides me with the indirect interest in the Ottoman empire) to the Austrians.This strengthened the Hapsburgs massively meaning the Ottoman Empire would have difficulty regaining any kind of hold on Europe again. The Hapsburg's influence of course was felt with the assasination of the heir apparant which lead to WWI which I'm coming to Before we get there though we should consider the 18th Century. I find it very boring, but the upshot is that the Turks lost even more power to the Russians after a sequence of wars. The Russians became the next big concern for Europe. The UK was trying to keep the Ottoman Empire stable at this time to maintain some kind of balance of power. Without them, Russia would be unstoppable. Having the port city of Constantinople and total access to the Black Sea would not be good.This takes us to the more interesting 19th Century and Napoleon. With Napoleon taking sides with Russia against everyone else, things were looking bad, but Napolean made the mistake that Hitler was to replicate. He invaded Russia and lost shortly afterwards.The Great Powers took sides with Greece in her quest for independence from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman's didn't take kindly but after a quick war with Russia had to let Greece go. More squabbling leading up to the Crimean War which ended badly for the Ottomans; basically the real end to the Empire it might argued (at least as a significant power).After this came WWI; the general era that jar wishes to discuss.

---

Your map shows the Ottoman Empire up to the end of the 17th Century, so is about two centuries out to be 'on the eve of WWI'. The following map is more accurate state of affairs: Sources: My memory and quite a bit of google-walkingEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'd say that is up to you buz, there were only 5 messages total and you should be able to read them and see if I whitewashed the Ottoman Empire in any of them.I'd hate for anymore posts in this thread though to get wasted over Faith.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Keep in mind, I'm pulling this from Kissinger's "Diplomacy" . . .did it ever make sense to prevent Russia from gaining Constantinople? It would give them the straits and access to the mediteranian--through the adriatic sea (the one between Italy and the Balkans, in case I screwed up the name). However, they still would not have the warm-water port they (Russia) desired, plus the fact that if they were to go to war against you all, they would have to fight through those islands that dot the sea. It's narrow, long, chock full of islands, and quite defendable by what was the most powerful navy in the world.It's been a while since I read that section of his book, where he is discussing geopolitics and WWI.perhaps you, being british, can give a different insight to this?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

and isn't it good to learn from our mistakes. Okay, now we know what ticks them off, so let's try to not do that again--like defining their borders without their input.

Giving the Russian Black Sea Fleet access to the Mediterranean, would not be good for a number of reasons that spring to mind. The first is that it would be yet another expansion of Russian power. An expansion that Russia aimed to end in the vassalage of the Turks. Russia would become a pretty damned scary superpower.Also, the British Navy had access to the Mediterranean, and wanted to keep the access 'exclusive' (ie no Russians). I'm sure if Russia went into a direct Naval battle with Britain, they would run into problems, but I don't think that it was the direct threat of a sea battle that was the concern.Like in chess, its not the countering of taking pieces that should be considered, but the countering of the threat of taking pieces.Was Kissinger's book ironically titled?

I wish I still had the book so I could better present his argument.No, it wasn't ironically titled, because he travels through the history of modern dimplomacy, starting with Cardinal Richelieu and "raison d'etat". Geopolitics plays a major role in diplomacy. War plays a major role in diplomacy (or perhaps the other way 'round)Russia did indeed become a scary superpower, from our PoV. To them, we were the scary ones. On that same note, China's gettin' scary.yay pragmatism. We americans just can't do it like you all, and we have a tendency to despise your diplomatic style. Why else would we issue the monroe doctrine and be isolationist and force Wilson's fourteen points (most of which weren't enforced) and our moralism in diplomacy.

I'd really like to keep this oriented to things which can be documented as opposed to just opinions.Thanks everybody.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1. I would say that the Islamic world would not be the Islamic world if the Arabs and Muhammed had not invaded Persia and other nations in the first place to expand and grow Islam.2. I wouldn't call Russia the West. Before the 1907 treaty, Russia and Britian both had Persia under their rule, Russia to the north and Britian to the south. Have I got that right?3. Persia was ruled by Rome, The Mongols, themselves (Iran), Arabs, Russia, Britain and Iran again at different times in their AD history as far as I can assertain.4. As far as nations annoying the Mid East nations, they have historically been annoyed and oppressed by their neighboring nations far more than the West ever annoyed and oppressed them. Iranians enjoyed more freedom under Western backed Shah Palavi (spelling?) than the Arabs and others who annoyed them in previous centuries. Edited by buzsaw, : Edit to update title.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW