as i understand it the popular view in the middle east is that the christians came slaughtered and then never left, in that context its easy to see the last 50 + years of proxy wars and desert storms as a continuation of that

palestine was a British territory until the israelis started blowing up british soldiers, until they got their own country
I understand it’s the popular view and that the West has supported one Muslim group over another but in most Middle Eastern countries have been left to get on with it until such a point in time as they threaten the West or another Arab nation which is a close western ally (eg Iraq invading Kuwait). As we are seeing now its not really Islam vs the West but Muslim vs Muslin or Muslim vs other Middle Eastern group/religion

Palestine. Gaza was part of Egypt and the Jordanians felt the West Bank belonged to them. Palestine vs Israel gets more attention as its a starker Muslim vs Jew conflict or a proxy US vs Muslim or so the Palestinians emphasise so to garner support. If Israel didn’t exist there would still be conflict over those lands.

Hope I clarified it, apologies.

Yes, no need to apologise I couldn’t think what the third major would be. I see many commentators classifying Judeo-Christianity as one block, I image as they share the Old Testament and Jesus/Mary/Joseph are acknowledged to have been Jewish.

I don’t know my religious history but what where Muslims before AD600 and the Prophet ?
EDIT: oh my, I just read that Mohammed was Judeo-Chritian, so either Jewish or a Christian. I never knew that. EDIT2: If I’ve offended anyone with that statement I apologize.

It goes back further than 50 years.

Sykes-Picot

But there were three problems with the geo-political order that emerged from the Sykes-Picot agreement.

First, it was secret without any Arabic knowledge, and it negated the main promise that Britain had made to the Arabs in the 1910s – that if they rebelled against the Ottomans, the fall of that empire would bring them independence.

When that independence did not materialise after World War One, and as these colonial powers, in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, continued to exert immense influence over the Arab world, the thrust of Arab politics – in North Africa and in the eastern Mediterranean – gradually but decisively shifted from building liberal constitutional governance systems (as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq had witnessed in the early decades of the 20th Century) to assertive nationalism whose main objective was getting rid of the colonialists and the ruling systems that worked with them.

This was a key factor behind the rise of the militarist regimes that had come to dominate many Arab countries from the 1950s until the 2011 Arab uprisings.

Sykes-Picot intended to divide the Levant on a sectarian basis:

…

For the period from the end of the Crusades up until the arrival of the European powers in the 19th Century, and despite the region’s vibrant trading culture, the different sects effectively lived separately from each other.

But the thinking behind Sykes-Picot did not translate into practice. That meant the newly created borders did not correspond to the actual sectarian, tribal, or ethnic distinctions on the ground.

What percentage of the MPs in the Arab States are women?

In Saudi Arabia 20%. The same as us.[/quote]

Saudi is an absolute monarchy. It doesn’t even have a real parliament as we understand it.

Ok.

Here’s a few more then. See if you like these any better.

Algeria 31.6%
Iraq 25.3%
Sudan 24.3%
Tunisia 31.3%
Somalia 13.8%
UAE 17.5%
Libya 16.0%

The fact you are trying to suggest that women in Saudi have similar influence as they do in the UK just says it all really.

I’m not trying to suggest that in the slightest.

I’m trying to suggest it was a crap way to argue your point.

A clever move by Boris, he undermines the credibility of would be Islamic fighters by labelling them **** and turns the 3/4 of the UK population into fans overnight, brilliant.

You think they’ll put a bounty on his head?

qwerty – Member
You think they’ll put a bounty on his head?

Nah. It would just slide off his silky hair.

@gonzy, it was just numbers not the race vs religion argument

fair enough

what where Muslims before AD600 and the Prophet ?
EDIT: oh my, I just read that Mohammed was Judeo-Chritian, so either Jewish or a Christian. I never knew that

he was neither Jambalaya…there is nothing to indicate what he was prior to the revelation of the Quran. however there are plenty of references that the local population practiced idolatry and polytheism…so one can safely presume that he was raised as such

@gonzy, thanks. Some of my friends said he was from one of the many tribes/ethnic groups living in the area that where all broadly labelled Judeo-Christian, perhaps not correctly then. I was surprised to see some of the links with the Old Testament, for example the Angel Gabriel, this does seem to show a strong linkage.