Important question to arabs / muslims here in the forum.

May 14th, 1801, Tripoli declared war on the US.
1803, Morocco declared war on the US.
Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli continued to attack American shipping; murdering and enslaving American sailors for the next 15 years until the US finally decisively defeated the Barbary states by threatening their cities with total annihilation.
As noted previously, Arab attacks on the US after that were sporadic and infrequent.
The reason for this was that France and England immediately began asserting their power and empire in North Africa and the Middle East and therefore Arab/ European conflicts did not involve the US, which did not overtly assert its power in the Arab world. In the few instances where US citizens or military were attacked, they were "crimes" of opportunity, not a deliberate policy as had been the case with the Barbary States.

 

This thread is a QUESTION THREAD not a debate.
Why won't you answer the YES / NO question ???

 

Tripoli - Barbary pirates again
Morocco - Barbary pirates again

Come on, try harder.
Perhaps you can't manage anything else so you keep having to return to the same series of events in some pathetic attempt to look as if you're right.

Admit it, apart from these pirate troubles, something the Americans did plenty of themselves, there were no enemies of America in that region util you interfered in their politics.

 

Go- back on the thread and tell it to HBender..


...

 

"Interfering in their politics" is actually a different subject. America interfered in the politics of region for the benefit of America whenever it felt it necessary. As did all nations.
I'm not quite sure why you want to single out the United States.
The US sphere of influence was focused on the Americas until the 20th Century.
America did not suffer organized attacks from the Ottoman Empire or the various sultanates and petty Arab kingdoms in the same fashion as did the French, English and other Europeans because America had no interest in dominating the Middle East or North Africa.
After America actually went to war against the Ottoman Empire (WWI), it was still largely frozen out of the Middle East by British and French influences.
After WWII, America became the dominant power in the world and began actively participating in the Middle East.
However, America's relationship in trying to influence Middle Eastern politics after WWII was not due to Israel, it was as a direct foil or counter to the Soviet Union. The US felt it had to protect the flow of oil from the Middle East from Soviet dominance. And, up until the Soviet Union collapsed, the US tried to favor Arab interests over Israeli interests.
It was, after all, Eisenhower who forced Israel to give back the Sinai in 1956. This was largely done because Eisenhower did not want a Soviet confrontation at that time. The Soviets invaded Hungary at the same time England, France and Israel took the Suez canal.

Anyway, sorry about the answering your question about Arab attacks on the US. I'll try to avoid doing that in the future.

 

O K Mgb re the OP :

First off I'm not muslim nor Arab so it doesnt matter what I accept . But from all that I've read and learnt , the Zionists do not want -+ never wanted - intended to live in peace share the land of Palestine with those who've lived there for more than a millenia before the invention of Zionist ideology - as you're aware but refuse to admit.- Zionist want what the Nazis wanted - an insatiable expansion - LEBENSRAUM.-

However , since the creation of the Zionist State there's been many peace proposals - every one INITIATED either by third parties or Arabs , non by the Zionists .

I dont know whether this plan has already been mention on this thrad.

The latest peace offer came from the Saudi 's 2002 - and the Arab league

Read the official translation here :


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm

What was - Netanyahu's + Avigdor Lieberman's responses ?

also see this :

http://www.timesofisrael.com/kerry-expected-to-revive-2002-saudi-peace-initiative/

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/28/arab.league/

"Asked how "normal relations" are defined, Prince Saud al Faisal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, said, "We envision a relationship between the Arab countries and Israel that is exactly like the relationship between the Arab countries and any other state."



As I've said - IMO Zionist do not want peace all that they want is dominion over the land of Palestine. and continue total support from diaspora Jews and gullible Goyim/Golem.,



.

 

Great.
That would fun, no?
Just like the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Yemen? Or between Lebanon and Syria? Or between Iran and Iraq? Or between Iran, Iraq, Libya or Sudan and the US? Or between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or between the Kurds and Turkey and Syria and Iraq and Iran? Or between Egypt and Sudan? Or between Iraq and Kuwait? Or between Fatach and Hamas?

I suspect that the Israelis would rather NOT have a relationship "that is exactly like the relationship between the Arab countries and any other state."
But, who knows? You could be right Marlowe. Maybe Israelis are just too darned mean and nasty to not look forward to invasion and mass slaughter in the same way that "Arab countries" relate to "any other state."

 

HUH ?

Eisenhower forced Israel to give back Sinai ? - Hmmm sounds a bit of distortion/haf truth there .

Here are facts : "On November 7, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower addressed a note to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in which he advised Israel to abide by the United Nations Resolutions and withdraw its forces from Egyptian territory
. Owing to communication delays, the message was received in Israel on November 8. On that day, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion informed the President that Israel would withdraw its forces when the appropriate arrangements were made with the United Nations regarding the entry of the international force into the Suez Canal zone. So , Israel's illegal occupation continued for several many more years , until it managed to squeeze a hefty increase in US AID from america .
---

Time line :

"•
1968 – Israelis begin settling in the Sinai Peninsula and the city of Yamit is established.

•
March 26, 1979 – Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed by Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. Israel agrees to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula for the sake of peace.

•
1979-1982 – Israel dismantles numerous military bases, oil fields, outposts, and settlements in the Sinai Peninsula.

•
April 19, 1982 – 3,000 Israeli settlers in Yamit resist the evacuation and barricade themselves inside their homes.

•
April 21, 1982 – Israeli settlers clash violently with IDF soldiers in Yamit.

•
April 25, 1982 – Israeli soldiers, under the command of Ariel Sharon forcibly remove settlers from their homes and out of the Sinai Peninsula. The Israeli Government razes the city of Yamit to ensure that the settlers would not return to the area.
( One can but wonder How much did resettlemts of those Zionist settlers cost US taxpayers )

•
April 26, 1982 – Present – Israel is completely withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula. Israel and Egypt are at peace.

•======

Addditionally - In 1979, when Israel finally agreed to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, the U.S. gave Israel another $3 billion in aid to help pay for redeploying its troops from Sinai and rebuilding air bases in the Negev.


====

 

Apart from the very generous AID Israel managed to extort from Washington at US Taxpayers expayers expence, during the decades while Sinai was illegally occupied - the Occupation power -worked 24/7 to steal as much Sinai oil a


The Israelis gained access + exploited Egyptian oil fields in Sinai after the Six-Day War. When Israel agreed to return the fields in 1979, they wanted broad assurances about their access to oil imports. The peace treaty with Egypt stipulated that "Israel shall be fully entitled to make bids for Egyptian-origin oil not needed for Egyptian domestic oil consumption." An accompanying document outlined a deal with the United States that ensured Israeli oil supplies in times of crisis.

Egypt continues to provide oil, but its importance as a supplier has diminished as Israel's appetite has grown. In 1995, Egyptian oil accounted for one-third of Israel's fuel imports; by 2000 that fraction had shrunk to one-eighth. While Israel was forced to look elsewhere for oil, it maintained a warm relationship with Egypt, at least regarding energy. In 2005, the two countries signed an agreement on the trade of natural gas.
==

Much have happened since then (wink)

 

This thread is for you arabs and palestinians .. Will you answer ???

 

Nah - no more mean and nasty than most - but a helluva lot greedier - especially for more land- total disrespect to the rights of legitimate owners /- non - Jewish inhabitants - dispossing them . by hook- intimidation or by crook ..

Moishe , unlike some people I prefer not to swallow Israel Govt's Kak and I'd rather seek my info from .its critics preferable from other Jewish sources like this, without distortion - verbatim C + P . :

"Lebensraum as a justification for Israeli settlements
We were fortunate when we occupied the West Bank because had we not done so, where would we have come to live? And who knows how high housing prices would have risen?


Until now Israel had supported the occupation of the territories with two pillars: history and security - its right to inherit the land and its obligation to defend it. In recent weeks a third pillar was added, which all these years was hidden under straw and stubble. And maybe it's not a pillar but a snake, whose head must be crushed while it's still small.


According to the school of thought based on history and faith, the Land of Israel was received by the Jewish people from the hand of God, and we are commanded to take all of it by dint of the Covenant of the Pieces that God made with Abraham. That was a nice big gift, we have to admit, stretching from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates. It was granted on various festive occasions not only to Abraham but to his heirs as well. Eventually it was forced to shrink, and now there is really no reason to shrink it further out of choice.

The second, security-based school of thought stipulates that we need virtually all the territories for self-defense. Without them we'll never be able to live in security without feeling threatened. Therefore, if we are ever forced to leave certain parts of the country, even then we'll evacuate only in order to remain, relying forever on temporary "security arrangements," which even social-welfare-oriented MK Shelly Yachimovich will sign.

Sometimes one school of thought overlaps the other and the difference between them becomes blurred. It often happens that members of the security school - people who do not lead a religious way of life - put a knitted skullcap on and then prophesy in the same messianic style. And the opposite happens as well: Rabbis and students bring up reasons in the name of security so as not to rely on the promise alone.

And now, in the middle of the summer, when the social protest is putting the housing shortage at the top of the agenda for a moment, the third school of thought is developing and taking hold. The interior minister - in advance of a Black September of his own - approves the construction of 1,600 housing units for the ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, another 624 units in Pisgat Ze'ev and another 930 in Har Homa Gimmel - all beyond the Green Line. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, for whom the election threshold is a sharp knife at his throat, approved 277 homes in the settlement of Ariel, may it be established in his day. And 42 MKs are calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ease the housing shortage in the country via accelerated construction in the territories.

Suddenly we are short of space here in Israel, which has become full to capacity and needs lebensraum. Every cultured person knows that this is a despicable German concept, banned from use because of the associations it brings up. Still, people are starting to use it, if not outright then with a clear implication: We are short of land, we are short of air, let us breathe in this country.

When we embarked on the Six-Day War did we want to remove a threat or did we want to gain control in order to spread out? That's what happens after 44 years of mire and moral corruption, which distort things and make us forget the original objective and replace it with an entirely different one. We were fortunate when we occupied the West Bank because had we not done so, where would we have come to live? And who knows how high housing prices would have risen? The divine promise is now being revealed in all its ability to prophesy about real estate.

The founding fathers, as opposed to the Diadochi who fought for control after Alexander the Great's death, represented a different approach, for the most part. Between "A little goes a long way," and "Don't bite off more than you can chew," they chose to bite; they even agreed to the 1947 UN partition plan for lack of choice. They believed that all the objectives of rational Ben Gurion-style Zionism could be fulfilled even in "Lesser Israel," which is more complete and more at peace with itself. And it has no need for lebensraum, may God preserve us.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...ustification-for-israeli-settlements-1.380787

Byeee....

 

This comment starts with unreliable introduction..... and i'll tell you why.
You are not Muslim nor Arab.. You are for sure not Jewish.. you have a British flag under your signature .. that lives us an idea
that you are Christian..
BUT - you sure do not support the poor christian copts in Egypt ( by reading some of your comments ).... I wonder ??
Is this the same story we found about the lies of Abu -sina ???

 

Well I can't answer that question because I'm not a Muslim/Arab.

One of the fundamental points about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is that the situation in Gaza and the West bank are very differint.

Gaza is ruled by Hamas which is basically supported by countries which oppose Israel with some support from the local civilians.
And ultimately this is where the more aggressive belligerent acts come from.

The West bank however faces serious encroachment by illegal Israeli settlers as well restrictions to their own agricultural properties.
The PNA led by Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen is the head Arab government of the West bank.

Now if I were to suggest a conflict resolution it would consist of these basic points.

.Israel dismantles the settlements and withdraws soldiers in the West bank
.The PNA must agree to do it's very best to counter any militia's or terrorist groups in the west bank.
.Jerusalem be made into a city state with it's own police and government departments. I should point out that as Jerusalem has a mixed population. It will be a major step as it will prove that the cultural difference between Arabs and Israelis would be a non-issue.

.Hamas must agree to disarm and actually take over the full mantle of government in Gaza.
.Israel must stop assassinating Hamas officials. (after signing)
.Israel must end it's supply limits on Gaza whilst still reserving the right to search for weapons.

.The UN should liaise with the proposed Gaza government and PNA in order to observe and improve governmental efficiency.
.Israel should not cut off any current or future supplies of water, food and medicine unless at war.
.Israel should expedite permits medical treatment permits and allocate a security handler.

I should point out that this is a very rough idea and is open to alteration.

 

FYI - although I was raised - went to a nominally "christian " school - perhaps even, as an infant been "christened, As a child I sang hymns in church - my parents was thankfully fairly easy going "free-thinkers". They never forced religion on us . - I hope you'll understand why I'm not a die-hard - church going bigotted socalled "christian" . automoton .



I'm not a person of fait, more of an agnosiic , I .naturaly sympathize with anyone who's being persecuted for their beliefs. irrespective of which faith. they observe/practice


Perhaps you should try getting away from political propaganda/agitation + widen yr scope and try getting info from various sources , perhaps sometimes like this:

"senior Coptic bishop has thanked Muslims for attempting to protect Christians in the recent sectarian violence around the Egyptian village of Al-KhosousH.G. Moussa, Bishop of Youth Affairs for the Coptic Orthodox Church, in a press release Thursday thanked members in the community for standing up for their Christian neighbors.
"The loving Muslims who protected Christians and the church during the deadly clashes in Al-Khosous highlighted the mistakes of the fanatics and showed the true meaning of religion and love," Bishop Moussa said.
"Our only consolation is that the victims gave their lives as a testimony to God and their pure souls ascended to heaven."
The violence occurred over the weekend when four Christians and one Muslim died in armed conflict in the small area just outside of Cairo.

The fighting started after Christian teenagers allegedly smeared offensive images on the walls of the Al-Azhar institute within the town.

http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/artic...slims-who-protected-christians-in-egypt-22083


Bear in mind most attacks - all over the world - are by youths with $hit for brains -

See this : which wouldnt have been on Fox New or any of whichever media sources you get your info from :~

" Thousands of Muslims honored a promise made by their leaders and showed up at Christmas Mass or at candlelight vigils outside Egyptian churches on Friday, offering their bodies as human shields against any acts of terrorists. The observances were tense, in view of the New Year’s Day bombing of a cathedral in Alexandria, which killed 21. The Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas on January 7. Among those Muslims making this statement was beloved comedian Adil Imam. Since the 1990s Imam has been active in combating radicalism, memorably in his film “Kebab and Terrorism” (Kebab wa Irhab).

Father Marqus, the Bishop of Alexandria, said that in his entire life he had never seen the degree of solidarity of Muslims with Coptic Christians that he has witnessed in recent days. He said that Muslims attending the funeral of the Christian victims of the New Year’s Day bombing had treated them like Muslim martyrs, pronouncing ‘God is Great!’ in mourning, and had erupted in applause at the condemnation of the terrorists. He said that the bombing was like an aqua regia solution that would assay the metal of the Egyptian people and reveal their golden nature. The act of terror, he said, will have the opposite effect of the one intended, and will instead increase the love of Christians and Muslims for one another.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/egyptian-muslims-throng-in-thousands-to-protect-christians.html

:

 

Your timeline is wrong.
Israel withdrew from the Sinai after the 1956 war.

The Soviet Union made major gains with regards to influence in the Middle East.[SUP][301][/SUP] The American historian John Lewis Gaddis wrote about the aftermath of the crisis:

When the British-French-Israeli invasion forced them to choose, Eisenhower and Dulles came down, with instant decisiveness, on the side of the Egyptians. They preferred alignment with Arab nationalism, even if it meant alienating pro-Israeli constituencies on the eve of a presidential election in the United States, even if it meant throwing the NATO alliance into its most divisive crisis yet, even if it meant risking whatever was left of the Anglo-American 'special relationship', even if it meant voting with the Soviet Union in the United Nations Security Council at a time when the Russians, themselves, were invading Hungary and crushing—far more brutally than anything that happened in Egypt—a rebellion against their own authority there. The fact that the Eisenhower administration itself applied crushing economic pressure to the British and French to disengage from Suez, and that it subsequently forced an Israeli pull-back from the Sinai as well—all of this, one might thought, would won the United States the lasting gratitude of Nasser, the Egyptians and the Arab world. Instead, the Americans lost influence in the Middle East as a result of Suez, while the Russians gained it.[SUP][301][/SUP]
​

 

Prove it


Please Produce evidence to support yr claim -, prefeably from a reliable -impartial - no BS source .

Thanks .

 

Not that I believe Wikipedia is 100% accurate but... you don't like that source?
Any source one cuts and pastes from the Internet is, by its very definition of being on the Internet, going to be suspect.
Sorry.

 

Israeli withdrawal from the Yamit settlement in Sinai 1982

see

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forum...rawal-from-the-Yamit-settlement-in-Sinai-1982

On the other hand _ I presume you'd also stick your head in the sand and ignore Jewish Virtual Liberary . wot ?

"The Yamit settlement, like the other Jewish communities in Sinai, was built (according to Israelis ) to act as a security buffer between Egypt and Israel. The Israeli government planned for thousands of Jewish families to live in the fourteen separate Sinai settlements. By 1982, only 600 houses were present in the area. After Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, in which Israel was required to return the Sinai, the government was forced to evacuate the area. The day of evacuation was set for April 23 1982.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/yamit.html

- I repeat , contary to your earlier statement - afaik - Eisenhower - did NOT FORCE Israel to withdraw from Sinai but ADVISED Israel to ABIDE by United Nations Resolutions and withdraw its forces from Egyptian territory

(WINK)

 

Whatever - O K - I've quoted Jewish Virtual as a source -- what have you got ? Where did you hear Eisehower FORCED israel to withdraw from Siniai , where did you hear the Zionists withdraw from Sinai - at any time - before 1982 ?

 

I don't understand - my quote above is from Wikipedia.
This one -
The Soviet Union made major gains with regards to influence in the Middle East.[SUP][301][/SUP] The American historian John Lewis Gaddis wrote about the aftermath of the crisis:
When the British-French-Israeli invasion forced them to choose, Eisenhower and Dulles came down, with instant decisiveness, on the side of the Egyptians. They preferred alignment with Arab nationalism, even if it meant alienating pro-Israeli constituencies on the eve of a presidential election in the United States, even if it meant throwing the NATO alliance into its most divisive crisis yet, even if it meant risking whatever was left of the Anglo-American 'special relationship', even if it meant voting with the Soviet Union in the United Nations Security Council at a time when the Russians, themselves, were invading Hungary and crushing—far more brutally than anything that happened in Egypt—a rebellion against their own authority there. The fact that the Eisenhower administration itself applied crushing economic pressure to the British and French to disengage from Suez, and that it subsequently forced an Israeli pull-back from the Sinai as well—all of this, one might thought, would won the United States the lasting gratitude of Nasser, the Egyptians and the Arab world. Instead, the Americans lost influence in the Middle East as a result of Suez, while the Russians gained it.[SUP][301]

Do you want something other than this?

What the heck. I might as well give you this:

[/SUP][h=2]Israel Agrees to Withdraw[/h][h=3](March 1, 1957)[/h][HR][/HR]Upon the return of Ambassador Eban to Washington, consultations continued between him and the United States Government in an effort to break the deadlock. The United States refused to separate the question of Gaza's future from the question of the straits, but a solution was seen in a French proposal that the maritime Powers announce in the General Assembly that all nations have the right to sail through the Straits of Tiran; the Powers would also recognize Israel's prerogative, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, to ensure this right against hostile interference. As for the Gaza Strip, it was suggested that, following the Israeli withdrawal and the entry of the United Nations Emergency Force, that Force also take over the civilian administration of the Strip for a transition period. The plan was accepted by the Government of' Israel. The Foreign Minister then drafted a statement to the Assembly in coordination with the representatives of the United States and France.
[HR][/HR]The Government of Israel is now in a position to announce its plans for full and prompt withdrawal from the Sharm el-Sheikh area and the Gaza Strip, in compliance with resolution I of 2 February 1957.
..... Click on the Link to read the rest....

 

The OP is fatally flawed, since not all Arabs are Muslim, and even fewer Muslims are Arab.

 

Not good enough - A) Its well known that Hasbarist regularly moniter wiki , alter previous info + ensure info is slanted favourable to Zionism.

I could've quoted several other third party sites - imo - impartial , but gave you Jewish Virtual Library - which you still apparently refuse to accept, I wonder why ?

Would you wish that I continue searching + getting it from TikuOlam -/ American Jews For Peace / JewsNotZionists etc.etc.,etc ?

Why is it so hard for you to accept that your claim abt Israel leaving Sinai 1956ish - was nothing more than Kak ?? and Israel did NOT leave Sinai before 1982 ?

''

 

You are so odd...

From the Jewish Virtual Library: On October 29, 1956, Israel attacked Egyptian forces in the Sinai Peninsula, and the air forces of Britain and France joined the offensive two days later on October 31. On November 5, British and French ground forces landed on the banks of the Suez Canal and started to follow it southward. In concert, Israel completed its conquest of the Sinai Peninsula without its army, the I.D.F., ever reaching the Canal. On November 7, the major superpowers of the era – the United States and the Soviet Union – issued two separate ultimatums forcing Britain and France respectively to halt their attempted seizure of the Suez Canal and, with this, the episode appeared to come to an end. British and French forces left Egypt in December 1956, and Israel completed its withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula in March 1957.

 

All your comments here sympathize with palestinians... Never one word about the other terrorism affected side...
Extreme unilateral.
What about the some Iranian people ? are they not being persecuted for their beliefs ?
China's ethnic cleansing in Tibet ??
The past of the palestinians in Kuwait ??? and many more ...
I don't buy what you wrote.... unless opening the extreme unilateral threads is well paid by the palestinian propaganda office in Ramallah...

 

The OP "Important question to arabs / muslims here in the forum" reffers to all kinds of Arabs , even those who illegaly occupied part
of UK.