Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 258A8A68-67B8-436E-B3AF-E4DDFE2C902D-436-000000310E5A2B01.jpg (333KB, 1095x1296px) Image search:
[Google]
333KB, 1095x1296px
The dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of Arab Nationalism is the biggest disaster of the 20th century.
While Arabs were kept under the turks, religious stability in the middle east was at a decent level. Jews, Muslims and Christians lived in relative peace. The first world war and the subsequent sykes-picot agreement led to borders being drawn that could never be agreed upon and has led to constant struggle in the middle east, be it between kurds and arabs or shia amd sunnis.
I think this is a fair interpretation.
So my question is, do you think there will ever be stable borders in the region, or will the conflicts simply continue until one dominates the other?
>>
>>2568930 (OP)
>Jews, Muslims and Christians lived in relative peace.
Christians had it worse than Blacks and Asians had it under European empires.
>>
>>2568930
There has to be some kind of internal impetus to develop something other than yet another despotic state to keep them quiet
but unfortunately even if there were, they're currently engaged in a battle to the death with literal crazy people that execute hostages with detcord
>>
>>2568950
>Muh historic revisionism based on my own biases
>>
>>2568930
Wrong.
The Russians should have been allowed to drive the Turks back to Central Asia during the Crimean War.
>>
>>2568991
>I don't actually have an argument but you're wrong
>>
>>2568950
In the 17th century, yeah.
20th?
No.
>>
>>2568930
It'll never be stable as long as everyone keeps sticking their fingers in and installing puppets and destabilizing shit.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1