Even today, people in my country advocate a national unity between muslims.
However, this is a myth. There never was unity between any moslem nation.
Whenever unity arose, the Turks had been there to promote and protect it. However, the other moslems that we ruled over had no such wish.
The pride that the Arabs had due to being of the people of the Prophet, blinded them at each moment. However, the Arab is also very cunning at some points when he is required to be such.
As people who are unsuccessful at the arts of war, the Arab has made it a habit to call upon the Turk in times of great need, as it is now.
Turks, who are naive and devoted to their faith, answer this call, by forgetting all that happened in the past, and rush to the aid of those who he deems brothers.
But in all truth, the Arab only knows brotherhood between his own, and mostly, that is not even the case.

How can you expect brotherly relations with a people who cannot even fend for themselves? They could not fend off a tiny jewish nation that set up a country in their own lands, and I am expected to believe that there could be somewhat a unity between us Turks, and the Arab?

That's not to downplay all the other moslem nations, as the indian muslims have for the most part very supportive towards us in the past, however, they too, would probably not opt for a common state where they have no other relations with Turks besides a common shared history from some point on, and religion.
However, the neighboring moslem nations that are not of our stock have not been supportive of our work and out mission in the past, and are continuing to show their ill will through their works of deception.

One such case is Palestine. As you all probably know, the flotilla incident marked a turning point between Turkish-Israeli relations.
Not to say that the relations have been that great, but it seemingly, but seemingly, got worse, at least in how it was presented in the media.
This, however, is not really my concern, as I am not really looking for stronger ties, bonds and relations with Israel or the jewish people around the world, but what really concerns me is that this helped spreading the misnomer that we Turks and the Arabs have been in strong relations with eachother, as to send a suicide squad to help them. This is not true, especially for the case of palestinian arabs.
The palestinian intifada is a successful insurgency movement. They, and the IRA, have been in close contact, and have been training similar groups all around the world. This also extends itself to terrorist groups that operate within our territory, or in foreign territories, but striking Turkish nationals, interests and etc. ASALA and the PKK are the infamous examples where Palestinian guerillas have been known to train their militants to show their support. Also, the current West Bank Palestinian government has shown it's support to Greek Cypriot government, whereas, logically, they should be supporting us.
Indeed, it's never the case that we see any support from any other moslem nation besides other Turks.

Another case would be Iran. Now, I know that there are many people that support Iran in Turkey. I don't know why they would support a side in a battle that is not ours to begin with, however, some think that by supporting Iran, they are supporting anti-imperialism. This is not true. Iran is as imperialistic, and as vicious as any western country that preys upon weaker countries. In all, Iran also has supported militants and terrorists that operate in our borders, as "retaliation" for things that we were not supposed to do, like helping the Iraqis during the Iraq-Iran war. While I agree that we shouldn't have helped any side in this conflict, it should be made clear that I tolerate no nation that supports groups that go against us. Iran is also a prime example of how different moslem nations of different denominations behave towards eachother. In Iran, the Azerbaijani Turks are treated as they were dogs, and are called names, even though they are not even sunni. Iran too, claims to support moslems all around the world, yet they support the shia Hezbollah in Lebanon, in contrast to the sunnis, and they support the shia in Syria, whereas they do not support the sunni majority that lives there.

This is why I know for sure that the Ummah will not be there for us when some great disaster befalls us, or whenever we are waged war upon.

Xtians merrily slaughtered each other to see who had the better invisible friend, too. Then the secular world put a stop to their sanctified murder.

Don't feel special about it. Maybe in 500 years you guys will grow out of it too?

To be honest, I've never heard anything stupider than shi'ites and sunni's massacring each other because 1,300 years ago one asshole was named caliph instead of another.

(November 5, 2011 at 8:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Xtians merrily slaughtered each other to see who had the better invisible friend, too. Then the secular world put a stop to their sanctified murder.

Don't feel special about it. Maybe in 500 years you guys will grow out of it too?

To be honest, I've never heard anything stupider than shi'ites and sunni's massacring each other because 1,300 years ago one asshole was named caliph instead of another.

I do not feel special about it. Christians did not slaughter each other because of religion. Religion merely defined a part of either a political, or ethnic identity there. In 500 years, I doubt that unity will be within moslems. And frankly, I would oppose it aswell. I do not want to be in a union with arabs as much as the arabs do not want us, even if we both are moslem. This case is presented with strong ethnic ties, even though, if we take the case of Ulster(northern Ireland), religion too defines there on which side you're on. Like protestant irishmen support England, however, the catholics do not. Here, you cannot even find a case that corresponds to a religious motivation.
I certainly do not.

Quote:Christians did not slaughter each other because of religion.

Sure they did. And they took time out to slaughter jews and muslims when the opportunity presented itself.

"God" told them it was okay, you know?

(November 5, 2011 at 8:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Christians did not slaughter each other because of religion.

Sure they did. And they took time out to slaughter jews and muslims when the opportunity presented itself.

"God" told them it was okay, you know?

No, I don't know. Can you tell me for sure that the hundred years war between England and France was due to a religious conflict?
Or can you tell me for sure that the slaughter of jews or christians was a religious matter?
Jews have been persecuted ever since they had contact with other nations. Their own holy books describe how the Egyptians, Assyrians, Romans and many other pagan nations had been at odds with them.
And the Buddhist Mongol Kublai Khan and his Christian Turkish Queen Dokhuz Khatun have been responsible for the sack of Baghdat, and the death of the Caliph who was left to starve in his own treasury.

When I get the chance I'll dig you up a list of religious warfare in the west.

You do know that before the Crusaders ever got to the East they used the Jews along the way as a warm up block, right?

(November 5, 2011 at 8:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: When I get the chance I'll dig you up a list of religious warfare in the west.

You do know that before the Crusaders ever got to the East they used the Jews along the way as a warm up block, right?

Well, I don't think that the jews have provided them with the good scrap they got as they were trying to pass through the death trap called anatolia.
However, the actual reason why those people went on the crusade had more economical and political grounds:
Economically, Europe was really going through hard times. Death, disease, famine and wars left the people in a state where they were ready to fight with their heads between their arms. The promises of heaven and all were all like bonuses to the riches they were promised in the lands to the east that were under the rule of the saracens, who also controlled the trade from the silk road, and the Turkish tribes that just got there were doing what they did best. Raiding, looting and cutting off trade routs, even to other moslem nations, sometimes.

And the Byzantine empire had just lost a major battle against the Turk in Manzikert, as the Byzantines were like the only buffer region between the frank to the west, and the saracen to the east. Without it, they would be vulnerable. So the pope decided to send reinforcements, and they would cut a path through anatolia to the holy lands, all while dealing blows to the saracen kingdoms along the way.
However, it didn't really go well as they thought it would.
The people they took with them were generally peasantry folk, who were already hungry, had to provide for their own gear, and were ruled over by some hotshot feudal knight who did not even answer to a king most of the time.
So they helped themselves along the road, not just only attacking the richer jews, but also christian villages from which they drew their nourishment.

In all, they finally reached constantinople.
The Sultan Khan of the Seljuk turks thought that this was just another people's crusade like the one before, and did not organize an army to fight it. He lost three cities to the crusaders, but thought that the best way to fight them was not to engage them at all, and retreated, burning everything, poisoning wells, and conducting small raids on crusader supply routes and etc.
By the time the crusaders reached the holy city, they were already exhausted, and the peasant army was completely destroyed/captured.
The knights, thanks to their skills were to capture the city, and set up a few other christian kingdoms around the place. However, it did not last long.

This is good news. Muslims uniting as a whole scares the fucking hell out of me.

(November 5, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Faith No More Wrote: This is good news. Muslims uniting as a whole scares the fucking hell out of me.

What you should be afraid of is the idea of Turan uniting under one banner.
Then we would use the rest of the moslem folk as our pawns, just like we did before. However, I already stated that most moslems that are not of my kin, are generally not good when it comes to war.
Pashto's for example, are great fighters, so are Tajiks. However arabs..Yeah, they had some success in the early days of their empire..But it's generally the huge percentage of individualism that arabs hold that drives them to feats of great stupidity, but also courage.
There are some amongst them that are very good riders, and fighters too, however the general of them cannot even grasp the basics of military strategy..
I'll give an example.
Once, the great Turkish pirate Barbarossa decided to bring Algiers under the rule of the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman Khan.
They laid siege to the city of Tlemsen, however they lacked the cannons and proper equipment to successfully storm the castle.
Instead of waiting for the reinforcements, the Turks decided on a maneuver, a feigned retreat, knowing well that the arabs would storm out of the castle to loot the Turk's camp. And that's how it happened. The arabs stormed out, and the Turks killed them with their swords, one by one.
Barbarossa commented; "By them(the arabs) human life is without value. Instead of knowing their servitude to God and taking precautions, they say "everything is from God" and die like idiots.".
So how do you fear a race that can't, as I said before, even fend for themselves?

Islam calls for a unity, we believe that
The Ottoman Empire was able to achieve unity and we are proud of that
Barbarossa 5000000 saved more than a thousand of the Inquisition