Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "" video.

I mean sure, the British created the new Arab states, but it was for its own benefit. Also being "not as bad" as the French is hardly a high bar. The Ottomans they revolted against weren't as bad as the French.
6
@gofar5185 This is a lie. Just because the Soviets didn't attack Arab states to force Communism doesn't mean they didn't explicitly back each and every Communist or Socialist group possible to inatigate civil wars and coups. It's a balance of geopolitical reality. USSR didn't seek friendship...ever. That just wasn't it's thing.
5
@matamadariaga Nah, everyone is generally alright with this because it was necessary for the era. The Soviets were heavily engaged in Latin America and the guerillas and civil wars they sponsored took over a million lives in Latin America. I'd have to double check the numbers, but I recall reading that before. Anyway, you'd likely be blaming the US for doing nothing if the US didn't do something, and Americans understand that whether its inaction or any action; the US will be blamed for it anyway. Its the curse of being a democratic Superpower. So the obvious answer is just to do the best it can and then when the danger has passed to not needlessly aggravate fellow democracies anymore. Which is essentially modern US foreign policy. Latin America has not experienced such heavy pressure since the Cold War ended and the US has stayed hands off for a reason. But yeah, isn't really controversial. US isn't exactly hiding it and Americans aren't exactly screeching that it's fake like Turks do with the Armenian Genocide.
4
Why would that be controversial? He already started talking about the Banana Wars. And Americans generally support believe it was necessary. So neither side wants to hide the truth, unlike Soviet apologists
2
Why? The Muslim and Arab World have treated other groups/peoples just as cruelly. Hell, they explicitly tried to exterminate the Jews in Israel, not just reconquest. Be better, but feeling bad is weird.
2
علي ياسر Why does talking about anyone or anything elicit a random reply about America? Does the US live rent free in your mind?
2
@zombieat Again, just a deflection. OP was talking about Arabs having "no issue" with the Russians, which is a total lie. Bringing up the US makes no sense in this context unless you wanna deflect from Soviet atrocities.
2
@Hubertus Minerva Except using your own logic, the Arabs that suddenly give a shit about US injustices in Latin America should also find it in their heart to do the same in Eastern Europe. Except they didn't; they ignored Soviet atrocities, at least by your logic. That would mean that, at the very least, they held the US to a standard they didn't hold the USSR in. And remember, we were talking about ARAB feelings of the USSR, not talking about Soviet imperialism or American imperialism by itself. In THIS context, yes, this is purely a dismissal. "Why would the Arabs support the USSR? They did bad things to other oppressed peoples." "What about the US?" "Huh?" "US did bad things too." "O-Okay, but that has nothing to do with Arab feelings of-" "US did bad things too." ^This is essentially what you're doing. And note, someone else brought up the US, NOT the West -which is as much another deflection as anything else since "the West" is not a united entity and fights each other as much as anything else. Especially when considering how the US attacked other Western nations in SUPPORT of Arab independence. So again; what merit does bringing up US injustice elsewhere in the context of Arab support of the USSR??
2
@XZagatoX As close as a country can win a war by itself then.
2
@thecrow9820 I never said I agreed with it. I find forced secularism as horrendous as forced religiosity.
2
@ahmedkhalifa5190 "US and the west vows to protect Israel" Uh, no they don't. Much of Western Europe barely even likes Israel. Literally the only consistent ally Israel has is in the US, and that's far more due to geopolitics than anything else. The US simply cannot trust Arab nations after being spurned by them so often for the USSR. US billion to the Egyptian military is actually just a bit more than a billion. Either way, the US never has and never will have such power as to literally choose who is or isn't leading Egypt's military power. For pete's sakes; the US started giving money to Egypt in 1987, many MANY years after Egypt agreed to have peace with Israel in return for control over the Sinai peninsula. US had zero interest in helping Israel prior to the Yom Kippur War, so why are you implying that the US is intentionally keeping Egypt weak? Egypt couldn't defeat Israel when Israel was weak and when it didn't have US support...while Egypt essentially DID have US support with the USSR. The US gives aid to Egypt as a bribe to have some influence, I agree; but it has little and less to do with Israel and has more to do with "please don't cause trouble for US interests". This obsession that MANY Arabs have in thinking the US, or even the West has been sabotaging them in literally everything just to protect Israel is beyond braindead. It literally ignores all of the reality of Western policies conflicting with each other and ignores US foreign policy in particular bending itself into pretzels for the Arabs repeatedly for their support. Egypt is literally filled with nothing but ambitious leaders and nationalists, idk why you're acting like it doesn't. They just don't have the means to actually take on Israel due to Egypt's military structure so focused on crushing internal revolts rather than actually facing a competent military power. A common issue amongst Arab states that have such distrust between civilian and military authorities. The US literally just doesn't care. It gives the money, and cuts it off if Egypt acts out of line of US interests; though Egyptian leaders themselves only act out to win populist support and themselves don't want to rock the boat. Not just with Israel, but with any of their neighbors. Literally no different to US and its use of aid to control Israel; except the US genuinely DOES use it to such an extent to force Israel into specific policies like supporting Israel-Palestinian peace talks time after time. Arabs made Israel a point of contention between themselves and the West. The US specifically was more than content to throw Israel under the bus. Modern US ambivalence to Arab concerns specifically is rooted in Arab betrayals against the US while they were trying to win Arab support. Their support of the USSR is what turned the US against them, not any love for Israel.
2
@jimmy What? Planted by the West for Western influence? That's the most Arab nationalist/stupid idea I have ever heard. The West didn't even consider Jews to be "Western". It was the Holocaust and guilt associated with that that led to their creation of Israel, similar to how the US created Liberia out of an inability to accept US Blacks and guilt in conjunction. Early Israel was pretty much a Soviet satellite state and anti-Western while having Socialist leaders. It was why thr US was actuallt trying to align with the Arabs during Nasser's time, but his attempts to align with the USSR and growing Israeli drifting from the USSR for helping the Arabs led to the rising capitalism and eventual alliance with the US. And that occurred right before the Yom Kippur War, so Arabs did kinda just stab themselves in the foot. Repeatedly.
2
@jimmy Let's be real; every President/Dictator you don't like is automatically a puppet regardless. Even if they're not. That's just a thing that people automatically believe in the region.
1
@Atrophic_777 Okay, first of all; there is no equivalency between a minority group's racism and the majority group's racism. Racism in general is bad, yes; but one group obviously has more power to enact policy and discrimination than the other. Even ignoring that, comparing the attempts of extermination on Jews from Arabs to the Jewish distaste of Arabs is disgusting. Even then; that doesn't justify attempted EXTERMINATION. You know what? Thinking on it, maybe the Arabs had it coming from that angle.
1
@Atrophic_777 Imagine me not liking how Arabs as a group tried to exterminate the Jews...somehow makes me anti-Arab. Is this really coming from the guy that just tried to find an equivalency between racism and attempted genocide? Open your eyes. Arabs had the right to self-determination from the European empires, but you're being disgusting bout excusing the other shit they did.
1
@Atrophic_777 That would be a fair point if the British were creating policies that benefitted the Jews against the Arabs. Except they often took a hands-off approach outside of their resource-exploitation. So you're mostly wrong, but at least there is SOME merit in your point. It helps that the British weren't attempting to exterminate the Arabs also.
1
@TheUnique69able #NotAllArabs. That being said, my point was kinda aimed at the fact that the stated goals of the multiple Arab wars against Israel was to "remove" the country and "occupiers". Many Arab leaders pretty much explicitly imply that a genocide was gonna occur. Plus, while this isn't an Arab-only issue whatsoever, minority rights are a joke in the Middle East. Newsflash for ya; different people live in different times. And for the record, "tolerance" can quickly turn into extermination at a dime. Jews lived in Germany for thousands of years too...and then moustache man happened. Just because Jews lived relatively alright in Arab lands before doesn't mean they do now. And to be bland, they don't. Of course, again, not an explicitly Arab issue. Minority rights are generally a joke across the planet. But we're talking about the ME rn, so...
1
@Atrophic_777 Oh, 100%. Though the "flooding jews with resources" is an exaggeration; the latter part of Jews being given land into areas agreed to be Muslim was.
1
@Atrophic_777 Never said the British weren't racist/prejudiced. Just that they weren't making policies that strictly benefitted Jews outside of the initial flurry of Jews being given land in already occupied lands. The British were literally so hands-off that they withdrew from Jerusalem allowed Arab Nationalists to incite a race riot against the Jews in 1920. And that was not the last race riot. Again, they just controlled puppets who gave them resources for cheap, but otherwise let them do whatever they wanted.
1
@Atrophic_777 That would be true if the British Empire actually was on "their side". It wasn't, it was on the side of the sheikhs and the money, promising everyone everything for their support in war.
1
@Atrophic_777 Besides, you're deflecting here. Arabs incited multiple race riots against the Jews, and the first Arab-Israeli war was done specifically with the intent to remove the Jews. The first ever Secretary-General of the Arab League which led the war in the first Arab-Israeli War said as much; "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades" Why do you keep trying to equate discrimination(which Arabs did suffer, true) with attempted GENOCIDE?
1
@TheUnique69able "A number of small-scale Jewish migrations began in many Middle Eastern countries early in the 20th century with the only substantial aliyah (immigration to the area today known as Israel) coming from Yemen and Syria.[3] Few Jews from Muslim countries immigrated during the period of Mandatory Palestine.[4] Prior to the creation of Israel in 1948, approximately 800,000 Jews were living in lands that now make up the Arab world. Of these, just under two-thirds lived in the French and Italian-controlled North Africa, 15–20% in the Kingdom of Iraq, approximately 10% in the Kingdom of Egypt and approximately 7% in the Kingdom of Yemen. A further 200,000 lived in Pahlavi Iran and the Republic of Turkey. The first large-scale exoduses took place in the late 1940s and early 1950s, primarily from Iraq, Yemen and Libya. In these cases over 90% of the Jewish population left, despite the necessity of leaving their property behind.[5] Two hundred and sixty thousand Jews from Arab countries immigrated to Israel between 1948 and 1951, accounting for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded state.[6] The Israeli government's policy to accommodate 600,000 immigrants over four years, doubling the existing Jewish population,[7] encountered mixed reactions in the Knesset; there were those within the Jewish Agency and government who opposed promoting a large-scale emigration movement among Jews whose lives were not in danger.[7] Later waves peaked at different times in different regions over the subsequent decades. The peak of the exodus from Egypt occurred in 1956 following the Suez Crisis. The emigrations from the other North African Arab countries peaked in the 1960s. Lebanon was the only Arab country to see a temporary increase in its Jewish population during this period, due to an influx of Jews from other Arab countries, although by the mid-1970s the Jewish community of Lebanon had also dwindled. Six hundred thousand Jews from Arab and Muslim countries had reached Israel by 1972.[8][9][10][11] In total, of the 900,000 Jews who left Arab and other Muslim countries, 600,000 settled in the new state of Israel, and 300,000 migrated to France and the United States. The descendants of the Jewish immigrants from the region, known as Mizrahi Jews ("Eastern Jews") and Sephardic Jews ("Spanish Jews"), currently constitute more than half of the total population of Israel,[12] partially as a result of their higher fertility rate.[13] In 2009, only 26,000 Jews remained in Arab countries and Iran,[14] as well as 26,000 in Turkey." It takes only one generation to have ideas of toleration to beliefs of repression. Tolerance sucks; it was a benchmark for ignorant Europeans, but is an abysmal way to live for the modern period.
1
@Atrophic_777 Where and when did I say there was mild discrimination? I just said that British rule was hands-off and their own biases were not really in play in making the laws/rules in the area. If you have proof otherwise, please cite it by providing a quotation and I can prolly find it. YouTube doesn't like links anymore.
1
@Atrophic_777 British didn't give the Arabs anything but a promise to get their lands, which they lied, obviously. British made lots of promises to multiple peoples, some of which got it worse than the Arabs did, like the Kurds for example -who were forced to be partitioned amongst Arab states. I would never say that anyone in the region got it good, but I would say some got it better/worse than others. Arabs got it neither the best or worst.
1
@Atrophic_777 "so their unfair advantage is completely nullified" I don't agree with this sentiment. Jews got "some" benefits due to the fact that they were given resources for the move at all; but they were still outnumbered, not the ones being able to make public policy (yet), and were subject to a region of hostile Arab Muslims who saw them as British colonists (self-fulfilling prophecy). The fact that Israel got independence and ended up winning doesn't equate to the first Jews having it better than the Arabs did initially. It mostly ended up like that after WW2 ended and the Zionists won immense support due to Jews being the biggest victim. 1900's-1940's the Jews were definitely one of the weaker parties in the region, and Jews in the region would be so pressed that the Jewish Exodus would occur where entire populations of Jews would leave Arab nations to escape to either Israel or the US. How does a Jewish Exodus occur in an entire region of countries not ring alarm bells to you?
1
@Atrophic_777 Churchill and Moustache Man are quite different, but in terms of human suffering they're only a few steps away from each other, sure. Indians sure as hell say so. But let's be clear; Churchill for all of his flaws did not intend to industrialize mass murder; that's a special kind of evil for a reason. The difference between the General-Secretary and Churchill is two thins; intent and success. Churchill had the backing of the British Empire and thus his policies could affect the world -leading to whatever consequence, good or ill. However, Churchill never had the intent to do what Moustache Man did. The first General-Secretary of the Arab League in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? He was the opposite. He had the intent, but not the power to enact it- thus had no success. That's infinitely more horrifying, and more similar to Moustache Man than Churchill. "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades"
1
@Atrophic_777 "planned attack and takeover" Dude. I gave you a quote for a reason. This was not just a planned attack and takeover: Here, let me provide the full thing: "Of the countless threats of violence, made by Arab and Palestinian leaders in the run up to and in the wake of the November 29, 1947 partition resolution, none has resonated more widely than the warning by Abdul Rahman Azzam, the Arab League's first secretary-general, that the establishment of a Jewish state would lead to "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades." "
1
@Wood97718 Who has you in occupation? Huh?
1
علي ياسر Well, duh. But again; that's a separate conversation. That's not how conversations work. That's just called a deflection, a logical fallacy. The other comment you made at least stayed on topic. Keep doing that., and preferably stop obsessing over the US. Its creepy.
1
@LMvdB02 The USSR literally did that too, except worse. That's kinda my point when criticizing that "what Arab thinks about the USSR"
1
@LMvdB02 USSR backed pro-Communist guerillas and far-left dictators across the planet, bruh. Every LatAm far-leftist group, which usually has a higher body count than any US-backed dictator, was backed by the KGB at some point. Not to mention the various puppet states in Eastern Europe which it crushed. And the US backed almost every decolonization effort as well, I'm more speaking of the dictatorships that sprung afterwards or guerillas trying to implement dictatorships afterwards. Everything you claimed that the US, UK, and Australia did so did the USSR except replace "fascism" with "Communism" which unequivocally killed more people. The Sandinistas killed far more than the Contras, the North Vietnamese far more than the South, North Koreans far more than the South, the CCP far more than the KMT, this trend is pretty common. In the Muslim World the USSR backed repressive secular dictators which started constant wars between each other and backed terrorist groups against each other as well. The US never actually backed any hyper-religious group in the Middle East until the Mujahideen, and that was in response to an illegal Soviet imperialist invasion of Afghanistan to begin with, which brought rise to the hyper religious group to start. The US didn't set anything in Indonesia, this is a complete lie on your part. The US tacitly backed anything Suherto did as long as he was anti-Communist, but before that backed the independence of Indonesia to begin with, threatening to completely strangle the Dutch economically if they did not do so. There is an excellent study of the US role in Indonesian Independence in the Cold War channel, if you actually want to do something more than repeat Soviet Cold War propaganda. The Soviets, by every metric, was much worse than the US; literally.
1
@mynamejeb8743 1) That's a separate conversation 2) I literally acknowledged that in a separate comment 3) That has literally nothing to do with my first comment's point.
1
@commandofact7636 This is exhibit A on why the Middle East is a shitshow. When minorities start fleeing, you know it's a garbage dump.
1
@balclava4937 Egypt couldn't beat UK by itself, it needed the US. And Egypt couldn't beat Israel by itself either. US aid came during the Yom Kippur War, and not before.
1
@thecrow9820 Every Arab nationalist leader modeled themselvea after Attaturk for a reason.
1
@ahmedkhalifa5190 The US doesn't mind him, Europe doesn't care outside of seeing him as a pawn by the US/USSR, and idk about Israel. Point is that Arabs have a habit of blaming anything they don't like on Westerners. Whether it be ideas, governments, or leaders. Don't like peoppe not liking who you like? MUST BE WESTERN PROPAGANDA! In reality the West has more important things to worry about.
1
@ahmedkhalifa5190 1) Yes, the US declares X thing and thus does it...right? Except almost every US President also declares their support for Palestinian peace and security as well. Biden literally did that too: "The President expressed his support for steps to enable the Palestinian people to enjoy the dignity, security, freedom, and economic opportunity that they deserve" 1.1) ...Huh? But Israel literally defeated the ocean of Arabs around then when they were a weak state without external support. Are you talking about immigration? Because Israel hardly needs help with that. US does want peace; but mostly for its own sake since disruptive conflict leads to issues the US doesn't want to deal with. US was pushing for peace in the region long before US support for Israel ever materialized. 1.2) Israel was already technologically superior to everyone around it before the US support. Also, the US wants to keep its allies up to date; so that's obvious, though it really isn't a plot to keep Arab nations weak. Just keep US allies up and about. I was gonna get into everything you said, but frankly, after reading your last bit; it isn't worth it. Dude; what you want is constant war just for the sake of a nationalist dream. Nationalism is a disease that sparks endless conflict. Worse yet, despite your claims, Egypt attempting to start war for the sake of some Arab super state doesn't mean the other Arab states want that. If you want that; don't freaking start wars, but instead become wealthy, spread the dream to like-minded people to peacefully bring nations together if you want a superstate. The EU is a good example, and even they have issues. The US would support that, even if Israel would not.
1
@degamispoudegamis By most definitions the US is literally THE biggest anti-imperialist in history, funny enough. Kinda proven when US imperialism pretty much died Post-Cold War.
1
@SHAHIDKC The only reason the USSR was imperialist was due to teh taking of territory in Eastern Europe. I do not consider the backing of foreign state actors to be imperialism unless its for the purpose of resource exploitation. The US and USSR did it just to screw with the other guy 99% of the time, the US in particular screwing their own companies from time to time by doing so with the new dictators attacking the US companies for their own profits.
1