Lawrence of Arabia 'made up' sex attack by Turk troops

Which piece? I'm guessing the Turkish March.

That's Mozart

81 posted on 05/15/2006 5:39:48 AM PDT by Tribune7

To: martin_fierro; dighton

Signs of Lawrence's alleged sexual deviancy first emerged when he admitted in letters to a friend that he paid a man to beat him with birches, to the backdrop of Beethoven playing on a gramophone.

How gauche, this should always be done with the Beethoven on a Victrola.

82 posted on 05/15/2006 5:42:42 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim

No, no... after all this bit of history is postscript to one of the greatest and most terrible wars ever fought in the history of mankind.

Its no wonder its little known.

Of course, to the Greeks it was a tremendous and horrific event. They hadnt really been involved in WWI, and their attempt, as a part of the "Megali Idea" to "take back" Asia Minor had ended in such catastrophe (compared to their minor involvement in the war), that it took them a long time to recover from it.

The Ottoman Empire was beaten, but the Turkish army was nowhere near decimated.
Indeed, years of mobilisation had left Turkey with a by no means insignificant military force. Greece on the other hand had no such battle hardened troops.

The treaty of sevres had intended originally to hand large tracts of Ottoman territory to Greece, and the British had pledged to enforce this.

In the face of Kemal Pasha's military offensive, the British decided that it wouldnt be tenable to enforce the treaty, and left the greeks to their fate.

Among other things, the Greek city of Smyrna (now Izmir, in European Turkey), was devastated and recaptured by Turkish forces during this war.

83 posted on 05/15/2006 5:42:46 AM PDT by ketelone

To: wagglebee; dighton; Tijeras_Slim

"YOU SHORE GOT A PURTY MOUTH, BOY!"

84 posted on 05/15/2006 5:45:34 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)

To: Tribune7; dennisw

No, they both had one.

85 posted on 05/15/2006 5:48:43 AM PDT by RichInOC ("I say, Lawrence. You are a clown!" "We can't all be lion tamers.")

To: martin_fierro

He was a Hooligan too...

Be careful on that bloody thing, will ya Larry?"

86 posted on 05/15/2006 5:50:07 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim

FR is always an education :-)

87 posted on 05/15/2006 5:50:57 AM PDT by Tribune7

They only raped Lawrence because the camels refused them.

88 posted on 05/15/2006 5:53:12 AM PDT by veronica ("A person needs a sense of mission like the air he breathes...")

Thanks ... you got me there.

89 posted on 05/15/2006 5:53:32 AM PDT by dennisw

To: ketelone; Nova

The Greeks were winning with British support but Kemal made a deal with the Soviets who supplied his army which scared the Brits enough that they made a deal with Kemal to keep the Soviets/Russians from gaining a warm water port that would be a threat to India - the Great Game in its last phases (game over with the loss of British India).

The Greeks were not the only people screwed by the last minute deal with Kemal - so were of course the Armenians and the Kurds who lost the promise of a homeland.

The Ottoman empire was probably the most evil empire that ever existed because it lasted so long. The only 'good' that many see from the Ottomans is the product of the multicultural pushing agenda academics who think Ottoman history was some sort of paradise free from racial and religious strife.

The decline of the Islamic culture can be blamed on many things but the degradations of Ottoman rule are right up there. The Turks also ruled the two other Muslim empires of that time - the Persian empire and the Indian Mogul empire - which also saw a decline of civilization under their rule (though the Mogul's showed promise in their first two empires).

It is my thesis that Islam did not temper the Central Asian nomadic temperament of the Turks the way Christianity tamed the Northmen. My thesis is that that Islam may have allowed the Turks to indulge their 'barbarian' ways.

The Muslim Arabs when they exploded on to the scene were for from barbarians - they had centuries of contact with Persian, Hellenistic and Byzantine Roman civilizations. The Turks did not and the impoverished lands the Turks left behind (The east once being the wealthiest area of the world) may serve as testimony to that. The Turks went through the the lands they ruled the way locusts did.

90 posted on 08/25/2006 3:32:38 PM PDT by Korvac (To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant. - Amos Bronson Alcott)

The turks had nothing to do with the Mughal empire in India. Also, India, even during mughal rule, though less than previously, was still a fabulously walthy place compared to the european lands.

91 posted on 08/25/2006 9:52:25 PM PDT by ketelone

The turks had nothing to do with the Mughal empire in India Not the Ottoman Turks but the Mughals were mainly a Turkish tribe from the Steppes - Tamberlane while a Mongol was also part Turk - more Turk than Mongol.

92 posted on 08/27/2006 3:23:53 AM PDT by Korvac (To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant. - Amos Bronson Alcott)

The turks had nothing to do with the Mughal empire in India http://www.islamicarchitecture.org/dynasties/mughals.html Mughals - (Great Mughals) Timurids-Mongolian dynasty of Turkish origins.

93 posted on 08/27/2006 3:27:44 AM PDT by Korvac (To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant. - Amos Bronson Alcott)

They find an imprint that may be an "A" that may have been on one of the missing pages and from this they rewrite all of the missing pages. Brilliant!!

And not the least bit presumptuous or guided but what they hope the outcome to be, of course

94 posted on 08/27/2006 4:00:09 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794