Weee =D Thanks for the answer of Hereward. But before you blame someone with inaccuracy, I suggest you at least to search at least "a little" about the subjects you will talk about. you should not only read the offical declerations, or very common and known papers but also look for in-depth analysis. and my last suggestion is, you should try to read from natural, non biased sources.

Okey now, when it comes to Israel conflict, with Balfour declaration, those lands are promised to Israel, with the exchange letters of McMahon and Sheriff Huseyn, it is stated that an independent Arab state was supported by England. The territories of the lands were vaguely identified. Yet Arabs claimed those lands were promised to them. What I criticize is the answers of England. Yes In 1922 Churchill White Paper it is stated that those lands were not really promised to Arabs. Yet through 1930, England policy changed since their interests shifted to Arabian side. In 1930 Passfield White paper, Arabian nation on Palestine is supported. So what did England do OBVIOUSLY from 1922 - 1930, was just creating chaos.Who loses the game gets the support of England and conflicts become a catastrophic dead locks.

When it comes to Cyprus -which you should really read about- EOKA (Cypriot Unionist with Greece) which is a terror organization was established against Britain Then British government on the island (yeah Turkey has not even intervened yet) give an order to move Turkish Cypriots to North though There were no major issue with Turks and Greek cypriots but between Greek Cypriots and England. All those happened in 1950-60. Turkey's military movement was in 1970s and the first intervene was regarding the 1960 Guarantee Treaty and was all legal. But the controversial issue is the expantion (second movement). [I'll stop here about Cyprus since it is not the main subject]

About Balkan independence, There wasn't series of wars, but there was only Russo-Ottoman War. Russia supported the independence of Balkan states since they are Slavic like Russia. Ottoman has never attempted to make Balkan states to war with each other. They didnt make any vague claims for Balkan states, neither supported one against each other.

Now;about India, what happened there was just like what happened to Israel. It was under British control and in 1947, Britian decieded to leave "cannot maintain" or whatever... So before they leave, they wanted to issue "the Partition of India".

When it comes to Heaven, that doesnt mean under "the heaven of Christ" obviously you misunderstood it. I mean by saying heaven is "a perfect living place". And it was actually from a Chinese idiom. So the heaven word there has nothing to do with secularity and religion. But thanks for remembering Ottoman state was secular, how about England... Oh I mean British Empire. I forget that you cannot see that I mean British Empire by saying England. Sorry but I'm not writing an article here. I think everyone understands what I mean by saying England -.- ''

Anyway, mentioned Asian Empires were for creating a perfect living place for people. yet British Empire was not respectful to other people of their Empire. And never hesitated to harm them even after she gave them their independence.

and last but not least, if you think an empire is only a domination of a large area; then you really miss very essential points about international relations. I told many times, it is such a narrow visioned mind that thinks that nations are here for war and capture for lands.

No, open your eyes. Nations essential aims are the peace and security of their people. (Check any nation's constitution) They war if other nations threat their security. If other nations give them a hand, they make peace. That's how the European Union is formed.