That Ottoman Universalism was a brand of Islamic Universalism, and no functionally different from any other religious universalism like the Habsburgs. That in no way contradicts the notion they were colonizers, particularly since you were quoting passages about the Ottoman colonization of Europe.
If I was in college, of course. I am not writing this for college, and rather than trying to prove you wrong, I am only trying to show that what I said was not as absurd as you claimed it was. It is mentioned, briefly, in the passage. Enver Pasha, the Ottoman Minister of War, was involved in Turkish intrigues in Central Asia with pretensions of a Pan-Turkic state. Pan-Turkism and Turkish Nationalism developed a break as the Young Turk movement matured, and when the Ottoman Monarchy was overthrown, the Pan-Turkic element within the Empire was likewise terminated.
Actually, it does. The book opens with passages on the development of Arab Nationalism occurring first within Jewish and Christian communities, and later spreading to others inside of the region until the dream of a unified Arabia was captured by the Hashemites, whereby the British and French supported the movement, only to betray the movement. The point of this section was to describe how the land of Palestine was the product of many frustrated promises by great powers playing with the hearts and minds of the populous. Likewise, it shows that an attempt to create Pan-Ottomanism was frustrated, and indeed failed, with the rise of Turkish and Arab nationalism instead. While not all Arabs were behind the revolt, that's not a counter-point. The United States, even near the end of the war, was still substantially populated with people who identified themselves as Englishmen first and foremost, and the war was lost near as much by Parliament deciding outright victory would be too expensive as it would be by any victory on the ground.