INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

SYRIA

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: SYRIA

#81 Postby Alan H » August 27th, 2013, 10:23 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Parliament has been recalled for Thursday to hold a debate discuss a statement listen to David 'call me Dave' Cameron tell what's best for us and what we're going to do.

The serious point is, however, regardless of what is decided, how, given the complexities of the situation, can we decide whether any decision is the right one?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: SYRIA

#82 Postby animist » August 27th, 2013, 10:24 pm

Dave B wrote:
Egypt has experienced several invasions during its history. However, these do not seem to account for more than about 10% overall of current Egyptians ancestry when the DNA evidence of the ancient mitochondrial DNA and modern Y chromosomes is considered. While Ivan van Sertima argue that the Egyptians were primarily Africoid before the many conquests of Egypt diluted the Africanity of the Egyptian people,[23] other scholars such as Frank Yurco believe that Modern Egyptians are largely representative of the ancient population, and the DNA evidence appears to support this view.


I feel that this makes them about as Arabic as it does the Turks. There has bound to be intermixing, but maybe not enough to be significant. The Tuaregs and Berbers, along with other N. African Arabic speakers, are also not truly Arabic - the Bahrainis (who are of Arabic descent) have nothing but contempt for the Berbers they employ as camel herders and labourers.
so what this comes down to is that only Arabians are Arabs - well, probably :wink:

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: SYRIA

#83 Postby Dave B » August 28th, 2013, 9:29 am

animist wrote:
Dave B wrote:
Egypt has experienced several invasions during its history. However, these do not seem to account for more than about 10% overall of current Egyptians ancestry when the DNA evidence of the ancient mitochondrial DNA and modern Y chromosomes is considered. While Ivan van Sertima argue that the Egyptians were primarily Africoid before the many conquests of Egypt diluted the Africanity of the Egyptian people,[23] other scholars such as Frank Yurco believe that Modern Egyptians are largely representative of the ancient population, and the DNA evidence appears to support this view.


I feel that this makes them about as Arabic as it does the Turks. There has bound to be intermixing, but maybe not enough to be significant. The Tuaregs and Berbers, along with other N. African Arabic speakers, are also not truly Arabic - the Bahrainis (who are of Arabic descent) have nothing but contempt for the Berbers they employ as camel herders and labourers.
so what this comes down to is that only Arabians are Arabs - well, probably :wink:
Ah, the original point was that Egypt has a different national structure, and psychology, than, say, Iraq, Syria and many others. Like Iran and Turkey it has been a "nation" in the sense that we might consider the word, for a very long time - the main internal tensions are the "degree" of adherence to Islam between the MB and the more secular citizens and between the military and the political and/or judiciary. Most of the truly Arabic nations are, sometimes uneasy or unstable, amalgamations of tribal groups. Afghanistan still suffers greatly from local warlords, especially in the north. The Sunni/Shia schism has only exacerbated this, as have the more modern militant Islamic movements. Thus factionalism and secularism run rife in Arabic countries more than in the other Arabic speaking countries.

Thus the problem the West has is that in supporting the rebels in Syria we cannot but run the danger of supporting anti-Western, -secular, -Christian, -progressive factions. There has been a similar picture in Libya, once the Strong Man was removed the "nation" broke down into factions and their separate militias and the West, in the person of the American ambassador (who was probably the best friend Libya had in the American political hierarchy), suffered because of this.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: SYRIA

#84 Postby animist » August 28th, 2013, 10:55 am

please refer to following post!

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: SYRIA

#85 Postby animist » August 28th, 2013, 11:00 am

Dave B wrote:
animist wrote:so what this comes down to is that only Arabians are Arabs - well, probably :wink:
Ah, the original point was that Egypt has a different national structure, and psychology, than, say, Iraq, Syria and many others. Like Iran and Turkey it has been a "nation" in the sense that we might consider the word, for a very long time - the main internal tensions are the "degree" of adherence to Islam between the MB and the more secular citizens and between the military and the political and/or judiciary. Most of the truly Arabic nations are, sometimes uneasy or unstable, amalgamations of tribal groups. Afghanistan still suffers greatly from local warlords, especially in the north. The Sunni/Shia schism has only exacerbated this, as have the more modern militant Islamic movements. Thus factionalism and secularism run rife in Arabic countries more than in the other Arabic speaking countries.

Thus the problem the West has is that in supporting the rebels in Syria we cannot but run the danger of supporting anti-Western, -secular, -Christian, -progressive factions. There has been a similar picture in Libya, once the Strong Man was removed the "nation" broke down into factions and their separate militias and the West, in the person of the American ambassador (who was probably the best friend Libya had in the American political hierarchy), suffered because of this.

I am even more confused now - what do you mean by "truly Arabic"? Some "Arab" states are more unstable than others and some have more of a long national identity than others - but Jordan is at present more stable than Egypt even though it has a shorter national history. And Afghanistan is not all Arab; while unstable in our Western terms, it has a long history of resisting outside domination and therefore presumably some sense of identity despite the ethnic divisions, so I do not think one can make these equations

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: SYRIA

#86 Postby Dave B » August 28th, 2013, 11:35 am

Yup, Afghanistan a bad example at that point - I was thinking too far ahead there! :redface: And, yes, Afghanistan does unite against foreign invaders but seems to get loose at the seams when there is no external threat. This gives an idea of the problems there - the north of the country always seems to have been the area of least united tribal and regional groups, the most local warlords who all want their share in the booty. The Taliban were the strongest group during the Russian occupation, with the help of the West of course, but their "remit" was mainly in the south. Are we going to repeat this in Syria I wonder?

Saudi Arabia was only united, under Grand Sherrif then King Hussein, during WW1 (with the help of T. E. Lawrence) in opposition to the Ottoman Empire. Before that there was a lot of internal fighting between the traditional factions and tribes. The smaller states were more united in themselves but it was probably the British influence and WW1 that showed them that inter state fighting was not helping any of them - the fact that they, or at least their ruling families, were all "united" by being of the Sunni sect helped. IIRC there was still a degree of intra-family intrigue even after the war.

My deepest interest in this goes back about thirty years but I try to keep abreast casually. Not sure if, in basics, a lot has changed since then . . .

Whatever, if it involves any nation from Turkey to Afghanistan they share a large degree of similarity of thought and will always possibly be a problem in terms of alliances with the west. If not something in their genes it has become something in their psychology due to a lot of shared history and a shared religion.

The Romans beat or traded some of the inter-tribal aggressiveness out of many European nations and gave the rest a model to build on - probably their lasting heritage to us and far more important than all the ruins!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: SYRIA

#87 Postby animist » August 28th, 2013, 12:09 pm

Dave B wrote:The Romans beat or traded some of the inter-tribal aggressiveness out of many European nations and gave the rest a model to build on - probably their lasting heritage to us and far more important than all the ruins!

except for all the intra-European wars, two of which we were arrogant to call world wars!

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: SYRIA

#88 Postby Altfish » August 28th, 2013, 5:12 pm

animist wrote:
Dave B wrote:The Romans beat or traded some of the inter-tribal aggressiveness out of many European nations and gave the rest a model to build on - probably their lasting heritage to us and far more important than all the ruins!

except for all the intra-European wars, two of which we were arrogant to call world wars!


Well, there were battles in Africa; Japan and the US were involved, how much of the world has to be involved for it to become a world war?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: SYRIA

#89 Postby Dave B » August 28th, 2013, 6:00 pm

animist wrote:
Dave B wrote:The Romans beat or traded some of the inter-tribal aggressiveness out of many European nations and gave the rest a model to build on - probably their lasting heritage to us and far more important than all the ruins!

except for all the intra-European wars, two of which we were arrogant to call world wars!
Ah, but those were inter-national, not inter-tribal. But, yes, basically if there is any excuse for, "Them and us," at any level from the inter-family to inter-national (maybe inter-continental one day) humans will bash one another to death, whether with an antelope leg bone or a bomb.

And don't forget WW2 involved what was left of the British Empire and the Commonwealth countries (Australia and Canada did not have to join in), Russia, fighting in Burma and at least politics in most of S. America on the Axis side. If there was not fighting in every country there were few of any commercial or political significance that were not affected in some way.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: SYRIA

#90 Postby Nick » August 29th, 2013, 12:21 pm

I have yet to be absolutely certain that the chemical atrocities were actually commited by the Syrian government.

I am also somewhat troubled at the prospect of the reactions of the West. Several hundred die at the hands of a dictatorship, so hundreds more die as a result of ICBM's launched from afar.

And Russia will do what.....?

Everyone loathes the Americans, until they need them.... Hmmm.... Yes, the situation is awful, but might we be better to leave it alone?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: SYRIA

#91 Postby animist » August 29th, 2013, 12:56 pm

Altfish wrote:
animist wrote:
Dave B wrote:The Romans beat or traded some of the inter-tribal aggressiveness out of many European nations and gave the rest a model to build on - probably their lasting heritage to us and far more important than all the ruins!

except for all the intra-European wars, two of which we were arrogant enough to call world wars!


Well, there were battles in Africa; Japan and the US were involved, how much of the world has to be involved for it to become a world war?

what I said is an exaggeration, but I feel like saying it as I think there is a germ of truth in it. It is more true of World War 1, since all the main players apart from Japan and the US were European; the conflict started in Europe, and all the colonial forces who perforce got involved were dragged in by their subservient status. In World War 2 the main conflict was again primarily a European one, though Japan played a bigger role, as did the US, and I suppose that, without the advent of Hitler, there could have been a Pacific war involving China, Japan and possibly the US and Britain; but again, the fact that fighting was even more worldwide should not obscure the fact that the war started as a European power struggle

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: SYRIA

#92 Postby animist » August 29th, 2013, 1:01 pm

Nick wrote:I have yet to be absolutely certain that the chemical attrocities were actually commited by the Syrian government.

I am also somewhat troubled at the prospect of the reactions of the West. Sveral hundred die at the hands of a dictatorship, so hundreds more die as a result of ICBM's launched from atar.

And Russia will do what.....?

Everyone loathes the Americans, until they need them.... Hmmm.... Yes, the situation is awful, but might we be better to leave it alone?

it is very bizarre - the regime was winning so why would it do what it is claimed to have done? The West cannot really blow up chemical dumps, and its intervention is unlikely to be decisive. Faint shades of Iraq...

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: SYRIA

#93 Postby animist » August 29th, 2013, 1:21 pm

Dave B wrote:
animist wrote:
Dave B wrote:The Romans beat or traded some of the inter-tribal aggressiveness out of many European nations and gave the rest a model to build on - probably their lasting heritage to us and far more important than all the ruins!

except for all the intra-European wars, two of which we were arrogant enough to call world wars!
Ah, but those were inter-national, not inter-tribal. But, yes, basically if there is any excuse for, "Them and us," at any level from the inter-family to inter-national (maybe inter-continental one day) humans will bash one another to death, whether with an antelope leg bone or a bomb. And don't forget WW2 involved what was left of the British Empire and the Commonwealth countries (Australia and Canada did not have to join in), Russia, fighting in Burma and at least politics in most of S. America on the Axis side. If there was not fighting in every country there were few of any commercial or political significance that were not affected in some way.

re international vs intertribal, what is a nation but a tribe with fixed boundaries? The rest of what you say I have kind of answered in the post to Altfish - South America was not on the Axis side, and some of the countries eventually joined the Allies

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: SYRIA

#94 Postby Dave B » August 29th, 2013, 5:09 pm

I think it is arguable, in terms of structure, whether there is any similarity between "tribal" and "national" groupings. It might be that any person can become a national of any country they chose to reside in (so long as that countries laws allow) but tribes tend to be fairly strong genetic groyupings, you might have to be officially adopted before joining one.

On S. Amarica, I could well be wrong there, I was thinking that Argentina was right wing at least after the war and in sympathy with German war criminals. Which S. American nations, as nations not as individuals, participated on the Allied side in the war then, Animist?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: SYRIA

#95 Postby animist » August 29th, 2013, 6:17 pm

Dave B wrote:On S. Amarica, I could well be wrong there, I was thinking that Argentina was right wing at least after the war and in sympathy with German war criminals. Which S. American nations, as nations not as individuals, participated on the Allied side in the war then, Animist?
as you can see, there was a bit of a bandwagon effect here once the US got involved
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviati ... volved.htm

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: SYRIA

#96 Postby Alan H » August 29th, 2013, 6:22 pm

So, what's tonight HoC vote going to look like?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: SYRIA

#97 Postby Altfish » August 29th, 2013, 6:27 pm

Alan H wrote:So, what's tonight HoC vote going to look like?

Is it a free vote or are the whips involved?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: SYRIA

#98 Postby Dave B » August 29th, 2013, 8:00 pm

Altfish wrote:
Alan H wrote:So, what's tonight HoC vote going to look like?

Is it a free vote or are the whips involved?
I think I heard earlier that the Cons had been whipped.

When Eddie Mair (PM, Radio 4) asked a minister whether the apparent unwillingness of the people for us to be involved would be taken into account the min, said something about MPs listening to their constituents. OK, but listening and acting, or being allowed to act, on what they hear are two very different things. IIRC the polls indicated that only 11% wanted us to become involved in this.

I still wonder just what evidence, beyond the delay in the event and allowing the inspectors in, there is. It was also said in the above programme that there have actually been 14 cases of chemical weapon use, albeit involving much smaller numbers than the latest. Perhaps that does indicate a long term willingness by the regime to use such weapons.

Strangely I do not find it strange that, if it was them, the regime should choose the very day the inspectors arrive to stage such an attack. Part and parcel with the arrogance of that type of regime?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: SYRIA

#99 Postby Altfish » August 29th, 2013, 11:12 pm

NO WAR NO WAR

Thank f&%£ - commons sees sense

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: SYRIA

#100 Postby animist » August 30th, 2013, 9:42 am

Altfish wrote:NO WAR NO WAR

Thank f&%£ - commons sees sense

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

maybe this shows that politicians, rather than uttering generalities like "something must be done" or "if we don't do this then the baddies will prosper" need to spell out just what they propose to do and why it would "work" - the usual excuse here is that it will give away too much to the other side, but I doubt this. Anyway, since Suez, Vietnam, Iraq and so on, everyone, whether in politics or just voting, is less and less likely just to trust to luck and to their leaders.
Poor old Obama - what does he do now?

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: SYRIA

#101 Postby jaywhat » August 30th, 2013, 11:51 am

My sister and her family live and work in Aleppo, but I do not know what I wish for them. In a perfect world I would like peace and common sense and equality and no dictactors and no religion be it Islam or any other, but........

Looking on the the bright I am happy this has happened to Cameron; but joking aside what can be done? What can we do? What can anyone do?

My sister simply asks me to continue with my mudane wittering about going to the shops and weeding the garden and watching rubbish on telly. She likes a bit of ordinary, everyday tittle tattle instead of relgious/political verbal (or otherwise) warmongering.

There! Feel better now.


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests