Full-scale, boots-on-the-ground intervention and we get Iraq
Just intervene with air power and we get Libya.
Don't (or barely) intervene and we get Syria.
Seems to me that these people are intent on slaughtering one another and nothing we do is going to make a damn bit of difference.
I misread this as West Ham in the middle east.Originally Posted by Burney
Full-scale, boots-on-the-ground intervention and we get Iraq
Just intervene with air power and we get Libya.
Don't (or barely) intervene and we get Syria.
Seems to me that these people are intent on slaughtering one another and nothing we do is going to make a damn bit of difference.
Easy one this,b. No, we can't. Though in memory of Jorge can I point out it is all fault anyway. SomehowFull-scale, boots-on-the-ground intervention and we get Iraq
Just intervene with air power and we get Libya.
Don't (or barely) intervene and we get Syria.
Seems to me that these people are intent on slaughtering one another and nothing we do is going to make a damn bit of difference.
Interesting parallel I saw someone draw the other day. He suggested the ME may currently be going through its equivalent of The Thirty Years War. I think he meant it as an optimistic point of view, suggesting that a more secular enlightenment-type deal may result eventually.
Bizarrely, I was just thinking the same thing. They are just a few centuries behind really. Sadly I don't think history is that neat
I don't think anyone would describe the Thirty Years War as 'neat', la.
No, of course it's not, but it's interesting how many of the same forces are in play and in similar ways. It would be nice to think that, after a few decades of devastation and many millions dead, they might reach the conclusion that maybe all this religion business is overrated, tbh.
It least it was a nice round numberI don't think anyone would describe the Thirty Years War as 'neat', la.
We could help nudge things along by stopping pretending that moderate, non-violent, western assimilated muslims are not a huge part of the problem, too?I don't think anyone would describe the Thirty Years War as 'neat', la.
No, of course it's not, but it's interesting how many of the same forces are in play and in similar ways. It would be nice to think that, after a few decades of devastation and many millions dead, they might reach the conclusion that maybe all this religion business is overrated, tbh.
They've been talking about this being their 30 years war for a decade now. Unfortunately, there are a few areas where the parallels break down:
1. They've been killing each other since the C7th. Reformation to Tr of Westphalia was 130 years. They're already passed 1,300 years.
2. We had national rivalries which were more important than religion once it ended. cf Proddy GB and NL fighting during Charles II's time. And then Louis XIV, meaning his quest for dominance would see GB (from Willy Orange onwards) cut deals with any European power who would help us, irrespective of religion.
3. The growing empires (coupled with the scientific advances) made Europeans feel secure as top dogs. Our Muslim friends know they are seriously behind the west, and like poor people everywhere, turn to religious tribalism to make themselves feel better (cf what's happening in India under Modi with the poor Hindus attacking Muslims and the cow vigilantes etc.) I may be poor, but I can kick this sunni/shia to make me feel superior to him.
4. The Reformation, by challenging the fundamental tenets of our 1,000 year old belief structure, paved the way for the Enlightenment. The French philosophes may have been nominally Catholic, but read between the lines in the Encyclopedie and you can see the attack on established religion.
The Enlightenment were Deists who believed in natural religion - working it out for themselves - not in revealed religion where God uses an intermediary to tell us what to do. As the very basis of all Islamic belief is revealed religion (hence the clamp down of the natural religion aspects of Sufism), I can't see an Islamic enlightenment coming.
Basically, it can't be the 30 years war as they haven't had a Reformation yet. We need that first - to challenge the absolutism of the Koran. Then we can have a 3 way war between the Reformed Muzzies, the Sunnis and Shias, a bit like our civil war had the non-conformists fighting both Catholics and Anglicans.
That's just my take, though.
The usual one-sided reporting of unverified claims, which even if true, only ever seem to be about offenses committed by forces aligned to one side (the Syrian government) in the battle for East Aleppo, with the aim of raising the clamour for somethingmustbedonery in support of the 'rebels' (new name for Al-Queda).Full-scale, boots-on-the-ground intervention and we get Iraq
Just intervene with air power and we get Libya.
Don't (or barely) intervene and we get Syria.
Seems to me that these people are intent on slaughtering one another and nothing we do is going to make a damn bit of difference.
We don't know what is happening in Al-Queda-held areas because these people, y'know, tend to chop journalists heads off, so we rely on 'tweets' and 'doctors' which are assumed to be geniune. I suspect they are from the same PR sources funded by Washington and Westminster which have been providing the same drip-drip of propaganda for the last five years.
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pro...-month-produce
Like the story of protest singer Ibrahim Qashoush, reported by BBC, CNN, Guardian, Telegraph, to have been brutally murdered by the 'regime', with his vocal chords cut out, who turns up alive and well in Spain. #fakenews
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/syria-civil-war
The West *is* intervening in the conflict in Syria, and the conflict exists because the West started the civil war in the first place (or massively helped it along) with the familiar aim of regime change. And with the familiar outcome which as usual is being blamed on other sides and dutifully reported as such in the usual places.
Last edited by Ash; 12-13-2016 at 02:35 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote