|
Worth pointing out that Ahmadinejad is theoretically term-limited next year and the Ayatollahs (apparently especially including Khamenei) would be glad to see him gone, but the need for another (rigged again?) election next summer is a potential danger for the regime, risking another round of protests.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Deal with the Israeli issue and you will bring about peace faster than you can blink an eye. That's a simplistic viewpoint. Hezbollah is not going to smelt its guns to make farming tools, the Shi'ites will not stop its thousand year beef with the Sunnis, the Kurds will not stop seeking a homeland, the Alawites will not willingly give up power in Syria and Islamist elements are not just going to give up trying to build up a Caliphate. The Arab Israeli issue is just one of many long standing problems in the region, so don't conflate solving it (whatever that means), with peace (whatever that means).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
My mom follows loads of Egyptians on twitter. Some translated tweets: "All the ambassador had to do was give out green cards and we'd curse the prophet for him" "You know how we should show that we're good Muslims? Let's loot and kill people" "I'm gonna step on this American flag with my Nike shoes and record it on my iPhone while I'm wearing Levi's" "The embassy was too far so I slapped my son twice in the name of the prophet"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Kombotron posted:That's a simplistic viewpoint. The Israeli issue is no more than yet another grievance. A comfortable fig-leaf to hide behind to and if anyone think "solve that and you solve the riddle" that anyone is either deluded or has just bought an old lie. If you do away with Israel, like the poster before me said, don't you worry, there's a shitload of other (far more serious) conflicts to go through. Shia/Sunni massacres are immensely far older just as a starter. There are a few certainties we can count on. Freedom of speech, however distasteful that speech is, is here to stay, despite surrender monkey's noise. Israel is here to stay. Islam fanatics are here to stay too as long as deluded westerners continue paying lip service and guilt-tripping. Secular muslims and Ex-muslim are still going to fight for modernisation even if continuously betrayed by western useful idiots. You can absolutely count on all the above.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Okay, so I read about the last eighty pages of this thread in a binge, and I'm having trouble pulling together all the information I've read over and would appreciate some help in contextualizing stuff here. There seems to be a general consensus that the whole affair involving the Film is suspicious as hell, right? The producer intentionally misleading his actors, editing the movie heavily afterwards and dubbing in a lot of stuff to make it inflammatory towards Muslims, and there's the whole thing with him claiming that Jewish people funded the film. I think he was also imprisoned and recently released before making that film. The film itself is also very amateur and has clear signs of being tampered with (with the dubs and such). And on the other side, it's pretty suspicious that the first violent protest in a while in that area would happen to come on 9/11, and that it happened to attack an American embassy. There seems to also be a general consensus that some militant group used (and may even have incited) the protests as a cover for their attack. I've seen speculation that the film itself was engineered by militant groups in the area to help create unrest and justification for pushing America out of their affairs. I've also seen a bunch of speculation that the film was pushed by Western interests to do... something??? in the area. Frankly I'm not sure what to think. Is there enough suspicious stuff going on regarding this whole affair to call conspiracy, or is it just a couple of convenient coincidences?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
THE AWESOME GHOST posted:"I'm gonna step on this American flag with my Nike shoes and record it on my iPhone while I'm wearing Levi's" haha way to accidentally protest China Thank you for the post, though. I like those jokes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
THE AWESOME GHOST posted:My mom follows loads of Egyptians on twitter. Some translated tweets: Ok, these brought a real smile to my face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Ultras Lazio posted:
Ultras Lazio posted:Israel is here to stay. Ultras Lazio posted:Islam fanatics are here to stay too as long as deluded westerners continue paying lip service and guilt-tripping. Ultras Lazio posted:Secular muslims and Ex-muslim are still going to fight for modernisation even if continuously betrayed by western useful idiots. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
I actually think Lazio is on the right track. Of course the problem for secular muslims (and for secular people everywhere really) is that "modern civilization" (whatever that really means these days) seems to be running out of steam.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:
Do you think anything other then murderous violence on a huge scale would have resulted in the US Government trying to remove the offending movie from YouTube ? That a peaceful demonstration would have had the most senior military officer of the country call a backer of the movie to withdraw hs support ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
WHOA!! US trying to send Marines to protect the embassy and Sudan refuses? Say they will protect the embassy and the Marines can't come in?  I guess you have to give them credit for balls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
I don't think Sudan has any reason to cater to the U.S. in such a dramatic manner. Relations aren't the best right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Mans posted:So are people in this thread really claiming Arabs had no access to the internet? I'm pretty sure Arabs could go to youtube before the revolution. Do you think they assume Youtube Poops are state released videos? Most of the middle east has internet, but not everyone speaks English, the video is on the same scale of misunderstanding as the danish cartoons debacle, alot of people think its state produced. The whole "financed by jews" got gobbled up instantly, much like a domino effect though terrorists needed a big bang and an iconic day promote the whole thing. Its not like people are unaware anti-islamic material exists, everyone knows that and was pretty much ignored. I'd fault the media (as nebulous as that sounds, excuse my vagueness but we do have multiple "Fox News" like channels in the arab world too) for misreporting the whole thing though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
What's Iran's current stance on the territories it lost through the 19th and 20th centuries? Parts of modern Aghanistan and territories in the Caucasus and such. I never hear stories about Iran vowing to take back the territories or Iranian leaders using it to beat the nationalism drum, but I assume they aren't content about all the lost territory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:What's Iran's current stance on the territories it lost through the 19th and 20th centuries? Parts of modern Aghanistan and territories in the Caucasus and such. There are still territorial disputes, but much like any modern states its centered around tiny islands in bodies of water. Right now Iran is poking at Bahrain (at one point it belonged to them) and occupying the Lesser and Greater Tunb Islands and Abu Musa (Islands that at one point belonged to the states of Sharjah and Ras Al Khaima, now part of the UAE, originally given by the Qajari Shah probably, then the Pahlavis took it back in the 70s, oh lord its a long story and i don't want to take sides).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Exhibit A for the Cold War geopolitics thing: the shift of Egypt from being a Soviet client state to a U.S. client state as part of the Camp David peace process. In 1973 we undertook a massive airlift of a shitload of military aid to help Israel defeat Egypt; 6 years later we were agreeing to give Egypt billions of dollars annually in military aid.THE AWESOME GHOST posted:My mom follows loads of Egyptians on twitter. Some translated tweets: This is a good post. Svartvit posted:I don't think Sudan has any reason to cater to the U.S. in such a dramatic manner. Relations aren't the best right now. Except allowing additional Marines in isn't "catering," that's common diplomatic courtesy. It's not like these dudes would be U.S. personnel cracking heads on the street or something, they would only be doing internal security so the only way they would be utilized is if the Sudanese security forces failed and protesters gained access to the embassy compound. I'm not saying that Sudanese-U.S. relations aren't in the toilet (they are), just that it's far more dramatic for them to tell the U.S. to gently caress off than if they had allowed the FAST team in, because allowing additional security personnel in when requested for internal security is a pretty standard diplomatic courtesy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:What's Iran's current stance on the territories it lost through the 19th and 20th centuries? Parts of modern Aghanistan and territories in the Caucasus and such. More relevant in terms of national discourse is the Iran-Iraq war (8 years/1 million+ dead Iranians), which mostly took place within a dozen miles of current borders (map). Given this rather recent lesson in the grim reality of what territorial expansion actually entails, I can't see Iran having a crack at large-scale conquering or occupation any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Exhibit A for the Cold War geopolitics thing: the shift of Egypt from being a Soviet client state to a U.S. client state as part of the Camp David peace process. In 1973 we undertook a massive airlift of a shitload of military aid to help Israel defeat Egypt; 6 years later we were agreeing to give Egypt billions of dollars annually in military aid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
FrozenShellfish posted:I don't know about the official position, but from the Iranians I know it seems similar to how the British treat their empire; historical pride, possibly feel they have a vague right to influence things over there, but not really willing to fight to get it back. In terms not of territory but of ethnic affiliation, Iran cares about the Tajiks and Hezara in Afghanistan, for example, and would be the natural ally of the U.S. in their Afghanistan campaign if not for gently caress Iran.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
FrozenShellfish posted:I don't know about the official position, but from the Iranians I know it seems similar to how the British treat their empire; historical pride, possibly feel they have a vague right to influence things over there, but not really willing to fight to get it back. Since Iran's signature tactic was barely armed human waves at the time, I think they could rationalize that they're better equipped now(they are). But I think their focus just isn't remotely near reconquering old territory right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Embassy security is in the hands of the state where the Embassy is. Allowing a foreign army (no matter how small a number) to enter your country is a pretty dramatic thing, I'd guess, but if you've got examples otherwise then fine. Every word you just wrote is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Embassy security is in the hands of the state where the Embassy is. Allowing a foreign army (no matter how small a number) to enter your country is a pretty dramatic thing, I'd guess, but if you've got examples otherwise then fine. That's the thing though, external security is the responsibility of the hosting state. Internal security is always the responsibility of the diplomatic mission, and I can almost 100% guarantee that there are already Marine Security Guards at the embassy in Khartoum (just like there are at pretty much every embassy worldwide). This would just be a deployment of an additional 50ish Marines to help beef up internal security in the event that Sudanese security is unable to keep folks out of the compound. I honestly can't recall a country ever refusing a request for this, even from countries that did not have very good relations with the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Embassy security is in the hands of the state where the Embassy is. Allowing a foreign army (no matter how small a number) to enter your country is a pretty dramatic thing, I'd guess, but if you've got examples otherwise then fine. Canadian Forces Military Police provides security at a number of Canadian Embassies around the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Embassy security is in the hands of the state where the Embassy is. Allowing a foreign army (no matter how small a number) to enter your country is a pretty dramatic thing, I'd guess, but if you've got examples otherwise then fine. It's common. There are about a thousand USMC guards stationed at 125 embassies, consulates or other missions around the globe, including in peaceful allied countries. Host countries seldom have an issue with this because anything that happens to a foreign mission reflects poorly on the host's reputation. Of course they wouldn't let hundreds of soldiers to be stationed, but even Cuba allows the US "Interests Section in Havanna" to keep a Marines detachment there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Maybe I wasn't very clear, but I was talking about allowing military to enter. I know that inside the actual embassy countries have their own security. I've heard of embassies being evacuated many times, but I've never heard of soldiers entering another country to engage with rioters or breaches of an embassy. Like I said, I might be wrong about that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Maybe I wasn't very clear, but I was talking about allowing military to enter. I know that inside the actual embassy countries have their own security. I've heard of embassies being evacuated many times, but I've never heard of soldiers entering another country to engage with rioters or breaches of an embassy. Like I said, I might be wrong about that. They wouldn't be engaging with rioters unless they actually get inside the compound (and even then, judging by events elsewhere they would probably have to actually get inside a building or the internal perimeter before being engaged by U.S. personnel, not just breach an external wall). External vs internal security. The additional Marines would just be beefing up what the Marines that are already there would do in the event of a breach of the compound. Nenonen posted:Host countries seldom have an issue with this because anything that happens to a foreign mission reflects poorly on the host's reputation. Exactly. If something really bad does happen and the Marines on hand are unable to deal with it, this is going to turn into a Big Deal, diplomatically speaking. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:They wouldn't be engaging with rioters unless they actually get inside the compound (and even then, judging by events elsewhere they would probably have to actually get inside a building or the internal perimeter before being engaged by U.S. personnel, not just breach an external wall). External vs internal security. The additional Marines would just be beefing up what the Marines that are already there would do in the event of a breach of the compound. Still sounds weird to me, and it also sound like the U.S. maybe should think about evacuating if it's such a dangerous situation that the existing security isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Still sounds weird to me, and it also sound like the U.S. maybe should think about evacuating if it's such a dangerous situation that the existing security isn't enough. If the U.S. evacuated diplomatic missions every time there was a nasty protest outside the gates we shouldn't even bother having missions in like half the developing world because we'd be evacuating every 6 months. The MSG det at the embassy is going to be a 5-15ish person group of Marines (depending on the embassy size). As others have said in the thread, their primary responsibility in the event of a facility being overrun is buying time to secure/destroy classified and to get the staff out a "back door." Adding a FAST team is just a contingency plan to beef up those numbers so that there is a little stronger show of force inside the compound in the unlikely event it is overrun, possibly making the difference between having to completely evacuate and being able to turn back the crowd from the internal perimeter. e: Deploying a FAST team in a situation like this is a very common event (like it probably happens at least once a year somewhere worldwide, if not more often), so it's not like this is the first time the U.S. has requested this or anything. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:If the U.S. evacuated diplomatic missions every time there was a nasty protest outside the gates we shouldn't even bother having missions in like half the developing world because we'd be evacuating every 6 months. The MSG det at the embassy is going to be a 5-15ish person group of Marines (depending on the embassy size). As others have said in the thread, their primary responsibility in the event of a facility being overrun is buying time to secure/destroy classified and to get the staff out a "back door." Adding a FAST team is just a contingency plan to beef up those numbers so that there is a little stronger show of force inside the compound in the unlikely event it is overrun, possibly making the difference between having to completely evacuate and being able to turn back the crowd from the internal perimeter. Begs the question of why Sudan is taking such a hardline. What do they gain from overtly thumbing their nose at the U.S. like this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
Myrdhale posted:Begs the question of why Sudan is taking such a hardline. What do they gain from overtly thumbing their nose at the U.S. like this? Smug satisfaction. The US has been giving them poo poo over Darfur and South Sudan, so they're taking a chance for retaliation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Oh that's right, I keep forgetting how petty and dumb people can get with their priorities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Smug satisfaction. The US has been giving them poo poo over Darfur and South Sudan, so they're taking a chance for retaliation. That'd be my guess, particularly with South Sudan since the whole independence thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Sudan has also been a long-term friend of Iran, so it's not unexpected that they'd thumb their nose at the US either independently or after consultation with Iran.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
kylejack posted:You know, not everyone has Total Information Awareness, like we do here in the United States. Some of the people rioting may not even have enough bandwidth to play the video. Most of the protesters haven't seen the video and we often talk about the misconceptions we have in the US about some of these countries and their cultures so imagine the misconceptions about the US in a country without TIA. Many of the protesters were told that the movie was widely released and playing on every television channel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:What's Iran's current stance on the territories it lost through the 19th and 20th centuries? Parts of modern Aghanistan and territories in the Caucasus and such. Iran (Afsharids) lost it's Eastern territories (Herat, Farah etc) to the Pashtuns during the 1700's, i can't imagine they're still sour about it. The permanent territory loses would've been a lot worse if the Pashtuns weren't too busy fighting each other the whole time. eSports Chaebol posted:In terms not of territory but of ethnic affiliation, Iran cares about the Tajiks and Hezara in Afghanistan, for example, and would be the natural ally of the U.S. in their Afghanistan campaign if not for gently caress Iran. They're all fellow Persianate groups but Iran only aligned itself with the Hazaras during the Civil war periods and beyond because they're Shias, Tajiks (Sunni) have always relied on support from the West and/or the former Soviet states to the north. It's more sectarian than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Embassy security is in the hands of the state where the Embassy is. Allowing a foreign army (no matter how small a number) to enter your country is a pretty dramatic thing, I'd guess, but if you've got examples otherwise then fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:In terms not of territory but of ethnic affiliation, Iran cares about the Tajiks and Hezara in Afghanistan, for example, and would be the natural ally of the U.S. in their Afghanistan campaign if not for gently caress Iran. Iran supported the Norther Alliance/United Front because they see instability in Afghanistan as an opportunity to press their own security and political agendas. There is a lot of resentment in Afghanistan towards Pakistan (obviously for supporting, arming and assisting the Taliban, which they still do) and towards Iran for playing sides against each other for their own agenda and interests but with no goal for Afghans to be a united nation and sovereign power. Iran also classes Hazara as second class people, and left them to the dogs once they'd used them (unfairly) for the Iraq-Iran war. From what I understand they also don't grant the Afghan Hazaras escaping persecution citizenship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Think about this for a second. Regardless of what country by which it is surrounded, a United States Embassy is part of the United States. Of course Marines guard it. It would be far weirder for the United States to have foreign soldiers guarding its soil than it is for a foreign nation to allow American soldiers to pass through on their way to work. It's not correct that a US embassy is 'part of the United States', this debate was had in the Assange thread, and embassies are still the territory of the host nation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
Ordered departure for U.S. personnel in Khartoum and Tunis, and travel warnings for U.S. citizens have been posted.Quasimango posted:It's not correct that a US embassy is 'part of the United States', this debate was had in the Assange thread, and embassies are still the territory of the host nation. Yeah, embassies/consulates/other diplomatic facilities have certain aspects of extraterritoriality under the Vienna Convention but they are most definitely not "territory" of the nation the mission is representing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
brakeless posted:A cuople of things about the drone/"collateral damage"-chat a couple of pages back: SilentD posted:That's all fine and good. But it's not as if the people we are fighting don't have a history of storing weapons in schools and other such places so when they are killed they can whip a mess about civilian killings. Their doing that deliberately and actually want civilians to get blown to poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 07:24
|
|
