|
You don't have to be outraged to maintain a strong skepticism based on 500 years of horrible history with regards to France in Africa.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
You'd have to have the most ridiculously anti-Western bias to ignore the even worse 1,500 year history of White North-African Slavery and Colonialism when the French are sending troops to an area that hasn't been strategically important to anyone in half a millennium. edit: Not that the French haven't committed their share of atrocities, but if they were looking for profit in this venture, wouldn't they just invade Zaire, or at least invade without waiting for the leader of the nation to tell them to enter first? Devil Child fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:You'd have to have the most ridiculously anti-Western bias to ignore the even worse 1,500 year history of White North-African Slavery and Colonialism when the French are sending troops to an area that hasn't been strategically important to anyone in half a millennium. I get the anti neo colonialist sentiment. And you are right, France is doing this for its own self interests. But thats what EVERY country does and any time a country intervenes on behalf of another its for their own interest and not necessarily out of humanitarianism or protecting civilians. So with that being said, France is intervening in Mali to prevent the formation of another Al Qaeda safe haven in the world. The Malian government cannot fight the Islamists on their own, and so requested help. If they don't get it, then Mali will become the next Afghanistan or Somalia. And thats bad news for any Western country. France is a big target for terrorists, so sending in their military is in their best interests to keep from having to go in later after a terror attack on French soil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:You don't have to be outraged to maintain a strong skepticism based on 500 years of horrible history with regards to France in Africa. Didn't say I wasn't skeptical, because I am. These things almost always screw over people living there, and benefit the former colonial power doing the "intervening." But occasionally a country like France's ulterior motives will have a secondary positive impact, or at least better than how it would have been otherwise. Again, I'm probably critical to a fault of interventionism, and I opposed the one in Libya at first. I turned out to be incorrect there, I'll admit. I could turn out to be equally wrong for supporting the French intervention here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:You don't have to be outraged to maintain a strong skepticism based on 500 years of horrible history with regards to France in Africa. Yea this is where I land, obviously I'm not going to say 'boo France how dare you respond to a request for aid against an insanely bad uprising' but this is something that is worth watching because France and Africa aren't exactly BFFs where France helps just for funsies. They're going to expect something out of this, and hopefully it's just typical 'hey we helped you so be friendly to us for a bit'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea this is where I land, obviously I'm not going to say 'boo France how dare you respond to a request for aid against an insanely bad uprising' but this is something that is worth watching because France and Africa aren't exactly BFFs where France helps just for funsies. They're going to expect something out of this, and hopefully it's just typical 'hey we helped you so be friendly to us for a bit'. One could make the argument that France is simply trying to keep Malia from turning into Al Qaeda-stan and thats what they are getting out of it. A former French colony turned de facto Al Qaeda state presents quite a threat to French national security.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
Hi Middle East thread. On another forum I frequent, some crazy guy posted this video, which supposedly shows "FSA members" cheering at the name of bin Laden and other nasty stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQQAZ7gZaok The jackass admitted he doesn't know Arabic at all, but for those of us that do, can you confirm if the subtitles in the video are an accurate translation? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:One could make the argument that France is simply trying to keep Malia from turning into Al Qaeda-stan and thats what they are getting out of it. A former French colony turned de facto Al Qaeda state presents quite a threat to French national security. That's how I look at it too. Mali's right in the middle of West Africa, one could launch attacks on half a dozen countries (pretty much all former French colonies) from there. Now hopefully this won't wind up killing too many civilians and/or lead to a gently caress-up like in Ivory Coast a few years back (when France destroyed their air force and had tanks running around Abidjan).
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 09:54
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Hi Middle East thread. I've been told it's mostly correct, although the Twin Towers aren't referenced directly. Apparently it's a popular Jihadist song.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
What you have to realize now, and I'm speaking as someone who wants that fucker Assad to meet the same fate he put on those fourteen year old boys, is that we haven't been supporting the FSA because they're the most moral force. We're supporting the FSA because they're the best equipped rebels, the largest in number, and while Islamist, since they're affiliated with the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood, we're okay with supporting them rather than the admittedly more extreme Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham. We're also supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, so this isn't inconsistent with recent US foreign policy. It's still a completely awful idea to support the loving Muslim Brotherhood anywhere, given that all their political positions are either identical to that of Fred Phelps,* or well to the right of him.** * The execution of gays, apostates, and adulterers, religious intolerance, hysterical anti-Americanism and Antisemitism, use of religious text as the sole reference point of state law. ** The Brotherhood supports polygamy and slavery, and opposes the use of vernacular religious texts. All of this puts them well to the right of Fred Phelps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 11:28
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I've been told it's mostly correct, although the Twin Towers aren't referenced directly. Apparently it's a popular Jihadist song. Gotcha, thanks. How significant is the capture of the Taftanaz air base? What does it mean for the rebels/regime?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 12:02
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I've been told it's mostly correct, although the Twin Towers aren't referenced directly. Apparently it's a popular Jihadist song. Is it wrong that I got a chuckle out of the though them envisioning OBL as some sort of mythical jihadist folk hero? I HEARD OSAMA KNOCKED DOWN TEN- NO, TWENTY TOWERS! WITH HIS BARE HANDS! Also, not technically the middle east but: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ls-in-Mali.html quote:The French defence ministry said the hostage, Denis Allex, a French soldier who had been held since he was kidnapped in the capital Mogadishu in 2009, was killed along with two of the French would-be rescuers. Seventeen Somalian fighters were also killed. BIG HORNY COW fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:What you have to realize now, and I'm speaking as someone who wants that fucker Assad to meet the same fate he put on those fourteen year old boys, is that we haven't been supporting the FSA because they're the most moral force. We're supporting the FSA because they're the best equipped rebels, the largest in number, and while Islamist, since they're affiliated with the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood, we're okay with supporting them rather than the admittedly more extreme Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham. Actually aren't the FSA actually poorly equipped and manned compared to other groups? I was under the impression that many more radical groups were getting more arms, money and higher recruitment because the Gulf States prefer them for political and cultural reasons to the FSA. This extra support lets them run bigger and slicker operations then the FSA, leading to lots of new people join their camp and bands to strip off from the FSA to join up with them instead. Isn't the general consensus that the FSA is the largest "group", but that it doesn't represent the majority of fighters?In fact I've seen some people express the sentiment that the Western community being hitched to the FSA might be a political liability, as they aren't expected to come out on top after Assad is thrown out. I would argue that the US and Western communtiy in general didn't back the FSA grudgingly because of it's strength, but entirely due to it's moderation. Not that the Western communities support has meant very much at all. Even if the FSA or FSA backed political party rises to power and fucks poo poo up, how much guilt can you ascribe to the US over the communications equipment and possible intel tips we gave them? I have to say I'm curious about the phrase 'most moral force', especially in the context of a brutal civil war. If you don't feel the FSA is the most moral force in the conflict, who is? It seems like a hard distinction to earn, and I'm having trouble thinking of more then a handful (and those are dubious).
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Gotcha, thanks. It'll reduce the pressure on the opposition in that region, and allow them to focus on over-running the remaining bases in the Aleppo region, of which there's a dwindling number. I'm hoping I can get a count of the helicopters that were destroyed and captured in the attack, as at a rough guess it's about 10% of their Hip fleet, plus some of their Hinds, which I believe number about 36. It's been estimated that only about 50% of their helicopter fleet is available to fly, so it'll have a knock on effect of making it increasingly difficult to resupply isolated bases by air, making them easier to overrun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:if we actually become forced to recognize the government of these motherfuckers, we'll be forced to give legitimacy to yet another regime that refuses to outlaw slavery just like we have with Morsi's Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
cafel posted:Actually aren't the FSA actually poorly equipped and manned compared to other groups? I was under the impression that many more radical groups were getting more arms, money and higher recruitment because the Gulf States prefer them for political and cultural reasons to the FSA. The FSA and the Muslim Brotherhood are the preferred group of radicals with the highest numbers and the most international support. They were also the best armed and largest group during the last Syrian Uprising under the First Assad. They have a standing army of at least 100,000, which gives the FSA ten times the troops of the admittedly worse al-Nursa, though only a fifth as many troops as the SAF. cafel posted:This extra support lets them run bigger and slicker operations then the FSA, leading to lots of new people join their camp and bands to strip off from the FSA to join up with them instead. That, but replace the acronym "FSA" with the words "secularists" and "democrats," and the word "them" with "the FSA and the Muslim Brotherhood." cafel posted:Isn't the general consensus that the FSA is the largest "group", but that it doesn't represent the majority of fighters? That was how it started out. But given the complete lack of support the secularists and democrats have been getting relative to the FSA and the "moderate" Islamists, combined with increasingly brutal violence, they're quickly supplanting the original tenants of the Revolution. cafel posted:In fact I've seen some people express the sentiment that the Western community being hitched to the FSA might be a political liability, as they aren't expected to come out on top after Assad is thrown out. Supporting Islamists was an awful idea when they actually took power in Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Gaza, and Iran. The outcome will likely be just as bad here if we support them when Assad finally meets his miserable end. cafel posted:I would argue that the US and Western communtiy in general didn't back the FSA grudgingly because of it's strength, but entirely due to it's moderation. The only way you could think this is by not actually studying any of the positions the Islamists involved with the FSA support. I suppose you could call the Muslim Brotherhood "moderate" relative to other Islamists groups, but if your standards are that crappy, you could call Pat Buchanan a "moderate" relative to other fascist. cafel posted:Not that the Western communities support has meant very much at all. Quite true, it hasn't. But our lack of support being even lower for secularists and democrats than for "moderate" Islamists has mattered. cafel posted:Even if the FSA or FSA backed political party rises to power and fucks poo poo up, how much guilt can you ascribe to the US over the communications equipment and possible intel tips we gave them? Given our embarassing policy with Egypt bringing the same results, quite a large amount. The US has a lot of power outside just our military, and we should at the very least not make the same mistake with Syria we made with Egypt and Tunisia, mistakes themselves identical to the mistakes of Sudan and Iran. cafel posted:I have to say I'm curious about the phrase 'most moral force', especially in the context of a brutal civil war. If you don't feel the FSA is the most moral force in the conflict, who is? It seems like a hard distinction to earn, and I'm having trouble thinking of more then a handful (and those are dubious). The Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians, the Syrian National Council, and SNC President George Sabra, all of whom actually support replacing Assad's awful, oppressive government with one that isn't terrible as opposed to the Islamists who want a different kind of terrible government. The SNC is probably who you were originally thinking of when you were talking about the FSA, but all three are in grave danger by the time the conflict with Assad wraps up and the Islamists don't want to be ruled by a disgusting dhimmi like Sabra.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Egypt doesn't outlaw slavery? Really? Rest assured it is outlawed. The wording was dropped when the constitution was re-written, because some thought it'd be unnecessary (which is dumb), but that's it. The idea that slavery was now somehow legal in Egypt was a spin put on it by professional outragers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
BIG HORNY COW posted:Is it wrong that I got a chuckle out of the though them envisioning OBL as some sort of mythical jihadist folk hero?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Egypt doesn't outlaw slavery? Really? First off, don't listen to this. Svartvit posted:Rest assured it is outlawed. The wording was dropped when the constitution was re-written, because some thought it'd be unnecessary (which is dumb), but that's it. The idea that slavery was now somehow legal in Egypt was a spin put on it by professional outragers. The absence of the wording explicitly outlawing slavery wasn't dropped because the Muslim Brotherhood thought it was unnecessary, and that's not as far as it goes. There's a group of Islamic Fundamentalists justly reviled by many who believe that not only should the Qur'an be the sole reference point for what to prohibit, but that anything not specifically prohibited by the Qur'an or Muhammad doesn't need to be criminalized. Because of these motherfuckers, you not only have significant support for some really horrible laws like prohibition, the poll tax, and the persecution of dhimmis, gays, women, and apostates, but support for the legalization of polygamy, child brides, and slavery. It's a rotten sect, much like the Westboro Baptist Church. But unlike Fred Phelps's motley crew, the people who support these awful positions actually hold significant power. Sayyid Qutb, the leading Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood scholar of the 50's and 60's, actually said the following about slavery: Sayyid Qutb posted:"And concerning the slaves, that was when slavery was a world-wide structure and which was conducted amongst the Muslims and their enemies in the form of enslaving of prisoners of war. And it was necessary for Islam to adopt a similar line of practise until the world devised a new code of practise, other than enslavement." Now, much like people point out that Muhammad himself treated his slaves better than pre-Caliphate Arabia, many point out that Qutb isn't saying that slavery needs to be Islamic as a way to justify this embarrassing quote. I won't contest either of those points, but I will contest against the fact that by saying those things, people are still pardoning a ham-handed justification for slavery under the thin premise of their brand being less horrible than times past. Not to mention that nowhere in this statement is Qutb actually condemning slavery as a whole, nor giving any concrete method for its abolition. He merely states it necessary until an arbitrary, non-concrete date of practical abolition. This appalling standard on slavery is only exacerbated by the terrible conditions the Black Africans have experienced at the hands of the Saharans regardless of the religion they've practiced. After what Omar al-Bashir did to put Black Africans back into slavery in Sudan, trusting Egypt to not attempt the same here is dangerously naïve at best, and brickshit stupid at worst. Devil Child fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:Supporting Islamists was an awful idea when they actually took power in Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Gaza, and Iran. The outcome will likely be just as bad here if we support them when Assad finally meets his miserable end. I gotta disagree with this. I can't say for certain as I can't remember the specifics of the Egyptian elections, but Morsi was far more palatable than any other candidate as far as extremism goes. But more importantly, there will be another election, and if Egyptians don't like the direction they are going, they can vote him out. As it stands right now, the majority of citizens voted in favor of his constitution, which insinuates that he has a lot of support in Egypt, unless a ton of people just didn't vote on it. Part of a democracy is that you don't get to install the person you like in office. If Egypt has a democratically elected official representing the interests of the majority of the country, I don't see any justification for acting like it's anything but one of the good scenarios for how the conflict in Syria plays out, regardless of how lovely I think Morsi is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I gotta disagree with this. I can't say for certain as I can't remember the specifics of the Egyptian elections, but Morsi was far more palatable than any other candidate as far as extremism goes. That's because none of the candidates aside from the Military and the Islamists actually had any time to organize. Even then, the Military and the Islamists only got half the votes combined in the first round of the elections. There's no way they would've gotten those results with an organized opposition. People often talk about how disingenuous it is to describe Obama as a liberal, but I've never in my lifetime heard any statement of political beliefs displaying a greater middle finger to the idea of representation than the idea of Mohamed Morsi as a moderate. This is not the best Egypt can do. Volkerball posted:But more importantly, there will be another election, and if Egyptians don't like the direction they are going, they can vote him out. As it stands right now, the majority of citizens voted in favor of his constitution, which insinuates that he has a lot of support in Egypt, unless a ton of people just didn't vote on it. In addition to the remarkably lower turnout to vote on the constitution, you've got to be seriously deluded if you think anyone running against Morsi in any election he runs afterwards stands a chance. Egypt likely won't wind up as bad as Iran, the war with Iraq was the Ayatollah's key to radicalizing and consolidating the government, and Egypt can't replicate that. But much like Iran, they've already made a joke of democracy that can never be called legitimate. Volkerball posted:Part of a democracy is that you don't get to install the person you like in office. If Egypt has a democratically elected official representing the interests of the majority of the country, I don't see any justification for acting like it's anything but one of the good scenarios for how the conflict in Syria plays out, regardless of how lovely I think Morsi is. What's supposed to make democracy an actually good system of government is that all peoples of the nation are represented equally under the law, and Islamism represents the exact opposite of that. Democracy under Islamism is no more valuable or genuine than Democracy under the South African National Party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
France has been pretty busy lately. They sent helicopters and commandoes into Somalia to try to rescue a Intel agent that has been held there for 3 years. The operation didn't go well, and the agent and a soldier were killed. The Somalis say that the agent is still alive and they have an injured French soldier. If thats true, I fear for both of them now. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...ue-attempt?lite And they are still fighting in Mali using aircraft, helicopters, and troops. Unfortunately one of their choppers was shot down and the pilot died. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/12/16478255-intense-fighting-as-french-forces-attack-mali-islamists
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Army bombards Damascus suburbs This article brings up two interesting claims: A) The regime claims they have captured Daraya. It's the regime, so take it with a grain of salt. B) The other claim is that a senior foreign intelligence official (Jumaa Farraj Jassem, "head of Section 30 of the foreign service of the General Intelligence Directorate") has defected. The video is unverified, so take another grain of salt. Other than that, it's nothing really special. This is probably Assad's retaliation for the capture of Taftanaz.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Hollande has ordered security to be stepped up in France in fear of reprisals. What were his aims in Mali? Why has France become active all of a sudden? I realize Mali is a former French colony and there's been a couple of pages of discussion on it so far, but I'm still struggling to see the core purpose behind the intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
This video from the Taftanaz Air Base shows a crashed Hip, along with the bodies of the men who appear to have been inside at the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NtyMo8K2oM It's unclear if it's related to this video showing a Hip apparently being shot down over the air base https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I05Av0Lc6fU
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:Hollande has ordered security to be stepped up in France in fear of reprisals. Like I said in an earlier post, I think its mainly to prevent Mali from becoming the next Taliban style country like Afghanistan or Somalia. France is the biggest military heavyweight in that part of Africa and yes, a former colonizer. The reason for the rapid acceleration in military intervention is that The Malian Al Qaeda rebels are making swift advances and were nearing the capital. The ECOWAS/African Union force is taking way to long to get deployed there so the president of Mali asked France for help. The Malian military is a joke and cant handle the terrorists on its own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
I wonder too if they found a ring of those guys operating within France, and didn't really like where it was going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:Supporting Islamists was an awful idea when they actually took power in Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Gaza, and Iran. The outcome will likely be just as bad here if we support them when Assad finally meets his miserable end. Well, on the bright side, it seems like Tunisia and Egypt have pretty forceful workers' movements and left-wing voices. If and when the Salafists don't do anything to fix the economy or build crucial infrastructure (they won't), the new democratic mechanisms will give the correct people a shot at ruling the country. This could have been the case in the Middle East many years ago, were it not for things like Operation Ajax and supporting Qutbists to fight against Leftists and Soviet-allied groups. But I think the economic crises are far from over, and will probably increase in frequency in the coming years, and with that will hopefully come some strong resistance to reactionaries and right-wing religious zealots. This will be a difficult long-term process and not some overnight miracle, but I don't see how anybody could take away from the Arab Spring that "well, maybe it wasn't such a good idea because X and Y came to power democratically for a little while" -- the fact that they can change leaders now and decide for themselves what they want is unquestionably better. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:First off, don't listen to this. I'm not sure what you're saying, or what your point is. Maybe you could paraphrase it in a less rambling manner? Regarding Qutb, I'm pretty drat sure he was against slavery. I don't understand what's so embarrassing about that quote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Well, on the bright side, it seems like Tunisia and Egypt have pretty forceful workers' movements and left-wing voices. If and when the Salafists don't do anything to fix the economy or build crucial infrastructure (they won't), the new democratic mechanisms will give the correct people a shot at ruling the country. This could have been the case in the Middle East many years ago, were it not for things like Operation Ajax and supporting Qutbists to fight against Leftists and Soviet-allied groups. But I think the economic crises are far from over, and will probably increase in frequency in the coming years, and with that will hopefully come some strong resistance to reactionaries and right-wing religious zealots. Well the real test will be when the new crop of leaders in the Middle East serve out their terms and elections are held. We might experience all the things we are used to seeing in the Middle East, like impositions of state of emergencies, suspended elections due to said states of emergency, rigged elections, voter fraud, voter intimidation, violence by gangs and thugs working for a particular candidate, etc. Take Morsi for example, he was elected democratically, but has shown that he isnt afraid to make a power grab if he feels like it. When his term is up, I dont put it past him to somehow make elections impossible or at least get re-elected in a fraudulent way. achieving something resembling true democracy in the Middle East has been a huge step forward for the people there. But the next hurdle they have to cross is the orderly, civilized, transition from one administration to the next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:I wonder too if they found a ring of those guys operating within France, and didn't really like where it was going. That or they picked up intel that AQIM was planning to use mali to launch attacks on France itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:That or they picked up intel that AQIM was planning to use mali to launch attacks on France itself. Well its a pretty safe bet that if Mali becomes Afghanistan circa 1990s then it will be used to plan and launch attacks on any western country. If you think about it, the "war on terror" has always really been more of a "war on failed states" since those are the only places where Al Qaeda can operate with impunity. AQ will go anywhere with a lack of governance. They were in Afghanistan during its civil war period, they are in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan, the ungoverned areas of Yemen, Somalia, and theres a real worry that when the Syrian civil war is over and the country is in tatters that AQ will solidify its presence there. Mali is dangerously close to being the next failed state if the rebels arent stopped. With the French involved now it looks like it might turn around though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Well its a pretty safe bet that if Mali becomes Afghanistan circa 1990s then it will be used to plan and launch attacks on any western country. If you think about it, the "war on terror" has always really been more of a "war on failed states" since those are the only places where Al Qaeda can operate with impunity. AQ will go anywhere with a lack of governance. They were in Afghanistan during its civil war period, they are in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan, the ungoverned areas of Yemen, Somalia, and theres a real worry that when the Syrian civil war is over and the country is in tatters that AQ will solidify its presence there. I think one of the major concerns France has at the moment, sans the terrorism angle is that the chaos in Mali will spread down into the wider West African region and notably Nigeria/Ivory Coast/Ghana where is there is sizable amount of western investment and exploitable natural resources. Additionally with France being relativity close and having a lot of ex-colonies in the area, any long term mass instability is going to negativity impact their immigration problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:I'm not sure what you're saying, or what your point is. Maybe you could paraphrase it in a less rambling manner? Regarding Qutb, I'm pretty drat sure he was against slavery. I don't understand what's so embarrassing about that quote. Qutb was a lot of things, but he was absolutely not against slavery. Sayyid Qutb posted:"And concerning the slaves, that was when slavery was a world-wide structure and which was conducted amongst the Muslims and their enemies in the form of enslaving of prisoners of war. And it was necessary for Islam to adopt a similar line of practise until the world devised a new code of practise, other than enslavement." It's not as if this is a problem entirely unique to Islam. The Pope himself had to specifically allow the use of condoms for AIDS patients due to medical reasons thanks to Catholic Fundamentalism. The Caste System brought forth from Hindu fundamentalism was broken in theory, but remains a problem to this day. Brigham Young's zealous Black Cainist theory set Mormon-African relations back a century. And state Shintoism preached that the Emperor of Japan was literally a God on Earth, and that the Japanese were uniquely divine beings up until the mid '40s. But to deny the threat of slavery returning to Egypt after we finally came close to putting the Arab Slave Trade in its unmarked grave is just as stupid as to deny what happened above. How the gently caress you can think the repeal of this law was anything other than an attempt at bringing slavery back speaks of vast cultural ignorance. I can't imagine anything that stupid being said about, say, a reformed US constitution forgetting to add the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 24th Amendments, and black people have it much worse in North Africa than anywhere else on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Slavery is obsolete when you have neoliberal debt and multinationals. A country that starts literally putting people in chains and making them work at gun point (when they haven't been charged with crime) is going to have an international PR problem far beyond Apartheid SA in the 80's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Slavery is obsolete when you have neoliberal debt and multinationals. A country that starts literally putting people in chains and making them work at gun point (when they haven't been charged with crime) is going to have an international PR problem far beyond Apartheid SA in the 80's. It already happened in the Sudan when Bashir took power, to say nothing of the pockets of practitioners in Mauritania and Mali. More importantly, if the people fighting to enslave their darker brethren ever gave a poo poo about efficiency and economics, then the US wouldn't have had to go into civil war to bring the wretched institution down. Slavery has always been terrible economically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:Qutb was a lot of things, but he was absolutely not against slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:It already happened in the Sudan when Bashir took power, to say nothing of the pockets of practitioners in Mauritania and Mali. Pretty sure Bashir is not very popular in the international community, and human trafficking occurs all over the world so it's not surprising that it's more overt in backwater parts of the world. But suggesting Morsi's Egypt is going to have de jure slavery is boogeyman orientalism. Slavery being illegal is a must for states that want to at least look modern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Regarding the efficacy of the system of slavery, googling the economics of slavery leads to some information that supports its conditional usefulness. Reading wikipedia's article, it looks like slavery is pretty profitable, absent legal and social externalities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Red7 posted:I think one of the major concerns France has at the moment, sans the terrorism angle is that the chaos in Mali will spread down into the wider West African region and notably Nigeria/Ivory Coast/Ghana where is there is sizable amount of western investment and exploitable natural resources. Additionally with France being relativity close and having a lot of ex-colonies in the area, any long term mass instability is going to negativity impact their immigration problems. Im not terribly knowledgable of the religious makeup of places like Nigeria/Ivory Coast/Ghana but I dont think they are predominantly Muslim like Mali is? I know Nigeria has a muslim population and is fighting an Islamic insurgency but I dont know about the other countries. So could Al Qaeda in Mali spread to these other countries if they dont have large muslim populations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:13
|
|