|
quote:An Egyptian with a criminal record funds a crappy film through a shell company named "Pharaoh Voice, Inc.", overdubs it in postproduction so it is making fun of Muhammad, pretends to be an Israeli Jew and inserts gratuitous references to Judaism, premieres it in Hollywood at a show nobody comes to, lays quiet for some months, and mysteriously on September 11, the film trailer is shown on Egyptian television. The guy seems to have tricked the actors, putt words in their mouths that they did not agree, this could be seen as putting them in danger, and at best violating a contract or something. This has got to be illegal
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
kylejack posted:They confirmed it. What an rear end in a top hat, further reinforced by him trying to blame it on Jews
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
For some reason this reminds me of something, what's the status of black people in Libya nowadays (both native born and immigrants)? As I recall the Libyan civil war had its share of quite disconcerting racist incidents targeted against them, possibly due to Gadafis orientation towards Africa and resentment at that as well as rumors (true or otherwise) of Afrifcan mercenaries, and possibly deeper held prejudices. Has anything specific been done or said about them in post-civil war Libya, has it all calmed down? I also remember there was this town, Taworgha (I think) of mostly black Libyans, who were mostly pro-Gadafi, and that the Misrata brigade basically cleansed it of its inhabitants saying they would never be allowed to return.
Randarkman fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 13:32
|
|
|
So it's safe to say (that doesen't feel like the right word, makes it sound like a good thing or something) that sub-saharan refugees and migrant workers probably won't be welcome in Libya for the next few years? EDIT: forgot "to say"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:So do regular bombs, especially in crowded areas. A nuclear bomb (at least a fission-based one) does not necessarily cause much much more destruction and death than a large scale conventional bombing raid, such as those carried out on Japan and Germany in WWII or say the bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia during the Cold War. There's still a reason they are considered WMDs and conventional weapons are not. VX incapacitates within a minute or less, can't be smelled or tasted and causes intense pain and muscle spasms, within some three minutes you are dead, the stuff can be delivered as an aeorosole or as a liquid, and it stays along for quite some time, meaning it can render an area completely uninhabitable or be used to deny it to the enemy or seize a city "intact" (if one is willing to wait and conduct cleaup). Just consider the number of deaths that have resulted from chemical industry catastrophes (for an example Bhopal in India, the most famous one, that was a gas leak from a pestocide plant) and the number of disfigurements, permanent disabilities and birth defects and stillbirths caused in these disasters. VX is the most lethal nerve agent deviced by humans, if it was employed against a population center, the results would be disastrous and long lasting. EDIT: Also I doubt a gas mask or chemical protection overalls are common possessions for a Syrian household, and I also doubt that many are properly trained to put one on quickly and correctly enough to survive an attack. I also don't know if the improvised gas masks used by WWI soldiers (piss on a rag wear it over your face) would do much good, or if people would be able to think of it fast enough. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Which is why the continuous crying wolf is so pointless to begin with: chemical weapons may be deadly, but they're hugely impractical in terms of influencing a battle. You just need a sudden change of wind and it's your men that are dying in droves or the cloud drifting harmlessly away. Chemical weapons have never won any wars because they're too imprecise and random. They just have an inflated reputation. Chemical weapons aren't released like they were in WWI, though you are right wind direction is still important. You could shell a city and sit back as they panic and die in droves. If that is your inclination, meanwhile the buildings would still be intact. They could also wreak terrible havoc among fighters who lack training and equipment to counter any such attacks, and if you keep your own forces some distance away they shouldn't be under any threat. However I don't see why Assad and his guys would use it, it would most likely cause mass civilian casualties and cause a flood of panic and sheer terror. However, I doubt even Russia would continue defending Assad if he went down that road.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
az posted:It's only application as far as I know is just water purification. Militaries stockpile a lot of water purification systems of all kinds for when they need it. Soldiers in the field, ships at sea, etc. don't have access to clean fresh water at all times so they need kits that can clean water/turn salt water into fresh water. Also there's always doomsday preppin'. If you think this could have something to do with nuclear weapons manufactury, I highly doubt it. Water used in nuclear fission fuckery is usually of the heavy water kind that has special attributes and now I'm entering an area where I have no idea what the hell anymore so yeah, probably not. It could have something to do with nuclear reactors, for instance most nuclear reactors use water as both a coolant and a moderator (to slow down neutrons to raise the probability of collision nuclei and resulting fission), I think the moderator at least is usually highly purified water. Most water used in nuclear fission is NOT heavy water (though all water contains small concentratins of heavy water, though when we talk about heavy water we usually mean the situation when the concentration is quite high), though there are some reactors that do use heavy water, notably a Canadian series of ractors. These can work using natural uranium, meaning you can drop the whole enriching thing (usually done to about 10-20% U-235 for civilian reactors I think), the downside is that these reactors produce plutonium at a higher rate than normal light water or graphene moderated reactors. Incidentally this makes heavy water ideal for military reactors, plutonium being the main component in fission bombs (and kind of the detonator in a hydrogen bomb). for that matter I don't really think anyone has really made their nuclear weapons from highly enriched uranium since little boy, it's easier to just make plutonium (though there's technical and engineering challenge with implosion triggers and you have to get the plutonium out from the used fuel, which requires separate facilities, that is not necessary with highly enriched uranium). India's and Pakistan's first bombs were made from plutonium recycled out from research reactors I think. Anyway all this was pretty much just rambling as it is most likely that this is just going to be used to purify water for field use by the army and/or navy, and besides if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons (which I have my doubts about, I think it is mostly posturing) they seem to be going the way of enriching uranium rather than using military owned and operated facilities dedicated to plutonium production.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
As far as I recall weren't the wikileaks diplomatic cables all filled with pages upon pages of Gulf Arabs howling for Iranian blood? I could very well see many of these drones and such beloning to Gulf states rather than the usual suspects Israel and America. Faked Edit: Iran population: 75 million Randarkman fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 10:56
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:It's still a better alternative to Western troops in Syria, that's how bad an idea putting Western troops in Syria is. How about Turkey? NATO and not Arab League though, but I think Turkey has built up some credibility in the Middle East in past few years, mostly in the interest of securing markets for Turkish business. Not that I think Turkey would actually do it. I mean I can't see any reason why anyone would actually want to do it. Come to think of it, as it stands American presence probably wouldn't be the least welcome, if you want maximum resentment (and outright hatred from the militias) have Russia and China take care of peace-keeping. Or Iran. And if it would come down to it, which Arab League nation should shoulder the majority of the burden of keeping the peace? I mean there are like three choices; Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Of those Jordan has far too many problems of their own with refugees coming from every direction but south, Saudi Arabia is generally an extremely divisive entity (what with who they tend to support and such), Egypt could work, but would probably run into the same problems as others that is Israel causing a commotion about potentially unfriendly soldiers in a neighbouring country or something. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Libluini posted:It looks like Israel is prepared to strike again: Bend over? Or he could apply a bit of insane logic and figure that for Israel to bomb his stuff to hell and back would be kind of like Israel aiding the rebels, and to receive or be dependent on Israeli support is pretty much one of the worst things you can have going against you in the Middle East, thus giving him the moral high ground? But that's insane logic and is dependent on letting yourself be bombed.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:Be mindful of what happens when you force these crackpots out though - I've never seen a happy ending. Ask the Libyans, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians etc... A new election is pretty much worthless when the entire Turkish media seems to be completely blind to one side, indeed the entire thing that's going on now. I mean they're just showing the same old talk shows, soaps and commercials, no special news reports or any news reports at all actually. If the demonstrations end and a new election is held in some 6 months or some time, that should be enough to get people to totally forget about the other side outside large citie and such and ensure that no opposition party can properly challenge the AKP, which will continue to appeal to poor religious people, wealthy conservatives and corporate interests.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Food insecurity is brought up a lot, people are angrier when their country is led by assholes and it is coupled with the fact that food prices are rising and availability is declining. It is interesting to note that virtually throughout all of history Egypt was primarily an exporter of foodstuffs, until the 19th century, when Muhammad Ali switched much of Egyptian agriculture over to cash crops (cotton primarily) rather than grain (the guy pretty much ran Egypt as his own personal colony, as a springboard to launch his ambitions for Ottoman Syria and the Empire itself, he even stated that he modelled his administration on British India IIRC), and this trend was followed by successive kings of Egypt and I would guess intensified during the British occupation. And now Egypt is almost completely dependent on imported grain. Is there no way to turn back the clock on this? I mean tourism is nice and all, but I can imagine that becoming food independent and (possibly?) producing surplus food in a world where food insecurity is becoming ever more visible might be more valuable. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:B-b-but I thought Muhammad Ali was the greatest? I'm guessing this is mostly a joke, based on the fact that Muhammad Ali happens to share his name with a certain other guy (who might be said to be the greatest). Anyway, there is no disputing that Egypt under Muhammad Ali's Egypt was very profitable (I guess that is the best word for it) and that it made quite a few people very rich. The government reserved the right to buy the produce from the peasants, at a low price set by the government, this was then sold at a profit on the international market. As the government collected the profits from this ventured this allowed the establishment of an army and navy equipped an organized along European lines, the profits were also used to invest in infrastructure developments to increase productivity (and profits) as well as modernizing the administration (abolishing tax-farming and such) and also westernizing the country in terms of culture and education. In that manner it was very successful. However the new system also primarily benefitted a small group of people, collective rule of villages was abolished and land was increasingly bought up by wealthy merchants and government officials creating a new and very powerful land-owning class, many of whome were foreigners because restrictions on the private ownership of land were abolished. These measures pretty much destroyed the village economies (though landowners and government and military officials profitted as said), leading many peasants to become hopelessly burdened by debts and influencing many to migrate to the cities. The same combination of government control and increased prevalance of private ownership, following the abolition of collective property and organization, also did away with the traditional urban laborers' guilds leading to one group of people becoming very wealthy, while others became poor and indebted.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:The population of Egypt was 10 million in 1900, 40 million in 1980 and 84 million now. I don't think Nile alone is ever again going to feed all of Egypt and then some more. Most likely this is correct. But still an effort to increase the food production (both the scale of it and the efficiency) of what should be one of the world's most fertile agricultural regions could still make a difference, in being a growth sector and making the country less depended on imported food. However this would most likely require massive subsidies (in order to allow the farmers to not go bankrupt attempting to compete with dirt cheap American and European food) and infrastructure projects, making the whole thing somewhat of a pipe dream I'd imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Aren't Israeli Bedouin citizens? Either way that's kind of a dick move, though I guess that's how Bibi rolls
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
THE AWESOME GHOST posted:I don't think they'd literally reinstate Mubarak the person but at this rate it looks like his advisers will still be advising. Well, far as I've gathered Mubarak was pretty much just a figurehead to begin with, the military have been the real masters of Egypt since like the '60s. Everything that's happened in Egypt pretty much goes to show that deposing a figurehead dictator does nothing as long as the system that cemented his rule still remains.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Intel5 posted:Syria is pretty much in an unrecoverable tailspin, and so the only thing strikes will serve to do is to punish the regime for using chemical weapons on a civilian population, but I'm still in favor of it because if there is anything that should get some scumfuck despot bombed by the rest of the world, it's gassing a bunch of innocent men, women, and children. Yeah, what the hell can really be done at this point? As far as I can see the war has destroyed the fabric of the Syrian nation and divided it into "camps" who despise each other and will probably commit some pretty grim atrocities to ensure their control of the country if they get the upper hand in the war. Bombing Assad will either allow the rebel groups to win, in which case I guess that the disparate rebel groups will come to blows and we'll have a militia ruled society somewhat like Libya (or Lebanon during its civil war). And this scenario will probably also see the Alawites and Christians end up between a hammer and a hard place. Bomb Assad only a little and then pull out and likely the fronts will stabilize and the war will just drag on further, further driving the camps apart until they will become utterly irreconcilable. Makes me think that maybe the only solution in the end would be for some international force to temporarilly dismantle the country and forcible separate the various groups that appear likely to have a go at each other, via population transfers or something. Kind of like the population transfers between Greece and Turkey in the twenties, though that was not temporary and mostly motivated by a desire for ethnic cleansing I believe. Though I really have no confidence that anyone could or would do something like this without causing massive suffering and anger, furthermore it would have to be purely focused on rebuilding Syrian society with massive economic aid, stimulus and infrastructure rebuilding efforts, not some sort of expectation that this will pay off for some rich people in the end. So I guess that's just another idea for the garbage bin.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
A picture of some people protesting in Idlib in northwestern Syria. Disappointingly low resolution though, are there anyone who have stumbled upon a larger resolution version of it? I have a thing for pictures of Obama dressed as a superhero ready to pound on some enemy of America
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
The talk of many Jihadis mostly being interested in playing video games (possibly acting them out in real life) reminded me of a picture clownish Norwegian jihadist Arfan Bhatti posted on his facebook wall some time before leaving for Syria.  I think that says just about all you should need to know Randarkman fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Oct 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
cafel posted:The only thing I know for sure is from friends that have gone back to visit family there, and that's that drinking is highly illegal and also everyone does it constantly. To the point that my party hard clubbing every night Persian friends were disturbed by how much everyone was drinking. I can confirm the same thing from a friend of mine. According to her all the people she knows in Iran pretty much have a laboratory of sorts in their basement or some room for making wine. Also how much she has to cover her hair when out in public has varied alot from year to year, though you are not supposed to show skin apart from your face and hands either. Though Middle Easterners in general (and Iranians as well) are pretty adept at doing this without it seeming modest, like at all. People in the countryside tend to be pretty conservative though, even if there are stereotypes about them having sex with sheep and not knowing of any other sex than anal, and they make up majority of the country. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Here's an interesting article about what's going on over there culturally: How group sex will save Iran, China My friend told me she walked in on something like what this article deals with once when she was in Iran and was invited to a party by friends. Supposedly it was pretty drat awkward.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:I will always connect Libyans with Back to the Future. "Arrrgghh! drat Soviet Gun!" "Arrrghhh! drat German Car!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
El Perkele posted:This is false. Well pretty much any armed force that has ever existed in (relative) peactime is a skeleton compared to the Soviet armed forces at the height of the Brezhnev era which if I remember right was something completely insane like 5,000,000 men, 50-100,000 tanks, somewhat the same number of combat aircraft (might have been more) and more than 20,000 strategic nuclear missiles, not counting tactical nuclear weapons. Also the entire army was mechanized and kept at full strength through universal two-year conscription (I think there were two or three drafts a year, and basic training was something like a few months or more, followed by specialist training if necessary, so 2/3 to 3/4 of the military should be combat ready at any time). With the economic collapse at the end of the Soviet Union and the complete meltdown after it was gone keeping such a force in the field would be completely impossible for anyone, and there aren't any other military forces of that scale around anyway (Though the US comes really close or surpasses it). Even during Gorbachev, who made alot of cuts to the mitiary and wanted to shift focus over to the civilian sector, shifting the production of many design bureaus and industrial sectors over to civilian rather than military manufacturing and development, about 25% of Soviet GDP was spent on defense and sectors related to it. So again, saying that Russia's military is a skeleton of the Soviet miltary doesn't really tell you that much. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Still it doesn't really matter if Russia's military is or isn't a shambles regarding its permanent seat on the security council. The eligibility to occupy that seat has nothing to do with any measuring of miltiary, economic or cultural strength it is simply because these were the five major victorious powers of world war II (or their recognized successors). It isn't really any more deep than that. The permanent seats may possibly be expanded to include other nations, but if you try to reduce the number of permanent seats I'd say you are risking the continued existence of the UN as an internationally recgonized organization, especially as regards the US, France, Russia and China (somehow I have a feeling this is less true for the UK, but that's a guess)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Yeah, there are oh so many cliches which have been used to describe the situation in Europe before World War I: a coiled spring, a tinderbox just waiting for a spark, a house of cards, so on and so forth. The point is that the slightest event could have set that war off. If it weren't the assassination it would have been some diplomatic incident. Indeed. In fact I believe the first and second Moroccan crises both were pretty close to ending up with war between Germany and France. Also there were the threats to the status quo that lay in the various Balkan wars and the rise nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, as well as the various designs that Britain (through the colonial governments of India and Egypt) and France had on it, as well as the Germans' ambitions to build the Berlin-Bagdhad railway and set up a German economic empire in the Near East. If Gavrilo Princip and his pals had failed to kill Archduke Ferdinand it is pretty certain that Austria-Hungary would have used this to justify war with Serbia anyway, there plenty of high ups in the government and army who wanted a war with Serbia whose existence they saw as a threat and challenge to their empire. There was a very tense situation between Britain and Russia in Central Asia and between Russia and Japan in the Pacific. There was general fear of Russia (when you read about it the terms used to describe the threats posed by "Tsarism" are almost the same as would later be used to describe Soviet communism), where efforts at industrialization had begun and the trans-Siberian railway and the reformation of her armies would give Russia some serious power projection abilities (it was believed). Many in the German high command believed war with Russia was unavoidable and when war actually broke out remarked that it was better to have the war now than later, when a strengthened Russia would overwhelm Germany with superior numbers. Also on top of that Wilhelm II was a bit of a doofus with little sense for diplomacy (the broad inconsiderate promises of support given by Germany to Austria-Hungary is believed to have been instrumental actually having the Austro-Hungarians risk war with Serbia, whom they knew to be protected by Russia) and in charge of the most controversial and rapidly industrializing great power of the time (controversial because the ascendancy of Germany as great power greatly disturbed the established status quo and dreamers, such as Wilhelm II, demanded a place in the sun), he was so out of touch that he had military plans drawn up for invading the US east coast and long before the war made overtures towards pan-Islamic elements in the Ottoman Empire and had "jihadi" agents in place throughout North Africa, believing that a Muslim revolt supported by Germany could bring down British rule in India. And then you had the various webs of alliances and guarantees and an intense arms race ensuring that any of these situations going out of hand would irreversibly light the powederkeg. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Promontory posted:Which particular group is this? Like my friend commented, it's interesting how much they've adapted the conventions of regular armies, and they clearly put an effort into their propaganda too. Somehow I get the feeling that they really like Call of Duty and Splinter Cell..
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
BabyChoom posted:So you admit that both sides have been using chemical weapons then? Oh, BabyChoom I could just eat you up!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Torpor posted:I've heard this accusation elsewhere and I have no real idea on this. ISIS apparently occupies a border crossing town with Turkey. The allegation was that the line of advance in Iraq is basically a straight drive. If Turkey is supporting ISIS it seems like a gambit that isn't paying off. Erdogan's gotten pretty crazy though, to the point that its actually anyone's guess what he will do or say next.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Tias posted:One shouldn't discount the lessons learned from the Soviet occupation, though. For instance, the russians spent 500% of what the coalition did on rebuilding vital infrastructure as well as schools, police stations etc., and they still lost. One shouldn't even discount the lessons of the first British invasion of Afghanistan, though that was a remarkable gently caress-up of epic proportions, first of all because it was totally unnecessary(the regime that was deposed were actually quite friendly towards Britain) and it was an invasion that was deemed necessary largely because of an imagined threat (that the Russians were looking towards expanding their influence into Afghanistan and threaten British control over India and that the Afghan regime favored Russia). It was founded upon remarkably bad intelligence (though British policymakers had access to better intelligence, which was ignored) and on top of this foundered because of remarkably incompetent leadership in the upper echelons who managed to bicker amongst each other, completely ignore the advice and suggestions of their puppet king, disbanding traditional forces to set up a new army, and insulting various important tribes by denying them subsidies (for instance those that controlled the mountain passes), as well as insulting many Afghans by ignoring or overturning their customs and messing with their women. Because Afghanistan was not really centralized and wealthy enough to pay for the occupation and the creation of European-style national army out of nothing the whole endeavour manage to pretty drain the entire treasury of the East India Company, threatening it with bankruptcy. For those interested in the first Anglo-Afghan war and Afghanistan in general I would highly recommend Return of a King by William Dalrymple which came out a few years ago and contains much original research, the author actually travelled into Afghanistan and even through the Taliban controlled parts to locate Afghan sources on the war that have been either ignored by or unkown to Western historians.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/17072014 they seem to be cut off from supplies though, which would mean that they are pretty hosed if someone doesn't come around and lift the siege, which I think is easier said than done, we'd like to think otherwise but all evidence seem to point towards ISIS being a superior fighting force to pretty much all other rebel and loyalist factions in Syria, and now also very well equipped after their Iraqi conquests.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The Kurds control the border with Turkey. That article mentioned how Kobane is excluded from the UN Aid coming into the country at this time. Also the Kurds are less united than is often thought to be the case, with rivalry between different regional governments, political parties, militias and even tribal groups. Each of these have and will primarily focus on defending and supplying their own immediate territory and interests rather than co-operating across regional, political and ideological lines. Volkerball posted:ISIS made some gains, but that introduced a lot of problems for them as well. What problems are we talking about here? I can see it being a problem for them that more people are beginning to see them as the primary threat, but mostly the groups that oppose them are too incompetent and/or disunited to present an effective united front it seems. As of now they seem to be at their strongest point having conquered economically important regions in both Iraq and Syria, as well as large quantities of weapons from the Iraqi Army. Volkerball posted:they've been nearly pushed out of Damascus and Ghouta, and moderate factions are putting more pressure on the city than they ever have. Not really that surprising with their recent focus on Iraq, and their limited manpower. Also what moderate factions are we talking of, where can I read about this? (just curious)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Sergg posted:I interpreted this story to mean that the other ISIS fighters were disfiguring their dead to prevent identification, perhaps because the fighters were foreigners or because they fear retaliation against family members if they're locals. No, it's pretty clear that they (Kurdish fighters in Kobane) just beat them to death and then some until they are completely unrecognizable, basically desecrating the bodies of their enemies. Possibly some thoughts about demoralizing the enemy also, no attempting to blame ISIS for the deaths, as the victims are captured ISIS fighters.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:The presence of nontrivial Christian populations in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Turkey, etc. got me wondering: are there any middle eastern states (aside from Israel, obviously) states with a significant Jewish population? If so, does anybody know what their role/relationship with the rest of society is there? As others have said there used to be significant Jewish populations in many Middle Eastern coutnries, most notably Iraq and Yemen I think, but they almost all left, mostly for Israel I think, in the years following 1948. This gave a huge boost to the Jewish population of Israel (which still included some numbers of Palestinians), in the first 10 years or so many of these Middle Eastern Jews were housed in refugee camps before they got proper houses and poo poo. Still somewhat around 50 % of Israeli Jews are "Sephardis" most of whom are of Middle Eastern origin (even though Sephardi originally meant Iberian Jews).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
pengun101 posted:I have a friend in Sulaimania, iraq. I hope ISIS doesn't make it there. Is there anything backing up this claim? If anything it seems to be the other way around..
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 11:27
|
|
She says that the Peshmerga are winning slowly. I hope she is right.
|
dinoputz posted:Yes, traditionally "Kurdistan" has included pieces of all its neighboring countries, but does anyone more knowledgeable on the matter think it would fly as some sort of compromise? Would/could the other Kurdish parties outside Iraqi Kurdistan accept this? Or would fighting continue in SE Turkey, and agitation continue or reappear in Iran and Syria?* Actually in much of Turkish Kurdistan the largest ethnic group used to be the Armenians in most regions until they were kinda genocided by the Turks and Kurds (the latter of whom were the largest Muslim ethnic group in the region, though usually not by that much compared to the Turks)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:ISIS seems to have launched an offensive on Kurdish controlled territory overnight, specifically focusing on advancing across the Zab to Erbil. That seems pretty bad, it also gives one the impression that morale on the Kurdish side is collapsing and that things in general are pretty chaotic, what with civilians fleeing and media denying any Kurdish setback.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I never said any of that, and I think the original poster was trolling. That doesn't change the fact that in the area Sunni are more violent than the Shia. Now, you can say that pointing out this fact is an idiocy itself, but ignoring it won't make it go away. I asked JT Jag a simple question and you're making a big deal out of it, and I'm in no way an expert and I can't answer that question, but still, there are two answers provided thus far: The whole jihadi thing is really a thing that started growing in the '80s and is closely related to both the growth of Islamism as a populist movement after the failure and decline of Arab socialism and nationalism as well its, often violent, supression by secular Arab regimes, also important are the spread of puritanical Sunni movements such Salafism and Wahhabism, and of course the establishment of American military bases on Muslim holy land in the years leading up to and following the Gulf War. Islamism has ofcourse been a powerful force among the Shia as well and they haven't really been withholding on the violence, just look at the Iranian revolution, Amal (they carried out a long and bloody campaign, mostly sieges of the camps, against the Palestinians in Lebanon that killed more of them than the Sabra and Shatila massacres) and Hezbollah, and the Shiite militias in Iraq. The whole puritanical jihadist bent has in some measure been missing from Shiite Islamism though, part of which might have been the early success of Shiite Islamists in establishing an Islamic state and the fact that Shia Islam's (particularly the twelver kind) highly hierarchical nature means popular demagogues and puritanical movements have less traction and authority.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Yeah, the Mahdi Army was active in 1999. Try again, but please try harder. Better mostly because there was no war. Syria was still one of the most autocratic and repressive of the Arab states, with a poor economy, also it was one of the most conservative and traditional of the Levantine states, so while women were allowed to go outside without veiling themselves it was not common, and I can attest to this having actually been to the place (going back to 60s or 70s, you'd see less hijabs actually as it sort of became the fashion in the latter part of the 20th century). Assad's Syria was the kind of place where opponents vanished without a trace, where you had systematic torture of both the regime's political opponents and other states who wanted to get information out of someoneone outside their jurisdiction. Practtically every building had to have a huge-rear end portrait of Bashar or his father or be suspect politically. And the whole civil war was set off because the regime responded to protests demanding early and free elections with gunfire and people just wouldn't take it no more. People who go around saying Syria was this secular haven of women's and minority rights can go gently caress off. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Minorities and women's rights are better now or then? No. But that's because there's a loving war going on that's gotten to the parts where the extremist groups are now pretty much the most powerful combatants left standing, in no way at all does it deserve comparison to anything before the civil war. Regardless of whether or not IS are barbaric fucks who are likely going to massacre scores of people, Assad and his crew have already done that in numbers and with a calluous disregard for human life that even IS might find it self hard pressed to match. They deserve the same fate as Mussolini.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Oh great, 70+ replies but only like four covering the fact that ISIS is now 30 minutes from Erbil. On the bright side, the Turks dropped supplies int Sinjar and Obama is "considering" aid drops, whatever that means. Oil shares are also losing stability, which would continue to plummet if and when the KRG loses its main oil fields (and foreign air strikes ensue). ISIS is getting very close to forcing the international community's hand, but I guess if they can get more Kurdish oil for revenue and ethnically cleanse their borders then they'll feel more secure when attacking Baghdad, Damascus and trying to torch Najaf and Karbala or whatever. I'm kind of wondering, who would IS sell oil to? I mean I can kind of see the strategic importance in seizing oil producing regions, hurting their enemies and such and proving a useful potential bargaining chip I suppose, but I can't really see how they'd easily make money out of that, other than selling small amounts in country or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 17:34
|
|