|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Iran can only have a nuclear facility when they allow women to where shorts thiiiiiis short. It is indeed a pretty modern place, at least in urban areas. Their restrictions are many, but its instructive how they work. Free speech, kinda. The press is heavily censored. You wont get thrown in a hole for criticizing the president, but those taking part in the "green movement" demonstrations a while back got treated pretty harshly. And yet there are still public demonstrations. Newspapers are censored but you can see it; some papers at least print huge blank spots on their pages where the offending story would have gone. Restrictions on dress are many, but mixed. Women must cover their hair, cannot wear makeup. And yet, women almost always show their hair, just not all of it. Makeup is common. Sometimes they get hassled and ticketed for breaking these laws, and sometimes not. The laws are not enforced enough to keep people covered at all time though. Also, couples can't be physically affectionate towards each other in public. Young people kissing in a park? No good. Yet they do it anyway. Women are very active in Iran, working, teaching, doing sports, etc. Unfortunately they have been pushed out of universities a bit, last I heard. So, for someone unfamiliar with the place, its probably not nearly as bad as you think. Saudi Arabia for example is way the gently caress worse in most ways. Women aren't allowed to drive there. Iranians are under a great deal of restrictions, but they're constantly complaining, challenging and fighting them. Here is a great... segment from a BBC journalist, who basically just goes around Tehran talking to people and seeing whats up. Goes to clothing stores, cafes, talks about alcohol and sex and political restrictions etc. Its over an hour long, so maybe view in segments. Its all interesting though, from what I remember. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJTzcPhJ3Qk
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Pieter posted:Here's an interview with the Chechen (Kist) commander Abu Omar al-Chechen leader of Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar. It's in Russian so I can only make at as much with google translate. It concerns the fights with the PKK. Interestingly he seems to accuse PKK of a communist ideology (Chechens and other North-Caucasians have a rather negative experience with Soviet communism). The PKK is Marxist party. Check out their flag: Kurdistan Workers' Party 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Here's something I came across you peeps might find interesting. It discusses commentators that appear on US tv and in other media, and their frequently undisclosed links to the defense industry.quote:During the public debate around the question of whether to attack Syria, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to George W. Bush, made a series of high-profile media appearances. Hadley argued strenuously for military intervention in appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg TV, and authored a Washington Post op-ed headlined “To stop Iran, Obama must enforce red lines with Assad.” This is only the intro, the study itself is extremely detailed; it covers several individuals and several think-tanks as well. http://public-accountability.org/2013/10/conflicts-of-interest-in-the-syria-debate/ Count Roland fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Oct 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'll have you know that I swallow. What's up with the Suez Authority? I mean, it's hard to point to anything in Egypt which isn't hosed at the moment, but what in particular is hosed about them?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Jean Pierre Duthion (@halona), a French bar owner living in Damascus whose French and English-language tweets updated the world with day-to-day glimpses of upscale, wartime Damascus, has been disappeared by Syrian police. His brother and co-investor, Jean Luc, is now running his Twitter in his absence. There's no word on where they've taken him. He and his brother are among the few non war-related Western expats still working in Damascus, and his tweets, while generally hostile toward the opposition, have given readers a glimpse into a world otherwise unseen. Here's hoping for his safety. That is curious. He is generally hostile to the rebels, but is kidnapped by the government? What up with that?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Definitely the second one don't you think? Especially considering that the Israelis had as justifiable a reason for the incursion as it gets: no one likes it when groups like Hezbollah get their hands on the good toys. Now if Israel starts bombing Syrian forces for the sake of bombing Syrian forces, he obviously has to engage. It could easily be both. Israel apparently has excellent electronic warfare capabilities which could make its jets extremely difficult to target and hit. Which is exactly why Israel isn't a fan of advanced AA systems in the hands of their enemies. Though these were apparently S-125s, which don't seem that advanced. Israel was not pleased to hear Russia was (supposedly) sending Syria some S-300 missiles, which pose a legitimate threat to modern aircraft. Not that Israel wants Hezbollah to get any weapons, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The military regime is secular and willing to play ball. No one should be surprised that the American government is willing to embrace them wholeheartedly. Mubarak was a great ally for the US, so another military dictatorship is a-ok. I feel bad for the people of Egypt who supported the military coup. Their anger at the Brotherhood was understandable, but they allowed themselves to think the military was somehow on their side. Egypt is still revolutionary, so it isn't over till its over. But for the time being it looks like the counter-revolution has won.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
BBC is being rather more cautious about this story. quote:The Swiss report said "unexpectedly high levels" of radioactive polonium had been found, which "moderately" supported the poisoning theory. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24838061
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:My problem with this is that polonium-210 has a half-life of 138 days. In the 8 years since he died, the polonium would have gone through 24 half lives. That means the current amount is 1/224 of what would have been there originally. A pal of mine has made that same point. I have no response for it yet, aside from going over the report more.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Random-rear end thought: Russia has a track record of murdering people with polonium, maybe Russia murdered Arafat for some reason??? Amusingly, one of the other labs doing this analysis is Russian. The other is French.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
There is a "pro and con" comparison on page 67 that goes over some of these things. It basically takes different factors, and lists arguments for and against polonium.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I'm enjoying reading this and watching this How do you determine who is who in the videos? Is that NDF video from a Syrian government site or something?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It was posted on at least two long established NDF Facebook pages and their YouTube accounts, so it appears genuine. Could you link to their youtube account? A quick search yields all kinds of stuff that I'm not sure about. I (obviously) haven't spent much time watching these videos before, so I'm inclined to trust basically nothing from any of them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Here's the NDF's YouTube channel, and the post on their Facebook page. Appreciated, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Schisser posted:Seems pretty reasonable until you notice that Turkey isn't constructing walls in the border towns that were attacked. And I doubt that the Kurds who are controlling northeastern Syria are interested in attacking their own people in Turkey. Kurdish nationalism has really been gaining ground recently. The collapse of the Iraqi state has left Iraqi Kurdistan as a bastion of (almost) peace and prosperity. The war in Syria has let Kurds make significant gains there as well. Kurdistan may not exist on paper as a nation, but the reality is getting closer to that. I think the Turks are really just making it very clear what territory they (theoretically) control, so they don't start to look weak in that area. There's even been trouble with the Kurds in Iran; several were executed there in recent days, even though the Kurdish area in Iran has been very quiet for some time now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:PJAK's statements in the wake of the executions really did catch me by surprise, I for one thought that they had worked out a deal with the Iranians after the 2011 raids that amounted to "We'll leave you alone and bother Turkey if you leave us alone". There have been quite a lot of rumours floating around that Iran has been assisting the PYD in Syria as well, it's weird to see them provoke PJAK if they want to keep the Kurdish focused on Syria/Turkey. I was under the same impression. Iran had a fairly good relationship, why muck it up like that? I suppose there's more to the story than we know.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Kerry is saying it was Iran that backed out, not France. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24895911 quote:Amid reports that France's reservations scuppered an agreement, Mr Kerry told reporters in Abu Dhabi: "The French signed off on it; we signed off on it."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Radio Prune posted:A proper Kurdistan is one of the things I hope to see in my lifetime. You go, Kurds I kinda want this as well. But then, I tend to root for the little guy. Speaking of the Kurds, does anyone have book recommendations that will help me better understand the current situation with the Kurds and Kurdistan? A recent history sort of deal? I know a bunch already but I've never read anything Kurd-specific. I've already asked in the book thread, but there's a different crowd here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Not sure how well the militias will fare if 75% of the country comes to hate them and wants to do something about it. The only way this mythical 75% of the country can express their views is through more militias. Libya can becomes stable in the short to medium term only by some group dominating the country by force.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Is this the opposition possibly trying to hit at the Iranians and a sign that the civil war could start spilling over into Lebanon? -Almost certainly a rebel group that did this. Sunni, also almost certainly. -The civil war has long since spread to Lebanon there have been continuous battles in northern Lebanon for some time now, especially Tripoli. There have been numerous bombings in southern Beirut, a shia area and Hezbollah's territory. Lebanon has been split along pro- and anti- Assad lines since the assassination of Hariri and the Syrian withdrawal from the country several years ago. If it'll get as bad as the bad old days of the Lebanese civil war nobody knows. I personally think it isn't super likely, unless the rebels can somehow make a big come-back. But in the meantime, this on again off again violence will continue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Khatami didn't have a lot internal power, either. This is true. But, extraordinary circumstances allowed for something unusual. When the US was planning to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, Iran secretly let it be known that the US could use Iranian airspace to carry out certain operations, and that downed US airmen would be rescued and handed back to the US. This sort of gesture was completely unprecedented, and I think the US responded by dropping some court case against Iran that was going on. This could have led to a thaw in relations. But the "Axis of Evil" speech came shortly after that, and Iran probably felt really dumb for reaching out to the Americans.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Is there any further reading on this anywhere? Not to call bullshit, I just find that really interesting if true. I read this in the book Inside Central Asia, by Dilip Hiro. It has a chapter on Iran. I feel like I've read it elsewhere too, possibly in another book by the same author.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Lots of quality time with the kids!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:So the MB opposed the proposed Egyptian constitution(surprise, surprise), but Al-Nour supports it despite the fact it contains an article that might ban their party. What are we supposed to take away from that? Al-Nour has sided with the military against the Brotherhood before. Can't say I know why. They think that by supporting this they can have some sort of influence? They think that crushing out the Brotherhood will cause people to go to more radical parties, like themselves? They're bribed/threatened/infiltrated? Got me, but it does seem like an odd move.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:The Egyptian constitution has said the same thing for the last 30 years, and aside from wrangling with Al-Nour over its meaning, it doesn't really mean much for how legislation is introduced or passed. Why don't we wait and see what kinds of laws are passed before we all Well, over those 30 years it was routinely ignored and abused. I see little reason why that won't happen again, seeing how then, like now, power is wielded by and for the military. edit: I don't really want to watch some gore fest, so how are they cutting off heads? Modern day guillotine or something?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 17:23
|
|
here?
|
Painless, but loving messy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think it is possible to hate Gadaffi but also be able to criticize what happen in Libya and its current outcome. It reminds me how a previous version of this thread where people against strikes in Syria MUST have been Assad supporters. Yeah, this. Airstrikes against one side of a (clannish or sectarian) civil war don't actually result in freedom loving democracies all that frequently.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I never said the inherently tribal nature of Libyan society is incompatible with democracy, I'm saying that the current situation has made it a problem. Given that there is geographical stratification and differing levels of access to resources for the various tribes, this has a chance to throw what little stability Libya has right now out the window. Right now, the biggest threat is eastern Libya becoming autonomous, which would cut the west off from its petroleum dollars and devastate whats left of its economy. "Geographical stratification", access to resources, favoritism and other things certainly has created friction. But the bigger problem was the civil war fought largely along tribal lines! That's the real issue here! I don't know how important tribal differences were before the war, but they seem to be very important now. If Libya had gone directly from dictatorship to democracy, maybe it would have had a chance of working: at least officials on a national level could be around to organize such a thing across tribal lines. Right now though, Libya has no stability whatsoever; there are a slew of different militias running things, and their disagreements frequently turn into street fighting. Until the armed groups lay down their arms (not likely) or are conquered by a strong-man (more likely), Libya won't be a real, united state, let alone a democracy. All of this was completely predictable, too. Airstrikes don't foster democracy! (and Pigeon, I'm not actually disagreeing with you here, in case you mistake my tone)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Huh? All right then, which part of 'tribes is a cultural thing not a genetic thing' is ignorant? Your claim was that there are many genetically distinquishable tribes in Libya. Fine then, prove it. Shouldn't be too difficult as it is a field you are very familiar with. There is a lot of people arguing past each other going on right now. Piegeon did not seem to be saying "They're genetically different therefore they can't get along." Rather, he was saying splits along tribal lines are a real thing, as evidenced by genetics that shows tribes don't hang out with other tribes very much. (edit: beat') And farraday, you keep saying tribal leaders are preventing chaos in Libya. I turn on the news and see nothing but chaos in Libya since the war ended. Bringing up Yemen as an example of tribal governance may be interesting, but that is another country that has been in chaos for years. However much a role tribes and their leadership play a role in these countries, they are clearly not doing a great job of maintaining stability; both these countries are extremely unstable, with multiple armed groups fighting each other and no sign of peace breaking out. Anyway, can we talk about something else? Here's what should be a joke article from Al-Monitor about "anarcho-Kamalists". They also get compared to Nazis.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I turn on the news and I hear about how socialism is evil. Jesus Christ. Fine. Libya is chaotic, and has been since the war ended. There is no stability there to speak of, so talking about tribal leaders bringing stability to the place rings hollow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin He didn't actually come out and say that. I normally like Hersh but this article is too wishy-washy for me; maybe that's why I'm reading it on the London Review of Books instead of the New Yorker. He does say some interesting stuff, like how the intelligence was gathered after the fact and kinda pasted together. And how al-Nursa apparently has the ability to use sarin weapons, which I have not heard before. Or how the US has sensors on the ground around Syrian chemical sites- makes me wonder the nature of those sensors. If he's not going to say "al-Nursa done it" then I'd rather he not beat around the bush about it. His assertion that the evidence for an airstrike was "cherry-picked" certainly rings true with me and is what I thought at the time, though I am biased in that direction anyway. The article feels like its going to completely upend the narrative of the attack, but instead only fiddles with the details in way that will make the White House a bit uncomfortable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
This was the part that stood out to me.quote:On 20 June a four-page top secret cable summarising what had been learned about al-Nusra’s nerve gas capabilities was forwarded to David R. Shedd, deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. ‘What Shedd was briefed on was extensive and comprehensive,’ the consultant said. ‘It was not a bunch of “we believes”.’ He told me that the cable made no assessment as to whether the rebels or the Syrian army had initiated the attacks in March and April, but it did confirm previous reports that al-Nusra had the ability to acquire and use sarin. A sample of the sarin that had been used was also recovered – with the help of an Israeli agent – but, according to the consultant, no further reporting about the sample showed up in cable traffic. He cites unnamed sources and secret documents, so we aren't left for a lot of discussion fodder. On the other hand Hersh is a highly respected journalist, and I doubt he's just making poo poo up. Do you (Brown Moses) have anything that disagrees with the sarin part? Or were you talking more about the rocket stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:There is a tremendous gulf of difference between "were capable of making attacks with sarin" and "made attacks with sarin." As far as I know, no one has tried to deny the possibility that rebel groups possess sarin, but all indicators point towards the regime as the perpetrator of the attacks. The article didn't say they conducted the attacks, and neither am I. I personally had never heard that the rebels had the means to use sarin; Assad would accuse them of chemical attacks but that doesn't carry any great amount of weight. Brown Moses was just saying that Hersh was "barking up the wrong tree" with regards to the munitions, I was wondering if it was the part about the sarin, because that was what was most important for me. If it was about the rockets, then I don't really care, I don't usually go into that much detail with arms.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Xandu posted:It's not mod sass, but this would hardly be the first (or second, or third) time Hersh wrote something that turned out to be BS. Not even the first time related to Syria. Could you provide a source for that? I'd always thought Hersh was very respected.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Xandu posted:He is, and he writes really good articles (My Lai, Abu Ghraib, for example), just that he says/writes a lot of things that don't pan out. There was that weird Knights of Malta claim a few years ago. He claimed that the Syrian nuclear reactor Israel bombed wasn't actually a nuclear reactor. Last year he said the US trained MEK in Nevada, which I've never seen corroborated. He's said the entire Bin Laden raid narrative is a lie, which is sort of true, but more complicated than he stated. His claim about US funding of Fatah al-Islam turned out to be false. Not a reactor? Never heard that. Thanks for the info, I'll look into these. The Monkey Man posted:Wasn't there something that Hersh said about having footage of US troops molesting Iraqi children that never panned out? I may not be remembering this correctly. Rape at Abu Grahib isn't much in dispute I think. Frankly I'd rather not do research on the topic though. Count Roland fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:So how does Saudi Arabia play damage control at this point? The poured money into the jihadists, now they're all that left. Good for them? It never seems to me like the Saudis have any real geostratigic plan, they just like backing religious assholes. I can't fathom what they stand to gain from this, or what they would do with said gains. Same with Qatar, which has done similar stuff but acts as a bit of a rival to the Saudis. I really don't get it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
I'm going to make a few points here, based on certain language being used and how the debate is moving about. 1) Talk of Assad vs "the People" of Syria -Syria is a place of many people, and the civil war has turned into a very sectarian conflict. Sunnis, who form the majority, have gotten the worst of the war and were not well treated before the conflict anyway. However Alawite (read Shia) and Christian minorities still back Assad, or at won't oppose him. These people are rather terrified of the rebels winning, because it means the brutal fate of their Sunni countrymen would befall them. We can't just talk about "the people" of Syria if you're going to talk about their views or goals. As one can expect in a civil or indeed any war, there is more than one side. 2) The US/West has stood by and just watched the disaster unfold. -The US and other countries like France, Saudi Arabia etc have backed the rebels openly for some time. With arms, money, "non-lethal aid" and training in Jordan. There were also several big attempts to get the rebels to actually work together. International conferences with nations keen on backing the rebels got them all together, and promised to shower them with help if they could only unify so they knew who they were backing. It didn't happen. But support was provided anyway, including who knows what sort of secret support. Really quite a lot has been done to back the rebels, but it wasn't enough to overthrow Assad. Just because there wasn't a happy ending, didn't mean that the US wasn't helping the rebels. 3) US intervention = peace. -I'm not really sure what to say about this one. Airstrikes and backing former-regime generals doesn't sound terribly peaceful to me, in the short or long runs. Backing one side in a war means helping to kill the other side. Occupation would be a huge gently caress-up, UN intervention was never a possibility. Would it save lives? Maybe? Pretty hard to know how such a chaotic situation will turn out when you throw some bombs in to it, especially when there are other nations backing different sides. 4) Knee-jerk non-interventionalist. - Have you looked at Iraq lately? Seriously. Syria is so hosed partially because what already happened to Iraq. Count Roland fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
"Pretty please give back your weapons. And promise not to get along with those guys right over there. If you do these things, we'll maybe consider helping you." Yeah, only good things will come from this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:Bashar al-Assad is a democratically elected leader (over 90% of the popular vote) who has peacefully presided over a multi-ethnic and sectarian country and ascribed important freedoms to all of the country's citizenry. That was, of course, before al-Qaeda terrorists destroyed the cosmopolitan utopia that was Syria. Is this thread always like this? I mean, can we discuss/debate issues in the Middle East rather than making up strawmen and talking about awesome/not awesome a mod is? ***** Iran has claimed to send a second monkey into space, and recovered it. While Iran does have a space program that has met with some success, this is best taken with a large grain of salt. In any case, the West does not like Iran experimenting with rocket technology, regardless of its payload. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25378313
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
suboptimal posted:I did that because it's basically the logical extension of what seems to happen every few pages- someone wanders into the thread, makes some bizarre appeal to authority a la the most recent Seymour Hersh derail or a sweeping pronouncement regarding Syria or Libya or whatever. It's tiresome and stupid. "Hersh is a good journalist" does not lead logically to "Assad is awesome and I love him". Its not like you're the only one that's been doing this, but lots of people here seem to treat this as really black and white. Painting everyone that disagrees with you as a dicator-lover (or, for that matter, an imperialist-neocon) not only stupid but it just shits up the thread. I know people are retarded and stuff, but maybe we could try debating what people say instead of arguing over what we know they're really thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 19:12
|
|