It's both, dude .
I think Zephos was saying that theology is merely used as JUSTIFICATION, rather than the basis, for bigoted beliefs and practices.
Just like in the United States, LOL.
It's both, dude .
I think Zephos was saying that theology is merely used as JUSTIFICATION, rather than the basis, for bigoted beliefs and practices.
Just like in the United States, LOL.
@Monkey:
If anyone was doubting Saudi gender policies have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with insane possessiveness of "OUR WIMMENS" this should pretty much end it.
I was hoping the official comment of the UAE would be more along the lines of "Guys, what the hell ?" then that weak ass half justification they gave the Religious Police.
I mean aren't the UAE fabulously wealthy and thus in no need to pander to the Saudis ?
@No:
I was hoping the official comment of the UAE would be more along the lines of "Guys, what the hell ?" then that weak ass half justification they gave the Religious Police.
I mean aren't the UAE fabulously wealthy and thus in no need to pander to the Saudis ?
The Saudi's are the big strategic cat in the region. They have more oomph.
Only Qatar I think behaves truly independently.
Surprised this was dropped. After all if the US decides to arm Syria I expect this will be pretty busy.
Edit: speak of the devil.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22409380
4 May 2013 Last updated at 06:51 GMT Share this pageEmailPrint
2K
ShareFacebookTwitter
Israeli warplanes 'launch air strike in Syria'Reports suggest the Israeli warplanes went into Lebanese air space
Continue reading the main story
Syria conflictObama's options
Bloodiest days
Chemical stockpile
Guide to conflict
Israeli warplanes have launched an air strike inside Syria from Lebanese air space, US officials have said.Unnamed officials told media outlets the likely target was a weapons site. Some reports suggest the arms were to be sent to Lebanon's Hezbollah.
Israel has refused to confirm the strike, though it has launched strikes in Syria as recently as January.
Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama says he does not foresee sending US troops to tackle Syria's civil war.
Western intelligence agencies have raised concerns that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, something which the US has termed a "red line".
Mr Obama reaffirmed on Friday that clear evidence of chemical weapons would be a "game changer", but that any response would not be rushed.
Analysts say the US and its allies are discussing possible action including air strikes to enforce a no-fly zone, but Syria's ally Russia is strongly opposed to such measures.
'Enemy planes'
US officials say the Israeli air strike happened overnight Thursday into Friday, but the aircraft did not enter Syrian airspace.
Lebanon's army released a statement saying Israeli warplanes had flown over Lebanese airspace for hours during Friday.
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman denounced the flights and accused Israel of breaking international law.
The statements did not mention possible strikes against Syria.
An Israeli embassy spokesman in Washington declined to comment on the air strike claims.
But the spokesman added: "What we can say is that Israel is determined to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons or other game-changing weaponry by the Syrian regime to terrorists, especially to Hezbollah in Lebanon."
President Obama said he did not foresee "American boots on the ground in Syria"
The Syrian ambassador to the UN said he was not aware of any Israeli attack against his country.Earlier this week, Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon acknowledged that Israel had launched an airstrike in January against a target inside Syria.
He said that the transfer of sophisticated weapons to radical militant groups like Hezbollah was a red line for Israel, and Israel had acted when it was crossed.
Evidence sought
In Costa Rica, Mr Obama told reporters on Friday that as a commander-in-chief he could rule nothing out "because circumstances change".Continue reading the main story
Poll resultsLittle support for arming Syria rebels
But he added he did not foresee a scenario in which "American boots on the ground in Syria" would be good for either America or Syria.He also said he had already consulted with Middle Eastern leaders and they agreed with him.
Mr Obama reiterated that there was evidence that chemical weapons had been used in Syria, but that "we don't know when, where or how".
He stressed that if strong evidence was found it would be "a game changer for us" because "there is a possibility that it (weapons) lands in the hands of organisations like Hezbollah" in neighbouring Lebanon.
Earlier this week, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel became the first senior US official to state publicly that Washington was reconsidering its opposition to supplying weapons to rebel forces.
"Arming the rebels - that's an option," he told reporters.
"You look at and rethink all options. It doesn't mean you do or you will. These are options that must be considered with the international community."
With no appetite for direct military intervention, many US officials increasingly feel that arming the rebels is now the least-worst option, the BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says.
US allies such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia are already providing weapons to various groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.
The pressure to act has intensified in recent days after emerging evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons such as the nerve gas sarin.
More than 70,000 people have been killed since fighting between forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and rebels erupted in March 2011.
Surprised this was dropped. After all if the US decides to arm Syria I expect this will be pretty busy.
That's still going to take a long time before happening. Now, they'll wait for confirmation that the regime is the one who used the chemical weapons, although I'm not sure how any in the FSA could fire them.
How do they plan to find out who used them? And the big question is, then what?
That's still going to take a long time before happening. Now, they'll wait for confirmation that the regime is the one who used the chemical weapons, although I'm not sure how any in the FSA could fire them.
How do they plan to find out who used them? And the big question is, then what?
i always thought it would play out like that movie 'charlie wilsons war' (the story about the afghanis war against the soviets).
As for evidence about chemical weapons; I assume the debris and area might show signs and traces of chemical contamination that would be unmistakably the sarin toxin. The only hard part is getting a team of people in to retrieve the evidence. Though it would be possible through a UN team I imagine.
The hardest part for the US isn't overthrowing the government, but putting in place a new one stable enough to keep the country from more civil war, or even the bad aftermath we saw in the Libya conflict.
The country and it's people won't have any stability if the basic living supplies are cut. Water, power and economic stability really are the crucial pieces of the puzzle in this apparent or somewhat needed conclusion.
i always thought it would play out like that movie 'charlie wilsons war' (the story about the afghanis war against the soviets).
As for evidence about chemical weapons; I assume the debris and area might show signs and traces of chemical contamination that would be unmistakably the sarin toxin. The only hard part is getting a team of people in to retrieve the evidence. Though it would be possible through a UN team I imagine.
LIke I said, evidence already exist, and you can forget about a UN team being allowed in Syria by Assad.
The hardest part for the US isn't overthrowing the government, but putting in place a new one stable enough to keep the country from more civil war, or even the bad aftermath we saw in the Libya conflict.
The country and it's people won't have any stability if the basic living supplies are cut. Water, power and economic stability really are the crucial pieces of the puzzle in this apparent or somewhat needed conclusion.
Well, the longer this conflict continues, the worst it's gonna be for the people and their new government.
LIke I said, evidence already exists
? Where? Everything to hit the news so far has been various US agency's expressing a likelihood of them being used, with no actual evidence. Realistically a body would be about as solid as you can get, but nothing yet.
and you can forget about a UN team being allowed in Syria by Assad.
have they ever been refused entry? I can't remember off the top of my head.
? Where? Everything to hit the news so far has been various US agency's expressing a likelihood of them being used, with no actual evidence. Realistically a body would be about as solid as you can get, but nothing yet.
Various cases reported by doctors with symptoms that can only be caused by Sarin. Obama said there's evidence for its use but not for who used it. There was even an Israeli official who confirmed the use of chemical weapons (he was told to shut up afterward lol).
have they ever been refused entry? I can't remember off the top of my head.
Yes.
You don't mind linking me to any of these articles. I've had a look on my main news sites and couldn't find anything. Cheers
You don't mind linking me to any of these articles. I've had a look on my main news sites and couldn't find anything. Cheers
Heh. You want english sources? You'll have to wait a little bit, give me some time. (or you can just trust my words)
It wasn't about trust (I trust you), I was interested to know what evidence the US will put forward as justification for arming rebels. After the whole WMD fiasco in Iraq I'm usually quite sceptical about these kind of scenarios.
Also for me it's not that I don't think Syria doesn't have the balls to use chemical weapons, it's more down to the possibility that it has many enemies with the means to incriminate them. The kind of tactic used in 'the sum of all fears'. (I'm quoting too many movies in this thread)
And no I don't have that as some wacky conspiracy theory. I just want conclusive evidence to rule out any foul play or counter argument by the Syrian government, which is exactly what they are doing.
The only downside to that is the fact it takes time, which leads to more unnecessary deaths.
It wasn't about trust (I trust you), I was interested to know what evidence the US will put forward as justification for arming rebels. After the whole WMD fiasco in Iraq I'm usually quite sceptical about these kind of scenarios.
Also for me it's not that I don't think Syria doesn't have the balls to use chemical weapons, it's more down to the possibility that it has many enemies with the means to incriminate them. The kind of tactic used in 'the sum of all fears'. (I'm quoting too many movies in this thread)
And no I don't have that as some wacky conspiracy theory. I just want conclusive evidence to rule out any foul play or counter argument by the Syrian government, which is exactly what they are doing.
The only downside to that is the fact it takes time, which leads to more unnecessary deaths.
Ok, I just did a quick google search for each topic.
"And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don't know how they were used, when they were used, who used them; we don't have chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened," Obama said.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Some of these articles are outdated by now... probably should've been posted at the time of each event for a better follow up.
Hezbollah's made their inevitably appearance in all this; Israel just confirmed that they airstriked weapons that would have gone to Hezbollah.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/20135502043908700.html
Not sure why Israel is getting more involved in this.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/20135502043908700.html
Not sure why Israel is getting more involved in this.
I think it's because Hezbollah is getting more involved in this.
Speak of the devil asmoo.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
So apparently the rebels are to blame?????
Stupidity is the worst disease, I tell ya… sigh shakes head
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/201356135529534687.html
"The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic wishes to clarify that it has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict," the commission said in a statement on Monday.
They don't even have conclusive evidence of the usage of chemical weapons… why would she even accuse any side of using it, then? She is not even in a position to speak about their investigation, it seems, which is not yet finished.
And the UN team still hasn't entered the country.
The Geneva-based inquiry into war crimes and other human rights violations is separate from an investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons instigated by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
Ban's office is still trying to negotiate entry into Syria to investigate and collect samples.
So whats up with Syrian civil war? Apparently things are in dead lock with Syrian army made small advancement in few days but is too weak for real victories, FSA in other hand is supported pretty much everynation at Middle east including Isreal, Saudi Arabia and Turkey but without direct outside aid I dont think FSA can topple Assad in this year atleast.
As much as I want to get rid of Assad mad dictatorship and see end of his reign of terror I fear future of Syria will be pretty bleak even after Assad's fall (He has far too many enemies) because FSA has an ominous 'ally' in their fight to topple Assad… Al-Nusra Front that might pose serious threat to post-Assad Syria...While FSA leaders express their disdain towards Al-Nusra and even made statesment that they might have to face another civil war against Al-Nusra after Assad falls.
But with no end in war at sight, FSA is forced to fight along Salafist groups and Al-Nusra is gaining influence upon rebel forces it could spell serious trouble after Assad falls, instead of democracy and stability there might be instead chaos, theocracy and ethnic cleansings on minoritys. Assad is fighting with tooth and nail to maintain his 'legacy', Iran is tearing country towards one direction, Isreal to another and Saudi-Arabia to one direction, multiple rebel groups with diffrent ideologies and backgrounds...all united in one purpose...to bring down Assad, but when dust settles and Assad is brought down... will there be a celebration and peaceful formation of a newborn Syria? I really dont think so...most likely another 5 years of chaos and skirmishes, I guess sunni dominated goverment will be in power but true peace is but a distant dream for syrians for a while.
hm, the only thing I heard lately is that Carla del Ponte is actually accusing the rebels of using sarin, although I don't know how that developed? Some sites and folks say this is a legitimate claim, while some say it's a load of shit, I don't really know anymore.
Either someone is trying to make the rebels look bad with connecting them to terrorists and chemical weapons, or they actually are assholes.
So whats up with Syrian civil war? Apparently things are in dead lock with Syrian army made small advancement in few days but is too weak for real victories, FSA in other hand is supported pretty much everynation at Middle east including Isreal, Saudi Arabia and Turkey but without direct outside aid I dont think FSA can topple Assad in this year atleast.
As much as I want to get rid of Assad mad dictatorship and see end of his reign of terror I fear future of Syria will be pretty bleak even after Assad's fall (He has far too many enemies) because FSA has an ominous 'ally' in their fight to topple Assad… Al-Nusra Front that might pose serious threat to post-Assad Syria...While FSA leaders express their disdain towards Al-Nusra and even made statesment that they might have to face another civil war against Al-Nusra after Assad falls.
But with no end in war at sight, FSA is forced to fight along Salafist groups and Al-Nusra is gaining influence upon rebel forces it could spell serious trouble after Assad falls, instead of democracy and stability there might be instead chaos, theocracy and ethnic cleansings on minoritys. Assad is fighting with tooth and nail to maintain his 'legacy', Iran is tearing country towards one direction, Isreal to another and Saudi-Arabia to one direction, multiple rebel groups with diffrent ideologies and backgrounds...all united in one purpose...to bring down Assad, but when dust settles and Assad is brought down... will there be a celebration and peaceful formation of a newborn Syria? I really dont think so...most likely another 5 years of chaos and skirmishes, I guess sunni dominated goverment will be in power but true peace is but a distant dream for syrians for a while.
Isn't it funny how you said the same thing like three pages ago? Not because you're repeating yourself, but because this is how the international community has been for the past two years. "The minorities!!" "The extremist!!" "The Salafist!!" "The chemical weapons!!1!" "The future!!".
In the meantime, the majority is being killed daily, the extremest presence have increased, the chemical weapons have been used and the level of arming of the rebels have been disappointing to no end! It's really mind-boggling how people choose to ignore dealing with the present and focus on problems of the future, a future that we've been warned of for two years and haven't yet come.
hm, the only thing I heard lately is that Carla del Ponte is actually accusing the rebels of using sarin, although I don't know how that developed? Some sites and folks say this is a legitimate claim, while some say it's a load of shit, I don't really know anymore.
Either someone is trying to make the rebels look bad with connecting them to terrorists and chemical weapons, or they actually are assholes.
Try looking two posts back to yours.
Try looking two posts back to yours.
oh goddamnit
Never mind then, I've really been out of touch lately with the whole situation…
In the meantime, the majority is being killed daily, the extremest presence have increased, the chemical weapons have been used and the level of arming of the rebels have been disappointing to no end! It's really mind-boggling how people choose to ignore dealing with the present and focus on problems of the future, a future that we've been warned of for two years and haven't yet come
Problem is that we dont KNOW what is happening at PRESENT… there is very little news feed from Syria, there is very little coverage at western media at this moment, main issue seems to be who uses chemical weapons and when they are used. There are only bits and peaces of news thrown each week and very hard to find unbiased coverage.
Of course there is israel,russian and other nations news feed but they are more and less involved in this so its hard to know whats really happening in there, its like world is just waiting for an outcome of entire civil war and occasionally reporting most cruelest atrocitys and use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS, as if only chemical weapons can be only atrocity commited in this entire war.
Russia delivering anti-aircraft systems to Syria in response to the lifting of the EU weapons embargo on Syria.
shakes head
Occupy-style protests have started in Turkey.
This has the potential of becoming big. Or it may fizzle down. Watch this space.
So whats up with Syrian civil war? Apparently things are in dead lock with Syrian army made small advancement in few days but is too weak for real victories, FSA in other hand is supported pretty much everynation at Middle east including Isreal, Saudi Arabia and Turkey but without direct outside aid I dont think FSA can topple Assad in this year atleast.
As much as I want to get rid of Assad mad dictatorship and see end of his reign of terror I fear future of Syria will be pretty bleak even after Assad's fall (He has far too many enemies) because FSA has an ominous 'ally' in their fight to topple Assad… Al-Nusra Front that might pose serious threat to post-Assad Syria...While FSA leaders express their disdain towards Al-Nusra and even made statesment that they might have to face another civil war against Al-Nusra after Assad falls.
But with no end in war at sight, FSA is forced to fight along Salafist groups and Al-Nusra is gaining influence upon rebel forces it could spell serious trouble after Assad falls, instead of democracy and stability there might be instead chaos, theocracy and ethnic cleansings on minoritys. Assad is fighting with tooth and nail to maintain his 'legacy', Iran is tearing country towards one direction, Isreal to another and Saudi-Arabia to one direction, multiple rebel groups with diffrent ideologies and backgrounds...all united in one purpose...to bring down Assad, but when dust settles and Assad is brought down... will there be a celebration and peaceful formation of a newborn Syria? I really dont think so...most likely another 5 years of chaos and skirmishes, I guess sunni dominated goverment will be in power but true peace is but a distant dream for syrians for a while.
Its barely a civil war.
its basically a war between Bashar + the countries that support him (Iran and Russia for the most part) aganist everyone who don't want him as a ruler, whether they're armies or old women it doesnt matter to him, not one bit.
He even sent trucks with thousands of poisouns scorpions to the survivers camps. its legit, look it up.
Sh*t is hitting fan at Egypt… looks like Arab spring round 2 has arrived to Kairo, people sick of lack of change and concessions regarding Mursi as bad as Mubarrak and powerful grip of Muslim Brotherhood he presents, rioters fear that they have ousted one dictatorship just to get another one.
Hundred thousands rioters, with already dead people confirmed, this could escalate into civil war.
Army estimates rioters numbers in millions already.
Is Mursi attempting to change things to allow him to stop elections?
Because I can only assume Egypt is going to take a while to get to a stable style of government but as long as elections continue then eventually things will improve - but on their unemployment and finacial issues I can't imagine any government fixing that in only a year especially after a civil war.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23125387
Once again we shall rock the casbah.
I mean, that's good (and shocking!) but army control ALSO threatens to be another Morsi as it has in the past.
Egyptians react to military's ultimatum:
Morsi is refusing to step down. I hope this doesn't get any uglier than it already is.
Morsi Supporter: Tanks are on the move outside of Cairo; the coup has begun.
So, the army just decided that Morsi is out.
They also chose the head of the Constitutional Court to run things until the next elections.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Of course, now we see how the Muslim Brotherhood respond.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Morsi refuses the army's statement and is still acting as president.
Also, not sure what this imply, but the MB's TV channel was cut off before/while/after/notsurewhen the army statement was recited.
Moot point now of course, but Assad's government said that Morsi should step down for the sake of Egypt's people.
Apparently, the interior minister decided to close all islamist channels…
Morsi's been overthrown.
Apparently, the interior minister decided to close all islamist channels…
It seems that the power has been cut off from where Morsi's supporters where gathered. And live transmission was cut from all MB protests.
Also, one of Aljazeera's shows in their studios in Egypt was interrupted in the middle of an interview, it honestly sounded like a police officer.
An evacuation has been ordered at the US embassy in Egypt.
Now that Mubarak and islamist MB have been both ousted from power I wonder if Egypt can finally get a stable goverment that is democratic and able sametime?
Still some say MB is heavily armed organization so they might pull something off yet….
Well, now they closed all Al-Jazeera's broadcast from Egypt. LMAO Fuck Da Police!
And Assad's government is warning Syrians from going to Egypt… Fuck you 10 times more Assad!
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Now that Mubarak and islamist MB have been both ousted from power I wonder if Egypt can finally get a stable goverment that is democratic and able sametime?
Still some say MB is heavily armed organization so they might pull something off yet….
LMAO!! Sorry man. Off to sleep
Now that Mubarak and islamist MB have been both ousted from power I wonder if Egypt can finally get a stable goverment that is democratic and able sametime?
Still some say MB is heavily armed organization so they might pull something off yet….
There's lots of danger in coming to rely on military coups. Or letting the military have such power to intervene.
Turkey had this problem since forever, only this past decade does it seem that issue died there.
Growing pains I guess regardless. Not letting the MB and what they represent participate in democracy sounds nice, but really it isn't. Even if they are horrible assholes, better they be allowed to play democracy than go underground again and take their angers out on the country.
Egypt's real problem more than anything is a complete and total lack of civil society. Tunisia and even Libya (in such worse straits as it is) seem to have a much more developed civil society.
Also it never fails to amaze me, looking at Egyptian crowds in protests (and hearing what accompanies them), and looking at the Turkish equivalents from a month ago…
The amount of social development and cultural worlds between Egypt and Turkey is friggin' LEGION.
I just can't help but notice the role of women in these countries, yikes is it bad in Egypt.
(props also to Tunisia on that count, Lebanon too, and of all places IRAN lol, man are the people and government insanely out of step with eachother in that country).
Also Cyprus as well of course. Lest we forget that just because it's very European doesn't make it inorganic to the region like say Israel is.
@Monkey:
Also Cyprus as well of course. Lest we forget that just because it's very European doesn't make it inorganic to the region like say Israel is.
Cyprus has been as inorganic to that region as Israel since the mainland population exchanges 90 years ago.
Since Yesterday, some of the MB members are being rounded up by the police including some high figures. Some say even Morsi is being held by the Army.
Meanwhile, there is a court decision to bring the old public persecutor (Abdel Meguid Mahmoud) back to the position he was removed from by Morsi.
It's like the joke is being completed here.
Cyprus has been as inorganic to that region as Israel since the mainland population exchanges 90 years ago.
I think you're trying to refer to the Greek/Turkish population exchange at the end of WW1.
Which is strange because Cyprus was part of neither Greece nor Turkey/Ottoman Empire. It was a British colony, the Brits extorted out of Ottoman hands after the Crimean war in the previous century, and nothing at all happened there 90 years ago. Let alone a population exchange.
Even if there had been one, that wouldn't make it inorganic like Israel. Israeli's migrated there around WW2 and in some cases in the last century or so in small waves.
Cyprus has been inhabited by the same basic stock of people since 10,000 BC lol.
The Turks and Greeks are all still there, it's just that in 1974 the Turkish invasion forced them to opposite sides of the island. The island is absolutely as organic to the region as Turkey, Georgia or Armenia in their vague Europeaness mixed with also being in the Middle East.
@Monkey:
I think you're trying to refer to the Greek/Turkish population exchange at the end of WW1.
I am because the population make-up of undivided Cyprus most closely represents that of pre WWI Greece or Anatolia.
@Monkey:
Which is strange because Cyprus was part of neither Greece nor Turkey/Ottoman Empire. It was a British colony, the Brits extorted out of Ottoman hands after the Crimean war in the previous century, and nothing at all happened there 90 years ago. Let alone a population exchange.
Cyprus has been part of both 'Greece' (all forms of the Greek 'state' prior to the current one) and the Ottoman Empire. It transferred to British hands in 1878, not after the Crimean War. And it was a protectorate earlier, the annexation was formalized when the Ottomans joined the Central powers at the start of WW1.
But anyway, the point with bringing up the mainland population transfers was mentioned above, that Cyprus was just like pre-war Greece or Anatolia, and post-division, what is now Cyprus is as European as Greece is.
@Monkey:
Even if there had been one, that wouldn't make it inorganic like Israel. Israeli's migrated there around WW2 and in some cases in the last century or so in small waves.
Cyprus has been inhabited by the same basic stock of people since 10,000 BC lol.
The people who migrated to Israel are from the same stock as the people who were pushed out of there millenia ago. And this is not even the religious Zionist claim, the people making Aaliyah genetically match the people inhabiting the Levant before they scattered. They're certainly much older than the Turks who inhabit Cyprus and give it the 'organic' Middle-Eastern flavour you are so fond of. Also, a lot of Jews in Israel are actually Middle Eastern, lol.
@Monkey:
The Turks and Greeks are all still there, it's just that in 1974 the Turkish invasion forced them to opposite sides of the island. The island is absolutely as organic to the region as Turkey, Georgia or Armenia in their vague Europeaness mixed with also being in the Middle East.
Thing is, Armenia and Georgia are almost always classified as culturally European. Historically they may have been Middle-Eastern, but now they are (Goergia especially) closer to Russia than the Middle-East.
Hell, even your average Turk would like to identify as European than Middle-Eastern.
I am because the population make-up of undivided Cyprus most closely represents that of pre WWI Greece or Anatolia.
How does that make it inorganic to the middle-east lol.
In fact what does things going on in Turkey and Greece even have to do with Cyprus at all at that point.
If you're trying to say Greeks no longer were a middle eastern thing, than um…
Greeks are in Syria, Greeks are in Georgia, Greeks are in Egypt, and oh yeah, Greeks are in Cyprus. I really don't get what you're saying.
Cyprus has been part of both 'Greece' (all forms of the Greek 'state' prior to the current one)
lol that's not saying as much as you imagine.
There WAS no "Greek State" in antiquity. At no point. Ancient Greece as we know it was a half ton of city states and small kingdoms and the like. Greek culturally, but faaaar from united. This is so far before modern nationalism you can't really imagine "A Greek State" ever existed right? Oh yes, and a bunch of those were in Anatolia. Lest we try and impose modern ideas of Europe on the Greeks, who were in so many ways Eurasian as a whole.
Next comes Alexander. Not Greek himself, but he bore Greek culture. He conquered a good ton of stuff, Cyprus being one of them. This wasn't a Hellenic state though, it's Hellenistic.
Next comes the awkward definition of Eastern Rome, Greek State? Or not? Greek dominated yes, but also a successor to the multi-cultural Roman Empire. Cyprus was under this true.
And after that? Never under any Greek state. As you at least admit.
Your idea of there even being a "Greece" in a non-political sense is allll kinds of flawed. Greek Cypriots and the various dying or dead Greek areas in Eurasia are as Greek as anything, but that doesn't mean they bow to the political Greece as we know it for some reason. They have their individual aspects, organic as can be of where they are.
Aside from Cyprus the area near Trabzon Turkey used to be a Greece apart from "Greece". It was wiped out by Turkey but the remanents are even still there. Muslim Greeks were allowed to stay and can still be found.
Why are these less Greek, or inherently like tentacles of the "real" Greece? That's extremely shortsighted.
You're talking about them as if…
1. These areas are colonial children of Greece proper, like the US or Australia is to the UK. Writing this about things that have been where they are as they are for TEN MILLENNIUMS lol.
2. Like Greeks are inherently a European entity, and not Eurasian. Historically it's more Eurasian, only in modern times with Western European Philhellenics and the population exchange has it really been kicked under the European umbrella. Plus if anything the population exchange forced the more middle eastern Greeks into the more European Greek population, bringing with them more Anatolian customs and the like.
And that still leaves Cyprus as a solid strong example of Mid-Eastern Greeks, since it has never suffered either having the Greeks forced off of it, or mass migrations to the Greek republic such as in the former communist countries like the USSR.
Also bare in mind Cyprus has been apart of the following.
Assyrian Empire, Ottoman Empire, Achaemednid Persia, Ptolemaic Egypt, Early Arab Caliphates, and some Phoenecian colonies as well.
and the Ottoman Empire. It transferred to British hands in 1878, not after the Crimean War. And it was a protectorate earlier, the annexation was formalized when the Ottomans joined the Central powers at the start of WW1.
De Jure control was Ottoman lol. It was British from 1878.
But anyway, the point with bringing up the mainland population transfers was mentioned above, that Cyprus was just like pre-war Greece or Anatolia, and post-division, what is now Cyprus is as European as Greece is.
Yeah I thought so.
To be Mid-Eastern they'd have to have the Turks is what you're saying. You seriously think of Greeks as this homogenous inherently European entity. lolll
These people who have been in the region since 10,000 BC, and Greek since 1400 BC (really who cares what the "mainland" is doing) are not Middle Eastern because of Turks or no Turks? Whatt??
Cypriots have been Greek before Arabs were even something people had heard about, I'm not even sure Arabs technically existed.
And Turks didn't exist like at all …at all. Not even the earliest records of Turkic peoples go back as far as 1400 BC!! And they originated in Central Asia or maybe even Siberia!!
Greek Cypriots have been in this region longer than Arabs and Turks. Yet they aren't allowed to be considered Mid-Eastern why exactly?
The people who migrated to Israel are from the same stock as the people who were pushed out of there millenia ago.
You do realize Jews, wherever they went in Europe, Sephardi or Ashkenazi, mixed with the locals right? The fact that Sephardi Jews and Ashkenazi are distinct in the first place should tell you that.
The point is that the people who came to found Israel, had been living in Europe for at the least some 2000 years or so. The Sephardi lived with the Ottomans near the end but mostly in Salonika even. When they came to found Israel, they brought experiences and ideas from Europe. You don't really supposed Israel is a religious country do you? The power there has long been secular nationalist. The ideals and structures and all that jazz, influenced by Europe, brought from Europe into a region.
2000 years is a long long time to try and claim inherent belonging to a region lol.
And this is not even the religious Zionist claim, the people making Aaliyah genetically match the people inhabiting the Levant before they scattered. They're certainly much older than the Turks who inhabit Cyprus and give it the 'organic' Middle-Eastern flavour you are so fond of.
Yeah, you really think it's the Turks who made Cyprus Mid-Eastern lol. I'm not even sure the Israelites are on record earlier than 1500 BC.
Also, a lot of Jews in Israel are actually Middle Eastern, lol.
According to this 50% are of Ashkenaz origin, while the rest are Sephardi and the Mid-Eastern ones.
My main point anyway being the political and especially cultural basis was out of Europe. You know, certain political leaders being European in origin for instance.
Thing is, Armenia and Georgia are almost always classified as culturally European.
They aren't though. You will simply never find them given consistent description. Sometimes they're Europe, sometimes they're Middle-East. Much like Cyprus and Turkey, there is no one clear cut answer. But to deny that they have one foot in the Middle East, that's absurdity.
Is your basis really as simplistic as "they're Christian"? Are the Copts European? Is the Phillipines in Europe? Pretty sure there's strong Christian presence in the hill areas near the Indian Burmese border, are they European?
Historically they may have been Middle-Eastern, but now they are (Goergia especially) closer to Russia than the Middle-East.
Georgia fucking HATES Russia. And they're not even keen on Armenia either. You know who they're ok with? Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Armenia being strictly European is honestly a big joke. The rump state that currently exists is well and isolated from the Russian frontier style borders, historically (and we're talking WW1 here) Armenians didn't stretch up toward Russia, they stretched DOWN southwesterly through Turkey to where Adana is nowadays past lake Van.
Georgians are a much better arguement but even then, they're NOT gravitating toward Russia in any sense lol.
Hell, even your average Turk would like to identify as European than Middle-Eastern.
Hell, even your average Turk would like to identify as European than Middle-Eastern.
And hey, you know what? A Turk living in Corlu is more European than a Cypriot Greek. Probably waaaay more in common with the Greeks and Bulgarians right near them than the myriad things Cypriots share with their Levantine neighbors.
As usual, you're doing your usual strawman thing. Blowing up on individual words and phrases whilst completely ignoring the crux of a debate whatsoever. But glutton for punishment that I am, I will indulge your fantasies.
@Monkey:
In fact what does things going on in Turkey and Greece even have to do with Cyprus at all at that point.
If you're trying to say Greeks no longer were a middle eastern thing, than um…
Greeks are in Syria, Greeks are in Georgia, Greeks are in Egypt, and oh yeah, Greeks are in Cyprus. I really don't get what you're saying.
I am saying that Cyprus is more Greek than Middle-Eastern, as far as the traditional definitions of those terms go. There is an argument to be made that there is overlap between the two culturally, but by that argument, Greece is as Middle-Eastern as is Cyprus.
@Monkey:
lol that's not saying as much as you imagine.
I do know what I was talking about which is why I put the word 'state' in quotes. I know there was no Greek state before the modern one. My point simply was that Cyprus has been under the Greek sphere of influence and every time there has been an empire or entity that has had control of all of mainland Greece (including the Anatolian part), it has had control over Cyprus too at some point of time. See Alexander, the Romans, the Byzantines (who were very much a Greek state for much of their history, for all your denial). And this effectively renders several of your next paragraphs wasted.
@Monkey:
Greek Cypriots and the various dying or dead Greek areas in Eurasia are as Greek as anything, but that doesn't mean they bow to the political Greece as we know it for some reason.
Explain Enosis then.
@Monkey:
De Jure control was Ottoman lol. It was British from 1878.
Which is what I said.
@Monkey:
To be Mid-Eastern they'd have to have the Turks is what you're saying. You seriously think of Greeks as this homogenous inherently European entity. lolll
These people who have been in the region since 10,000 BC, and Greek since 1400 BC (really who cares what the "mainland" is doing) are not Middle Eastern because of Turks or no Turks? Whatt??
Cypriots have been Greek before Arabs were even something people had heard about, I'm not even sure Arabs technically existed.
And Turks didn't exist like at all …at all. Not even the earliest records of Turkic peoples go back as far as 1400 BC!! And they originated in Central Asia or maybe even Siberia!!
Greek Cypriots have been in this region longer than Arabs and Turks. Yet they aren't allowed to be considered Mid-Eastern why exactly?
Again, a lot of arbitrary bits of history padding the fact that you consider Greeks to be Middle-Eastern. If that is the hypothesis, sure man, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and most of the Greek islands in the Aegean are Middle-Eastern. So is Thrace.
@Monkey:
You do realize Jews, wherever they went in Europe, Sephardi or Ashkenazi, mixed with the locals right? The fact that Sephardi Jews and Ashkenazi are distinct in the first place should tell you that.
You also do realize that in spite of mixing with the locals they retained a strong sense of identity with Palestine? And you also realize that there are more types of Jews than the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim, right?
@Monkey:
The point is that the people who came to found Israel, had been living in Europe for at the least some 2000 years or so. The Sephardi lived with the Ottomans near the end but mostly in Salonika even. When they came to found Israel, they brought experiences and ideas from Europe. You don't really supposed Israel is a religious country do you? The power there has long been secular nationalist. The ideals and structures and all that jazz, influenced by Europe, brought from Europe into a region.
2000 years is a long long time to try and claim inherent belonging to a region lol.
Dude, do not lecture me about Israel and their customs. I'm going there on my third visit in less than a week. They like to think of themselves as a progressive secular country but the reality is rather different. Did you know that it is easier to opt out of military service if you are engaged in religious study than if you're a pacifist?
@Monkey:
Yeah, you really think it's the Turks who made Cyprus Mid-Eastern lol.
Well, I consider Greeks to be European culturally (which is where this entire debate arose, from your bizarre assertion that Cypriots have Middle Eastern sensibilities), so yeah.
@Monkey:
They aren't though. You will simply never find them given consistent description. Sometimes they're Europe, sometimes they're Middle-East. Much like Cyprus and Turkey, there is no one clear cut answer. But to deny that they have one foot in the Middle East, that's absurdity.
I said they're almost always classified as European. Geographically, some of them might be Asian, but culturally, they're definitely more European than Middle Eastern.
@Monkey:
Is your basis really as simplistic as "they're Christian"?
No, it is not.
@Monkey:
Are the Copts European?
Nope.
@Monkey:
Is the Phillipines in Europe?
Nope.
@Monkey:
Pretty sure there's strong Christian presence in the hill areas near the Indian Burmese border, are they European?
Nope. They're just another result of colonist-sponsored missionary activity in the eighteenth/nineteenth century.
@Monkey:
Georgia fucking HATES Russia. And they're not even keen on Armenia either. You know who they're ok with? Turkey and Azerbaijan.
C'mon man. I think I have provided some evidence of knowing more of contemporary World politics than this. Georgia may politically be chummy with whoever they are, they are culturally closer to Russia than either Turkey or Azerbaijan.
@Monkey:
Armenia being strictly European is honestly a big joke. The rump state that currently exists is well and isolated from the Russian frontier style borders, historically (and we're talking WW1 here) Armenians didn't stretch up toward Russia, they stretched DOWN southwesterly through Turkey to where Adana is nowadays past lake Van.
I agree Armenia historically is very Middle-Eastern. Most of their history has been spent being ground between their bigger neighbours in Anatolia and Persia (who were almost perpetually at War). The rump state does have a lot of Russian influence owing to the decades of Soviet Rule. Those people have been dealt a very heavy hand by fate.
@Monkey:
And hey, you know what? A Turk living in Corlu is more European than a Cypriot Greek. Probably waaaay more in common with the Greeks and Bulgarians right near them than the myriad things Cypriots share with their Levantine neighbors.
Probably. Probably not. And anyway, an average (or median) Turk is very unlikely to fall in Turkish Thrace anyway.