Interim President Adly Mansour dissolved the Shura Council.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/egypt-tv-interim-president-dissolves-parliament.php?ref=fpb
Interim President Adly Mansour dissolved the Shura Council.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/egypt-tv-interim-president-dissolves-parliament.php?ref=fpb
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.
Do you think maybe you're poorly communicating whatever idea you're trying to convey? Or that you can't recognize your argument when broken down into parts rather than whole.
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.
So Greek = Europe. Childishly simplified way to look at things.
And then worse yet we have the baffling assumption that Cyprus is identical to Greece because…...uh....no really, why do you assume this to be the case?
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.
Uh arguably there was though…?? As I pointed out? Not that it effected my argument since Cyprus was only ever under two larger arguably Greek entities.
My point simply was that Cyprus has been under the Greek sphere of influence
And Persian, and Assyrian, and Egyptian, and Arab, and Phoenecian, and Turkish.
Also we could even throw in the other European entities, so British, and Venetian, and earlier forms of English, Crusaders etc.
You have these fundamentally Greek people, but ruled over and shared among a vast array of empires and peoples, not to mention basic proximity to the Levant and all the non-military forms of culture that come with trade and commerce. As do recall they Hellenized in the first place not from conquest but from contact.
You're trying to draw these silly lines here, try doing that in the Balkans. Try and cut up those countries like "Ok, Croatia and Slovenia are Western, Serbia Bulgaria and Greece are Russo-Orthodox, and Albania and Bosniaks are Middle-Eastern" or something. But you'd find almost innumerable shared culture among all three of these cultural spheres. Foods, musics, dances, literature, folk tales, words, family rituals, clothing…
It is similar with comparing Cyprus to Lebanon or Syria, or Turkey of course. Things that Greece will NOT have. Experiences and histories they will never share with the Cypriots simply by sharing ethnicity. Likewise with many Turks compared to Cypriot Turks. Who by the way are not really any different from the Greek Cypriots in any real way aside from the obvious two (religion, language), so the idea that they "took the middle east with them" when they huddled up North is ridiculous to say the least.
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.
Flip that the other way around and it doesn't hold at all. But for some reason we only look at it as Greece–---> Cyprus, instead of Cyprus-----> Greece? Why?
Also take note that the Empires that did that...also controlled like virtually every single thing in that Eurasian middle belt lol. Alexander did, the Romans did, the Turks did. Does it really mean anything that Greece and Cyprus were under the same coat then?
See Alexander, the Romans, the Byzantines (who were very much a Greek state for much of their history, for all your denial).
The Romans ARE the Byzantines. That's part of what makes it sticky to claim Byzantium as "Greek country", but also for the non-ethnic nature of the empire, just as it's a little sticky to claim the Ottomans were "Turkish country". Neither one was built on nationalist grounds or any such thing. I doubt very much that Cyprus received some special treatment relative to other East Roman provinces. In fact they struggled against the Byzantine church power structure to keep their own independent branch of the church.
And this effectively renders several of your next paragraphs wasted.
You are amazingly averse to anything I wrote about Greeks from areas that aren't modern day Greece! What's the deal yo! lol
What you just lazily (and baffingly) pushed into the garbage, was stuff entirely about that. You literally think East Roman control makes that all moot somehow, you know, this stuff that ended around 1000 years ago might I add.
Are you some kind of hardcore nationalist….for hire? Like you'll take up other people's ethnic groups and fervently argue that there are no "internal" divisions and that they're all the same or something. No, you really can't ignore Cypriot Greeks or Pontic Greeks as distinct entities from hell…let's call them Balkan Greeks. This is a bad way to approach anthropology, history, social geography, and international politics.
Explain Enosis then.
Done.
By the way Enosis is dead as dirt. Cypriots haven't wanted since the whole 74' debacle.
And for a reference I'm sure you'll appreciate, Cyprus probably would have enjoyed Enosis about as much as Bangladesh enjoyed Pakistan.
Which is what I said.
You asserted the imagined Ottoman control (de jure) like it counted lol.
Again, a lot of arbitrary bits of history padding the fact that you consider Greeks to be Middle-Eastern.
I consider Cypriot Greeks to be Middle Eastern. And I don't even know what you think of the Greeks in Syria and Egypt! But I sure hope you concede them as Middle Eastern! And if we consider Georgia middle East, or Turkey, it sure follows that the Pontic Greeks are/were too.
Balkan Greeks? Eurasian, mostly European for obvious reasons. Not unlike western Turks.
You don't seen to want to talk about Greeks as anything but Balkan Greeks though so I dunno what to tell you!
I mean is it because the Greek hearth is in the Balkans? Well I hate to break it to you, but that's a poor barometer of relevance! Big bad Athens that the rest of the world thinks as "GREEKOPOLIS, GREEK CENTRAL, GREEKITY GREEK GREEK CAPITAL OF CULTURE". Wasn't relevant in the slightest since ancient times until very modern times. It was an ugly backwater (like much of the "important" to ancient Greece areas of Greece) for centuries upon centuries.
Even now the place is a big ugly post-WW2 thrown together city, with fancy ruins here and there.
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.
Uh, do you need me to make a map for you? You're really trying to compare Aegean islands to Cyprus? Please look at a map. Also observe a map of where the historical region of "Trebizond" was for reference of the Pontic Greeks area of living. I think reading about the Pontic Greeks and what little is left would be a good use of time to show how their are and were multiple Greek homelands. Some closer into Europe, some closer into the Middle East. Allll along the Eurasian fault lines.
19th century European Romanticism has really done a number on how the world sees Greeks, arguing with you, someone not from the west originally, really shows me how far afield their readings and framings of Greeks have gone. But its not done any favors to the Greeks except in supplying them a stream of rich white boys to help their independence war way back when lol.
I wonder how many more Byzantine castles and monastaries would be visited by toursits if they haven't been damned to being goofily framed as PROTO-EUROPE ANCIENT PHILOSOPHER DEMOCRACY PEOPLE.
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?
Yes I'm sure the other groups such as the Yemeni Jews and massively oppressed Beta Israel are doing dandy in the other literal half of the population that isn't Ashkenazi.
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?
Wow, a secular western style country struggling with that identity because of religion? Means they aren't strictly from the European tradition?
Boy do I have news for another country with a secular western tradition that struggles with religion! Let me phone my congressman on that one!
Also holy lol at you playing the "DUDE IVE BEEN THERE AND KNOW PEOPLE AND SO DONT TELL ME ABOUT IT" card on an argument you started with ME on CYPRUS 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.
Bizarre?? loll
I'm bamboozled beyond belief that you think that this is bizarre.
You know, it's strange that you can assert "LOOK AT THE VAST RAINBOW OF JUDAIC PEOPLES :D" but then turn and go "GREEKS ARE THIS, ALL OF THEM ARE THIS, THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE, CYPRIOTS AND PONTICS DONT COUNT"
I said they're almost always classified as European.
They aren't almost always. :I
That's exactly my contention.
Like there's Russia which is (rightly) almost always classified as European. And Turkey which is almost always classified as Asian.
The three south caucasus states? I have never ever ever seen consistent categorization. It's honest to god 50/50. And I'd lean toward more Asian if anything.
Geographically, some of them might be Asian, but culturally, they're definitely more European than Middle Eastern.
HOW. What on earth is your criteria?? Is it seriously just "Islam"??
Does that mean Albania and urban Bosnia is Middle-Eastern?? Or sheet, Indonesia?
No, it is not.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope. They're just another result of colonist-sponsored missionary activity in the eighteenth/nineteenth century.
No? Than WHAT lol.
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.
In what way. Georgia (like Armenia, and looking farther afield) Ethopia are extremely distinct places, their way of going about things are very particular.
How extensive the Russian imprint even is I don't know. How deep it goes though? Not very. Russia only ran up in their in the mid 1800's.
They're barely disconnected from Azerbaijan mind you.
Probably. Probably not. And anyway, an average (or median) Turk is very unlikely to fall in Turkish Thrace anyway.
Nevermind the technical definiton of Europe relative to Asia.
The first, second and fourth largest cities (and innumerable larger suburbs of them) are all on the far west side of Turkey.
Istanbul, Izmir and Bursa. This puts them on the Aegean and Thracian/Marmara region.
There are major cities nearer the middle east, but they are both less relevant and smaller.
Ankara can easily be said to be closer in character to Izmir and Istanbul than the famously uber conservative central Anatolian cities as well. So that's the second largest city.
So tell me again what you think is the average Turk?
Or do you really imagine Eastern Thrace is it, the ONLY part that can be considered to be under any relative influence from Greece, right the heck next to it.
Like this.
Mohamed ElBaradei is set to become Interim Prime Minister of Egypt.
@Monkey:
Do you think maybe you're poorly communicating whatever idea you're trying to convey? Or that you can't recognize your argument when broken down into parts rather than whole.
No, I think that you're obfuscating the real point by creating strawmen and responding to them with an overload of information that is not pertinent or relevant. You seem to be confusing cultural identity with a national one. While those two have overlapped in Cyprus' history, they can be distinct.
@Monkey:
So Greek = Europe. Childishly simplified way to look at things.
No. What I mean to say is that being culturally Greek is closer to being European than Middle-Eastern.
@Monkey:
And then worse yet we have the baffling assumption that Cyprus is identical to Greece because…...uh....no really, why do you assume this to be the case?
See? Strawman. Nowhere have I said this. I have consistently said that Greek Cypriots (the indigenous people of Cyprus) are closer culturally to Greeks than they are to the Levantines.
@Monkey:
And Persian, and Assyrian, and Egyptian, and Arab, and Phoenecian, and Turkish.
Also we could even throw in the other European entities, so British, and Venetian, and earlier forms of English, Crusaders etc.
Yet, for all practical purposes, what truly took root there was Hellenic culture, customs and religion.
@Monkey:
You're trying to draw these silly lines here, try doing that in the Balkans. Try and cut up those countries like "Ok, Croatia and Slovenia are Western, Serbia Bulgaria and Greece are Russo-Orthodox, and Albania and Bosniaks are Middle-Eastern" or something. But you'd find almost innumerable shared culture among all three of these cultural spheres. Foods, musics, dances, literature, folk tales, words, family rituals, clothing…
This is the classic example of you confusing cultural identity with a national one.
@Monkey:
It is similar with comparing Cyprus to Lebanon or Syria, or Turkey of course. Things that Greece will NOT have. Experiences and histories they will never share with the Cypriots simply by sharing ethnicity. Likewise with many Turks compared to Cypriot Turks. Who by the way are not really any different from the Greek Cypriots in any real way aside from the obvious two (religion, language), so the idea that they "took the middle east with them" when they huddled up North is ridiculous to say the least.
Turkish Cypriots are distinct from the Greek Cypriots. Religion and language form a huge part of a culture, any culture. While that might not be an impediment to national identity, you definitely cannot erase all differences between two sets of people just because they have been together for five hundred years.
@Monkey:
Flip that the other way around and it doesn't hold at all. But for some reason we only look at it as Greece–---> Cyprus, instead of Cyprus-----> Greece? Why?
Because Cyprus took more from Greek culture than the other way round?
@Monkey:
Also take note that the Empires that did that…also controlled like virtually every single thing in that Eurasian middle belt lol. Alexander did, the Romans did, the Turks did. Does it really mean anything that Greece and Cyprus were under the same coat then?
Before the arrival of the Turks, that entire area (Greece, Anatolia, Cyprus) was populated by similar people. Most of whom are either extinct or migrated to (and assimilated in) Greece. Apart from the Greek Cypriots.
@Monkey:
The Romans ARE the Byzantines. That's part of what makes it sticky to claim Byzantium as "Greek country", but also for the non-ethnic nature of the empire, just as it's a little sticky to claim the Ottomans were "Turkish country".
So was the Holy Roman Empire not almost exclusively German?
@Monkey:
Neither one was built on nationalist grounds or any such thing. I doubt very much that Cyprus received some special treatment relative to other East Roman provinces. In fact they struggled against the Byzantine church power structure to keep their own independent branch of the church.
See the point about confusing national identity with cultural identity above.
@Monkey:
You are amazingly averse to anything I wrote about Greeks from areas that aren't modern day Greece! What's the deal yo! lol
I'm not. I'm not refusing to acknowledge that the area around Trabzon or Antalya was almost exclusively populated by Greeks. The point here is simply that most of these people migrated to 'Balkan' Greece and got assimilated with the population there. I'm not saying that they lost their cultural identities, but for the most part, they have integrated well enough with their 'native' neighbours.
@Monkey:
Are you some kind of hardcore nationalist….for hire? Like you'll take up other people's ethnic groups and fervently argue that there are no "internal" divisions and that they're all the same or something. No, you really can't ignore Cypriot Greeks or Pontic Greeks as distinct entities from hell…let's call them Balkan Greeks. This is a bad way to approach anthropology, history, social geography, and international politics.
Sure, create more strawmen. Whatever floats your boat man.
@Monkey:
Done.
By the way Enosis is dead as dirt. Cypriots haven't wanted since the whole 74' debacle.
The fact that it was a thing for much of the middle of the last century, and the thing that got Cyprus independence in the first place tells a lot of the people of the island's self-identity, no?
@Monkey:
And for a reference I'm sure you'll appreciate, Cyprus probably would have enjoyed Enosis about as much as Bangladesh enjoyed Pakistan.
Good reference, except that Bangladesh is culturally distinct from all of what is now Pakistan (which is itself composed of at least four broad cultural groups - Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch and Pashtun). The politicians from the West were unbearable assholes to the Bengalis and they chose to add their language to their national identity as opposed to just a religious one. This also illustrates my point well, because Bangladeshis are culturally classified alongside their cousins to the west. Not West Pakistan, but West Bengal, in India. Just because a couple of different people have different national identities does not mean they cannot share cultural ones.
@Monkey:
You asserted the imagined Ottoman control (de jure) like it counted lol.
I did not. I was just correcting your assertion that Cyprus has been in British hands since the Crimean War, which was in the 1850s, not 1878. A historical nitpick.
@Monkey:
I consider Cypriot Greeks to be Middle Eastern. And I don't even know what you think of the Greeks in Syria and Egypt! But I sure hope you concede them as Middle Eastern! And if we consider Georgia middle East, or Turkey, it sure follows that the Pontic Greeks are/were too.
Balkan Greeks? Eurasian, mostly European for obvious reasons. Not unlike western Turks.
Sure man, hold on to your guns. You know what would have killed this in one shot? You demonstrating cultural similarities between Greek Cypriots and people from the Levant. That would be new information to me, and I would be willing to concede to your point, especially if these cultural attributes are something they don't share with their 'Balkan' Greek counterparts.
@Monkey:
You don't seen to want to talk about Greeks as anything but Balkan Greeks though so I dunno what to tell you!
I mean is it because the Greek hearth is in the Balkans? Well I hate to break it to you, but that's a poor barometer of relevance! Big bad Athens that the rest of the world thinks as "GREEKOPOLIS, GREEK CENTRAL, GREEKITY GREEK GREEK CAPITAL OF CULTURE". Wasn't relevant in the slightest since ancient times until very modern times. It was an ugly backwater (like much of the "important" to ancient Greece areas of Greece) for centuries upon centuries.
Even now the place is a big ugly post-WW2 thrown together city, with fancy ruins here and there.
Newsflash, it has pretty much become all that since the oft-talked about population exchanges.
As for your point about Greeks in Syria or Anatolia, it is as if you want Kaliningard, Wroclaw and a host of such cities to be acknowledged as German, just because "HELL, THEY WERE GERMAN A CENTURY AGO!!!!! LOL! HISTORY LESSON!!!"
@Monkey:
Yes I'm sure the other groups such as the Yemeni Jews and massively oppressed Beta Israel are doing dandy in the other literal half of the population that isn't Ashkenazi.
I'm not sure what this even means, but whatever.
@Monkey:
Wow, a secular western style country struggling with that identity because of religion? Means they aren't strictly from the European tradition?
Boy do I have news for another country with a secular western tradition that struggles with religion! Let me phone my congressman on that one!
Wow indeed, man. Does a Christian scholar in your neighbourhood get a stipend from the state just because he's Christian? Does your congressman sponsor Christian religious academies from state funds? Are there vast neighbourhoods in your capital city where you will be pelted with stones if you're out and about on Sabbath, or if your girlfriend is wearing a knee-length or shorter skirt?
@Monkey:
Also holy lol at you playing the "DUDE IVE BEEN THERE AND KNOW PEOPLE AND SO DONT TELL ME ABOUT IT" card on an argument you started with ME on CYPRUS lol.
How deluded are you? I just challenged your assertion to the effect of "Cyprus is more Middle-Eastern than Israel", a statement that is as much about Israel as it is about Cyprus.
@Monkey:
The three south caucasus states? I have never ever ever seen consistent categorization. It's honest to god 50/50. And I'd lean toward more Asian if anything.
On some more searching around, I concede this mostly to you, as being 50/50 as opposed to "almost always", as I'd said earlier. Not that this has anything to do with the original debate, but whatever.
@Monkey:
HOW. What on earth is your criteria?? Is it seriously just "Islam"??
The Armenian language has more in common with Greek than any other language. And Islam should not be in quotes. Religion is an important part of a cultural identity.
@Monkey:
In what way. Georgia (like Armenia, and looking farther afield) Ethopia are extremely distinct places, their way of going about things are very particular.
How extensive the Russian imprint even is I don't know. How deep it goes though? Not very. Russia only ran up in their in the mid 1800's.
They're barely disconnected from Azerbaijan mind you.
Point well taken.
@Monkey:
The first, second and fourth largest cities (and innumerable larger suburbs of them) are all on the far west side of Turkey.
Istanbul, Izmir and Bursa. This puts them on the Aegean and Thracian/Marmara region.
There are major cities nearer the middle east, but they are both less relevant and smaller.
Ankara can easily be said to be closer in character to Izmir and Istanbul than the famously uber conservative central Anatolian cities as well. So that's the second largest city.
So tell me again what you think is the average Turk?
I see the issue here. You're looking at urban people, inherently secular in outlook thanks to Ataturk's reforms hitting them first. You're completely ignoring the bulk of Turkish population in Anatolian villages who are completely different in outlook. The same solid vote bank that keeps putting Erdogan back in power, much to the consternation of the people of more liberal persuasion in Istanbul. The argument can be made that such a person is as easily an average Turk as your person from Istanbul, Izmir or Bursa.
Lemme get this straight: CYPRUS IS UNIQUE CULTURALLY AAAAAND PHYSICALLY/GENETICALLY WISE COUNTRY. You CANNOT say we are one thing or another because we are literally EVERYTHING. The Greeks did not create us. The Ottomans did not create us. The Assyrians did not create us. The Venetians did not create us. But we most certainly did not pop out of the ground either. This is the magical thing with Cyprus: We have an extremely rich and colorful culture and dialect because of our conquerors and our allies. Everybody left a little something behind, be it a word, or a food, or a custom or ideas or blood or architecture or dances or whatever. It cannot even be claimed we are more European than we are Middle Eastern… because we are not. Literally if you call a Greek Cypriot European, they will laugh in your face and not in a good way. The ONLY reason the people wanted to join the European Union in the first place, is to get help with the Turks because we naturally could not do anything about it alone. And even if you keep saying that we are closer culturally to Greeks because of the language and the religion, it still does not makes us the same. We have a different dialect, different ways of thinking, different food, dances, music, habits, customs (whether they be religious or not), celebrations etc. And also just because we have different language and religion than say the Turkish Cypriots, it doesn't mean they aren't closer to us than mainland Greeks (though many Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots would hate to admit it) in many cultural and physical ways.
It's rather silly me thinks to divide the world in black and white like that. Just because the population exchange happened, it does not mean all the Middle East breath was removed from South Cyprus in an instant and rendered it a completely European. Actually... we've always been like this even before the Turks were here. When they arrived, they just added a new piece to the puzzle of our culture. They did not change it around or whatever. They simply added to it like cultures before them did with their own pieces over the ages. We are a clash of two worlds and the term Eurasia that graces Cyprus', does not strictly refer to our geographical position, but to our culture too.
And on the front of Greece and Cyprus being culturally strictly European and not a mix of the two worlds... Well..
<-Pretty traditional Greek dance.I could post some pics of some of my friends who are darker than can be, dark skin, black eyes, black afro hair (like my brother's fiance or my cousin) and then some pics of some of my friends who are blonde and blue-eyed and skin that's just as white as milk is (...like I am lol) for genetically diversity proof, but I am too lazy to go around asking for permission and whatnot.
No, I think that you're obfuscating the real point by creating strawmen and responding to them with an overload of information that is not pertinent or relevant. You seem to be confusing cultural identity with a national one. While those two have overlapped in Cyprus' history, they can be distinct.
Both cultural and national entity are distinct for Cyprus towards Greece.
No. What I mean to say is that being culturally Greek is closer to being European than Middle-Eastern.
That's such a simplification of things I don't really even know why I should try to argue with it. It would be like me conceding the argument to nonsense framing that I inherently think misrepresents like…everything.
See? Strawman. Nowhere have I said this. I have consistently said that Greek Cypriots (the indigenous people of Cyprus) are closer culturally to Greeks than they are to the Levantines.
Your entire argument centers around the fallacious assumption that Cyprus is by nature subordinate to Greece culturally and ethnically. Like Greece is a planet and Cyprus is just a little moon going around it, that no matter how close in orbit to the Mid-East it floats, it never escapes being fundamentally a branch of Greece.
That entire framing of the thing is my problem with what you're saying.
Yet, for all practical purposes, what truly took root there was Hellenic culture, customs and religion.
Except no. (see Chrissie post, or better yet, see Chrissie)
This is the classic example of you confusing cultural identity with a national one.
The two can literally be the same exact thing you know, right? Are you saying you're trying to say…nationally...Cyprus is more European? What does that even mean?
Turkish Cypriots are distinct from the Greek Cypriots.
HAW. They really really aren't
Religion and language form a huge part of a culture, any culture.
If you take two near identical people whove lived together in close proximity, intermarrying, neighbors, etc for centuries. Even if they go and confess in a different temple, and speak (which btw would have been a matter of bilingualism in Cyprus anyway lol). They're going to share much much much more than if you took them to compare with the Balkan Greeks and Anatolian Turks respectively.
You do know I visited North Cyprus? The only major change I noticed (and no, I'm actually NOT counting mosques, Turkish Cypriots are even more secular than Greek Cypriots) was economic. The North was much poorer, but that's nothing to do with culture.
Oh wait, no there was one notable thing. Latin Alphabet rather than Greek. Nothing made me feel more that I had slipped under the veil of the exotic near east than being able to read signs again.
This is like the people who try arguing that the Bosnian communities were destined to split on their "vast cultural differences and ancient hatreds". Once the nationalist extremists drummed war, and panicked the right people, and were aided in split by British policy, the community was driven apart.
While that might not be an impediment to national identity, you definitely cannot erase all differences between two sets of people just because they have been together for five hundred years.
Or in many cases were the same people who converted over.
And oooooh man do you not need to refer to ethnicity in such terms. Modern sense of ethnicity is something only really strongly brought about in the 1800's. For the Ottoman Empire it came even later in that century than most. "Turks" is an EXTREMELY modern identity, it's barely a century old. The Cypriot Muslims would have ended up speaking the Imperial lingua franca very quickly, and only with the chaos of the Ottoman Empire's collapse and the Young Turks and Kemalism that came about amidst it would that be forged into some strong idea of there being a Turkish people with common identity and cause. The same fever caught up the Greek Cypriots.
Do you want to know a curious tragic fact?
In the huge population exchange between Greece and Turkey, religion was used as the main guide of exporting people. Greek Muslims, of which there were quite a few, got completely overlooked by this both for better and worse. Greek Muslims in Greece were sent away, as they were seen as "Turks". And Greek Muslims were SPARED of being made to leave from Turkey. There are still populations of them around Trabzon.
Because Cyprus took more from Greek culture than the other way round?
MYCENEAN GREECE LOL
Are you saying modern Balkan Greece can be considered a direct successor to Mycenean Greece?? Christ dude, this was before even all those city states existed. Or entire areas of Greece were even…Greek! Like Macedonia!
Before the arrival of the Turks, that entire area (Greece, Anatolia, Cyprus) was populated by similar people.
No it absolutely wasn't. Aside from even the fact that central Anatolia always had a weak presence of Greek culture, and the Armenians who were right up in there.
Most of whom are either extinct or migrated to (and assimilated in) Greece. Apart from the Greek Cypriots.
Extinct….. Tell me Cooldud. What do you think happened to the Greek association most locals in Anatolia had before the Ottomans consolidated the place. They can't have all died or moved now could they. What do you think came of them?
So was the Holy Roman Empire not almost exclusively German?
You do realize that modern countries in Europe that we see as homogenous, like Spain, France, and Germany, actually used to have tons of strong regional identities and (especially in Spain's case) still do? To the point of different language and even religion? The Holy Roman Empire was split by Catholicism and Protestantism, and some sources consider High German to be a different language than Low German (on which religion loosely follows).
I'm not. I'm not refusing to acknowledge that the area around Trabzon or Antalya was almost exclusively populated by Greeks. The point here is simply that most of these people migrated to 'Balkan' Greece and got assimilated with the population there. I'm not saying that they lost their cultural identities, but for the most part, they have integrated well enough with their 'native' neighbours.
Good. Now Cyprus. This place. It appears to not have undergone such a process!
The fact that it was a thing for much of the middle of the last century, and the thing that got Cyprus independence in the first place tells a lot of the people of the island's self-identity, no?
Enosis didn't get Cyprus indepedence… or do you think the Cypriots were fine with being a British possession unless they could join either "motherland".
Nobody liked the Brits.
Good reference, except that Bangladesh is culturally distinct from all of what is now Pakistan (which is itself composed of at least four broad cultural groups - Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch and Pashtun). The politicians from the West were unbearable assholes to the Bengalis and they chose to add their language to their national identity as opposed to just a religious one.
You know it's funny, a vast difference and a smaller one, don't matter so much when the end result is the same.
Talk to Chrissie about the mainland's relation to Cypriots when they're over there.
She's had cousins beaten up by Golden Dawn people for being Cypriot. Yes, Greek Cypriot. And lest you try and argue that Golden Dawn is not representatory of what Greek attitudes toward a 74' Enosis would produce, try not to forget that a nasty right wing junta was in charge of Greece at the time.
Cyprus has an entire history of exploitation by anyone around them who can. Greece would be no different.
This also illustrates my point well, because Bangladeshis are culturally classified alongside their cousins to the west. Not West Pakistan, but West Bengal, in India. Just because a couple of different people have different national identities does not mean they cannot share cultural ones.
Wait so you don't mean Nationality by "national identities" you mean ethnicity.
What on earth is your definition of ethnicity? or "national identity".
Sure man, hold on to your guns. You know what would have killed this in one shot? You demonstrating cultural similarities between Greek Cypriots and people from the Levant. That would be new information to me, and I would be willing to concede to your point, especially if these cultural attributes are something they don't share with their 'Balkan' Greek counterparts.
What do you think I've been hinting at all along?
Newsflash, it has pretty much become all that since the oft-talked about population exchanges.
Except it hasn't.
Greeks will give you two answers if you ask them where the heart of Greek culture lies.
Either they will tell you Thessaloniki, or they will tell you Istanbul.
Athens is tourism and traffic jams.
The idea that they're defined by Athens is a totally western invention that knows all about everything Greek until Alexander dies. Then abruptly stops giving a shit.
News flash, everything to do with modern Greeks of any stripes has WAY more to do with the interceding 2300 years.
You can't understand them with framing things by Ancient Greece. That should be common sense, but the world doesn't have much of that.
Also thinking that you can even look back 2300 years and try to classify stuff by things like "Europe".
As for your point about Greeks in Syria or Anatolia, it is as if you want Kaliningard, Wroclaw and a host of such cities to be acknowledged as German, just because "HELL, THEY WERE GERMAN A CENTURY AGO!!!!! LOL! HISTORY LESSON!!!"
I'm not sure how you missed it, but I'm not talking about Greek presence in those countries from years ago. I mean there are litearlly still Greeks living there left over from those years ago. And I'd really love to hear you describe those Greeks as European.
I'm not sure what this even means, but whatever.
50% of Israel are descendents of NORTHERN/EASTERN European Jews. Who far outnumber Jews from places like Yemen and Ethiopia. Your attempt to say most Israeli's are mid-eastern Jews is wrong. Among the other 50% is a large amount of Spanish Jews.
Wow indeed, man. Does a Christian scholar in your neighbourhood get a stipend from the state just because he's Christian? Does your congressman sponsor Christian religious academies from state funds?
I live in Connecticut, but you might want to look into local politics around Atlanta lol.
How deluded are you? I just challenged your assertion to the effect of "Cyprus is more Middle-Eastern than Israel", a statement that is as much about Israel as it is about Cyprus.
I never played the "YOU CANT TALK ABOUT CYPRUS" card lol.
The Armenian language has more in common with Greek than any other language. And Islam should not be in quotes. Religion is an important part of a cultural identity.
Religion isn't as important as you make it out to be in dividing peoples. Sect can even cut deeper than religion.
Going back to Bosnia, the Croat fascists viciously assaulted and ripped to pieces their ethnic rivals in the region…
...who were the Serbs, not the Bosniaks.
The Orthodox Christians were massacred by the Catholic Christians, while those same Catholic Christians regarded the Muslims as just confused kin.
I see the issue here. You're looking at urban people, inherently secular in outlook thanks to Ataturk's reforms hitting them first. You're completely ignoring the bulk of
Oh? They're the bulk? Well? Are they?
Turkish population in Anatolian villages who are completely different in outlook.
So what you're saying is Urban people are more cosmopolitan and secular, and Rural people are more provincial and religious. This has NOTHING to do with Asia and Europe lol.
Heck I'm also saying that rural areas nearer Greece are nearer Greece in other sense than rural areas nearer Syria.
The same solid vote bank that keeps putting Erdogan back in power, much to the consternation of the people of more liberal persuasion in Istanbul. The argument can be made that such a person is as easily an average Turk as your person from Istanbul, Izmir or Bursa.
Erdogan's power is huge because of the rising economy. Because of that he grabs the middle of the road people and probably plenty of business oriented otherwise secular people (Turkish libertarians??).
You didn't really think he was keeping such influence on the back of social conservatism? He's Turkish Reagan.
My whole argument was based on population. I'm getting quantatative here.
How much of the Turkish population lives nearer Europe or Georgia than the Mid-East?
@Monkey:
Erdogan's power is huge because of the rising economy. Because of that he grabs the middle of the road people and probably plenty of business oriented otherwise secular people (Turkish libertarians??).
You didn't really think he was keeping such influence on the back of social conservatism? He's Turkish Reagan.
Erdogan is from and was mayor of this back water town called Istanbul. Have you heard of it?
Also 16 Aug in Egypt huge protests on 28 Jan 2011 scale. Hundreds of people dead. Mosques burned with people inside. More Church destruction in addition to the 36 Churches destroyed Wednesday night at the same time the sit-ins in Cairo were massacred. Only internet video from Egypt. Professional journalists hunted down. Welcome to military rule.
Only one dumb enough to support this death and burning of houses of worship was the king of Saudi Arabia. In a statement read by state TV and broadcast by Aljazeera. He supported the Egyptian government in it's fight against "terrorism". He was thanked by Egyptian gov. in a following statement. What followed on social media was something that never happened before. The King was cursed and denounced by non anonymous profiles in social media of his own people. I'm not saying anything will happen in Saudi. But this public cursing has never happened before.
Last night was the most important in the Arab Spring since Jan 28 2011. Egyptians showed extraordinary bravery in face of massive violence. There are even unconfirmed reports of Bombing jam-packed mosques with Apache helicopters in broad daylight. There is a very real chance this descends into Syria like scenarios.
ElBaradei resigned as Egypt's Vice President.
Just wanted to put it out there.
Erdogan is from and was mayor of this back water town called Istanbul. Have you heard of it?
Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran. And he was also the bane of the urban left leaning populace, and the pride of the right leaning rural populace in Iran.
Rudy Giuliani even attempted to run for the Republican presidential nomination (and failed) but that still only makes New York City about as Republican as a gay pride parade.
And lest we forget Ronald Reagan was governor of California (!).
And oh man, the mayor of Tokyo…
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
@No:
ElBaradei resigned as Egypt's Vice President.
Just wanted to put it out there.
Glad to hear that.
@Monkey:
Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran. And he was also the bane of the urban left leaning populace, and the pride of the right leaning rural populace in Iran.
Rudy Giuliani even attempted to run for the Republican presidential nomination (and failed) but that still only makes New York City about as Republican as a gay pride parade.
And lest we forget Ronald Reagan was governor of California (!).
And oh man, the mayor of Tokyo…
I know all of that. I meant that Istanbul is his power base. He is similar to Regain, now that you mention it, in financial deregulation and laissez faire commerce which does worry me. The point was he is not supported by a rural voting block. That is not true. Not entirely at least.
So I wanted to ask: given how massive the demonstrations against Mursi were at the time, is anyone else a bit concerned that nowhere near that amount of people were supportive of the new goverment after his ousting ?
I realise that the army probably blew it but weren't there millions of people telling him to step down ?
@No:
So I wanted to ask: given how massive the demonstrations against Mursi were at the time, is anyone else a bit concerned that nowhere near that amount of people were supportive of the new goverment after his ousting ?
I realise that the army probably blew it but weren't there millions of people telling him to step down ?
Well, there was the people who wanted him out, and people who wanted him to stay, and people who wanted early elections.. and then there was people who refused the coup for being undemocratic, and people who refused it for knowing what's the military comeback means, and people who cheered the military for being the "protector of democracy", and people who just hate the brotherhood, and people who thought the military will give them something if they stick with them<–-(these are the funniest), and people who just can't live with democracy since it means the lose of their fortunes and positions.
And about the millions who took to the streets in June 30, studies showed that they can't be more that 4.5 millions... from both pro and anti Morsi, and I can assure that most of them didn't have this in mind.
The Return Of Mubarak!
Soooooooon!!
Yesterday 1300 to 1800 dead in Damascus in the war's deadliest day. [http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/large-scale-chemical-weapons-use-against-syrian-civilians-military-implicat
T](http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/large-scale-chemical-weapons-use-against-syrian-civilians-military-implicat)hings are going to get way worse than this before they get better.
Yesterday 1300 to 1800 dead in Damascus in the war's deadliest day. [http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/large-scale-chemical-weapons-use-against-syrian-civilians-military-implicat
T](http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/large-scale-chemical-weapons-use-against-syrian-civilians-military-implicat)hings are going to get way worse than this before they get better.
If this doesn't get the UN to finally do something, then there's no hope the people of Syria will get aid on that front.
At this point I don't see Russia not being it's usual dickish non-intervening which-selling-the-goverment-guns-apparently-doesn't-count-as self is if Assad would star channeling Ahmadinejad when he's talking about Izrael, when the rebels would come up.
So pretty much nothing short of full blown saturday morning cartoon-levels of blatant villainy.
I can't believe how stupid humanity is, after 2 years watching this whole situation in the arabian world, people don't get whats up.
Hussein, Gadafi, Assad and Mubarak; they are/were dictators and they're "gone". And what do we have now: civil war, human rights abuse, genocide, poverty, grievances, chemical weopans, religios fatalism and more.
Am i the only one, who thinks the situation was better before the disempowerment of all these dictators?
Logical conclusion: the western world failed, or isn't interested in the outcome.
Oh and btw, in a few years we will learn that the syrian opposition is responsible for the chemical weapon usage to cause a intervention.
Jacko aren't you the communist guy who Zephos beat down like five times
@Cyan:
Jacko aren't you the communist guy who Zephos beat down like five times
Cyan, reread our previous conservations, i'm not a communist. And i think Zephos never beat me;)
I can't believe how stupid humanity is, after 2 years watching this whole situation in the arabian world, people don't get whats up.
Hussein, Gadafi, Assad and Mubarak; they are/were dictators and they're "gone". And what do we have now: civil war, human rights abuse, genocide, poverty, grievances, chemical weopans, religios fatalism and more.Am i the only one, who thinks the situation was better before the disempowerment of all these dictators?
Logical conclusion: the western world failed, or isn't interested in the outcome.
"Yeah those Arab savages can't handle democracy, they need their handlers. Unlike us is glorious western Europe and North America who never ever had any problems in reaching democracy and modern development."
Oh, I'm sorry, is that not what you were saying? Actually it was, whether you were aware of it or not.
Also lollllll at a German talking this way. Yeah you're country just waltzed on through modernity and democracy's door no problem!
So who do you wish to still be under the boot of? The Kaisers? Hitler? Or Stasi?
Oh and btw, in a few years we will learn that the syrian opposition is responsible for the chemical weapon usage to cause a intervention
Here, you need this.
@Monkey:
"Yeah those Arab savages can't handle democracy, they need their handlers. Unlike us is glorious western Europe and North America who never ever had any problems in reaching democracy and modern development."
Oh, I'm sorry, is that not what you were saying? Actually it was, whether you were aware of it or not.
Also lollllll at a German talking this way. Yeah you're country just waltzed on through modernity and democracy's door no problem!
So who do you wish to still be under the boot of? The Kaisers? Hitler? Or Stasi?
Oh hey hey, we in germany had the advantage of european countries and the usa to care about us, the arabian countries doesn't have it.
And when a country like egypt elects a president, he got wasted and the country reaches a stadium of civil war.
History teaches us every country has issues to gain freedom, but i've never seen it that nobody helps.
Please, Zephos tell me how western countries help Lybia or Egypt to reach freedom?
What would like the western powers to do, exactly?
Personally march into places like Egypt with their armies to stop the fighting? Appoint puppet regimes to keep an eye on things?
@Cyan:
What would like the western powers to do, exactly?
Personally march into places like Egypt with their armies to stop the fighting? Appoint puppet regimes to keep an eye on things?
Iraq, teaches us that this doesn't help.
humanitarian help und economical erection without influencing the country would help
economical erection without influencing the country would help
This is sort of completely and utterly impossible
Oh hey hey, we in germany had the advantage of european countries and the usa to care about us,
…uh, what?
You know how Iran is the current country that everyone loves to hate and be afraid of?
That was modern Germany until the end of WW2. Through Empire, Weimar, and Third Reich. Fair and unfair alike. Germany was the Iran of it's day. Modern China at best.
The west were not your peers, not your allies, and not caring for you.
And Germany didn't even consider itself part of the west. It considered itself better than the chaotic populist west, and better than the autocratic oppressive east (read: Russia). They called it Sonderweg.
It's roughly the same place modern Russia imagines itself under Putin. With China taking the place of Russia in the German examples.
After WW2 the only reason it changed was that the whole global order shifted dramatically, so West Germany was quickly taken in under the western powers, which it built itself successfully into a peer of. While East Germany had the opposite experience of being dragged into the new Soviet sphere.
Both sides had all sense of the old German world place taken away by the experience. And of course West Germany took in the East. So now all of Germany is firmly in the western sphere.
I don't think I should have to go into Germany's struggle with modernity from the founding of the German Empire to 1945 do I? Because none of the Arab countries, even Syria, are anywhere near as unfortunate as was Germany's experience.
Also countries don't achieve democracy because of world power's caring about them. No one at all gives a fuck about Botswana, but they have arguably the strongest democracy in Africa.
And when a country like egypt elects a president, he got wasted and the country reaches a stadium of civil war.
Egypt is not experiencing civil war. And yes what's your point? Do you imagine such things didn't happened in Western Europe? My goodness I hope this is not what you're suggesting. Take what's going on in Egypt and dial it up to 500 and you have exactly what the Spanish Civil War was.
"Oh we're a bright new democracy now! The old order is gone at last! But no one knows how to have a civil society yet, and agree without fury. And everyone's rushing to extremist limits! Oh? A group some consider fearful is now in power? And associates with extreme groups in the parliament? Time for a military solution yessir"
Egypt looks rather charmed right now next to 30's Spain.
History teaches us every country has issues to gain freedom, but i've never seen it that nobody helps.
Wait what? Whose helping or not helping?
Are you saying you want there to be outside help? Or not outside help?
Suffice to say. No. Democracy has grown without help, with help, and collapsed without help, and collapsed with help.
Please, Zephos tell me how western countries help Lybia or Egypt to reach freedom?
The Libyan rebels were given a lifeline by NATO allowing them to defeat the regime.
Egypt, I dunno.
I'm really confused at what you're trying to argue.
Aid = bad?
Aid = good?
Do you even know?
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Iraq, teaches us that this doesn't help.
humanitarian help und economical erection without influencing the country would help
Egypt has been receiving economic aid.
Also how does humanitarian and economic aid help the Libyans from not being murdered by Gaddafi.
@Cyan:
This is sort of completely and utterly impossible
First step to realize whats going wrong in this world.
I can't believe how stupid humanity is, after 2 years watching this whole situation in the arabian world, people don't get whats up.
Hussein, Gadafi, Assad and Mubarak; they are/were dictators and they're "gone". And what do we have now: civil war, human rights abuse, genocide, poverty, grievances, chemical weopans, religios fatalism and more.Am i the only one, who thinks the situation was better before the disempowerment of all these dictators?
Logical conclusion: the western world failed, or isn't interested in the outcome.
Oh and btw, in a few years we will learn that the syrian opposition is responsible for the chemical weapon usage to cause a intervention.
The Arab world is sort of difficult huh.
So the logical solution is what? Ignore it's existence? Or prop up dictators like Assad.
Because it does sound like you want to prop up Assad.
"This is more trouble than it's worth, let's support dictatorships"
-US during Cold War
Kind Abullah said something about acting against Alassad if he doesnt stop the massacres in 42.
We're expecting nothing less than nothing really. if he really is going through the trouble to stop Alassad why didnt he start earlier? ya know before he killed all these peoples..
@NER:
Kind Abullah said something about acting against Alassad if he doesnt stop what the massacres in 42.
We're expecting nothing less than nothing really. if he really is going through the trouble to stop Alassad why didnt he start earlier? ya know before he killed all these peoples..
Economic reasons, fears that other nations in the region would acusse them of simply trying to please the US for personal gain, general desire to stay out of things until the news about the attack became known ?
By the way not sure whether you mean the Saudi king Abdullah or Abdullah II from Jordan.
@No:
Economic reasons, fears that other nations in the region would acusse them of simply trying to please the US for personal gain, general desire to stay out of things until the news about the attack became known ?
By the way not sure whether you mean the Saudi king Abdullah or Abdullah II from Jordan.
I was talking about our king.
Nah, I am sure its not that, they won't accuse us of that, since our reasons to go and save the people there are much stronger then the America's.
The news just mentioned "possibility of retaliation by Syria on Cyprus NATO locations".
Chrissie lives in Limassol, which is directly next to the British Akrotiri base, which is where most planes are going to be operating from.
:<
The kind of fucked up thing is the Cypriot's have zero say about it since those bases are technically British territory.
I don't see why those are needed when Turkey is a NATO member and more than willing to allow airspace and base usage…
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
@NER:
I was talking about our king.
Nah, I am sure its not that, they won't accuse us of that, since our reasons to go and save the people there are much stronger then the America's.
No Maam loves monarchy, so he's really jealous of you lol.
@Monkey:
The news just mentioned "possibility of retaliation by Syria on Cyprus NATO locations".
Chrissie lives in Limassol, which is directly next to the British Akrotiri base, which is where most planes are going to be operating from.
:<
The kind of fucked up thing is the Cypriot's have zero say about it since those bases are technically British territory.
I don't see why those are needed when Turkey is a NATO member and more than willing to allow airspace and base usage…--- Update From New Post Merge ---
No Maam loves monarchy, so he's really jealous of you lol.
Kinda .
Edit: hope nothing happens there :O
People who think the situation was better 3 years ago just don't know how bad things were 3 years ago. The only difference here is that things are being brought to the public more than they used to, that doesn't mean things are worse… actually it means they're getting better because people aren't going to stand up and watch while their rights are being thrown in the trash. Of course some set backs will be met on the way, but guess what, that's how every change in life is.
Now, would things be better if all these dictators weren't overthrown...?
Of course not, you idiot, didn't you see what happened in the past 3 years. lmao!
Hey guys, I was talking to a friend about the current crisis going on in the area, and he highlighted his suspicions that there were bigger powers at play which were causing all the chaos. One of his suspicions were based on how Israel has been behaving very quietly on the whole crisis, which indicates to something bigger. Does anyone know about the reasoning behind it?
Hey guys, I was talking to a friend about the current crisis going on in the area, and he highlighted his suspicions that there were bigger powers at play which were causing all the chaos. One of his suspicions were based on how Israel has been behaving very quietly on the whole crisis, which indicates to something bigger. Does anyone know about the reasoning behind it?
Israel bombed Syria, Lebanon and Egypt during these "troubled times". And declared along with Saudi Arabia and others including oddly Iran and Syria complete support for the coup in Egypt. Quiet? Israel? Not their style.
What was your point again? outside powers? Russia, Iran, Most of Lebanon and Iraq back Syria's regime. America, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia back the rebels.
You know how I know? Everyone knows non of this is secret at all.
Israel bombed Syria, Lebanon and Egypt during these "troubled times". And declared along with Saudi Arabia and others including oddly Iran and Syria complete support for the coup in Egypt. Quiet? Israel? Not their style.
What was your point again? outside powers? Russia, Iran, Most of Lebanon and Iraq back Syria's regime. America, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia back the rebels.
You know how I know? Everyone knows non of this is secret at all.
Admittedly I don't know much about the detailed ongoings of the crisis, so I wasn't sure of my friend's claims about Israel. I'm aware that outside powers have some form of stake in Syria (the ones you have listed), but the concerns that I'm hearing is that the West have some kind of darker motive behind their supply of weapons to the rebels (for example, to establish their own form of influence in the area). I just hoped to get more insight into the multi-party stakes involved.
Admittedly I don't know much about the detailed ongoings of the crisis, so I wasn't sure of my friend's claims about Israel. I'm aware that outside powers have some form of stake in Syria (the ones you have listed), but the concerns that I'm hearing is that the West have some kind of darker motive behind their supply of weapons to the rebels (for example, to establish their own form of influence in the area). I just hoped to get more insight into the multi-party stakes involved.
Iran, Iraq and Lebanon are one side of a sectarian divide with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar representing the other. Turkey wants to end this quickly for the sake of stability on its border and to prevent Kurdish autonomy in northern Syria. The west wants to protect Israel and weaken Iran and Hezbollah.
All of this doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, this war started with peaceful spontaneous demonstrations demanding freedom and democracy. Regardless of all the calculus of surrounding powers the Arab Spring is a liberation movement. No outside power started it. That is all conspiracy bullshit thought up by cowards and idiots to justify their own pitiful state as SUBJECTS in DICTATORSHIPS and not actual citizens.
The troubles of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are due to the difficulty of transition in addition to deliberate sabotage by the non-democratic powers in the region. Namely Saudi Arabia in the east and Algeria to the west.
Hey guys, I was talking to a friend about the current crisis going on in the area, and he highlighted his suspicions that there were bigger powers at play which were causing all the chaos. One of his suspicions were based on how Israel has been behaving very quietly on the whole crisis, which indicates to something bigger. Does anyone know about the reasoning behind it?
Israel's right wing's best wishes would be that all the countries around them be ruled by friendly dictators like Mubarak.
Chaos leading to unknown political futures for their neighbors is the opposite of this.
Your friend doesn't know what he's talking about probably regarding anything.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Israel is the Metternich of the Arab Spring basically.
@Monkey:
Context…explanation...translation...something for the non-Arabic speakers?
Sorry, I thought the video would make it clear enough.
It's a father being reunited with his son whom he had thought died during the chemical attacks last week.
(Okay, so maybe only the first part of that is made clear by the video.)
Dude, Obama is seeking permission from the congress to seek military actions aganist Syria. Imagin what kind of hell Syria will get
@joekido:
Dude, Obama is seeking permission from the congress to seek military actions aganist Syria. Imagin what kind of hell Syria will get
Considering how pissy everyone's been about the whole thing, none would be my guess, sadly.
@joekido:
Dude, Obama is seeking permission from the congress to seek military actions aganist Syria. Imagin what kind of hell Syria will get
Congress? Congress will probably just barely allow him something.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@No:
Considering how pissy everyone's been about the whole thing, none would be my guess, sadly.
He actually has a segment of Republicans aboard on this though, the Mccain types.
@joekido:
Dude, Obama is seeking permission from the congress to seek military actions aganist Syria. Imagin what kind of hell Syria will get
No troops on the ground and limited controlled strikes on key military outposts which are already being evacuated? It won't really be any kind of hell. Unfortunately.
@Nex:
No troops on the ground and limited controlled strikes on key military outposts which are already being evacuated? It won't really be any kind of hell. Unfortunately.
Unless they'd happen to hit Assad as he's coming out to shake his fist impotently at the retreating fighter jets.
Still, weren't the inspectors supposed to be back by now ?
CIA and Israeli special forces are funding and training rebel extremists to go in and cause civil unrest. This is what "Foreign Aid" is more commonly referred to, look at the $1million dollar camp David treaty that Egypt signed with the U.S Does anyone remember operation gladio?
Syria are the last step in installing Rothschild controlled Central Banks to almost the entire world. Also IF we go into Syria I can almost bet that the next location will be Iran.
We are being sold another narrative on Terrorism.
No modern day rebel leader in their right mind would use chemical weapons against their own country folk. They know that their would be an uproar due to the Geneva convention.
Does anyone remember the so called opposition rebels who released a video of them gassing rabbits? Well they turned out to be fake actors…
Also
I think it's pretty clear that noone should be allowed to contravene international law re: the use of chemical weapons- not even America. The problem is the UN is too ineffectual (largely because everything can be vetoed by one subscribing country- generally Russia or China) so you never get a unanimous vote to effect action. While (via the proper channels) Syria clearly needs to be reigned in, it is not the prerogative of U.S.A. to police the world as it sees fit politically by use of military force and resultant civilian death, especially in the context of the implications outlined above, and especially given their own track record. Strikes on Syria is poking a large, angry hornet's nest in a climate where numerous countries have enough arsenal to destroy the world. The only answer I can see is a re-modelling of the UN modus operandi.
@Old:
CIA and Israeli special forces are funding and training rebel extremists to go in and cause civil unrest. This is what "Foreign Aid" is more commonly referred to, look at the $1million dollar camp David treaty that Egypt signed with the U.S Does anyone remember operation gladio?
Syria are the last step in installing Rothschild controlled Central Banks to almost the entire world. Also IF we go into Syria I can almost bet that the next location will be Iran.
We are being sold another narrative on Terrorism.
No modern day rebel leader in their right mind would use chemical weapons against their own country folk. They know that their would be an uproar due to the Geneva convention.Does anyone remember the so called opposition rebels who released a video of them gassing rabbits? Well they turned out to be fake actors…
Also
I think it's pretty clear that noone should be allowed to contravene international law re: the use of chemical weapons- not even America. The problem is the UN is too ineffectual (largely because everything can be vetoed by one subscribing country- generally Russia or China) so you never get a unanimous vote to effect action. While (via the proper channels) Syria clearly needs to be reigned in, it is not the prerogative of U.S.A. to police the world as it sees fit politically by use of military force and resultant civilian death, especially in the context of the implications outlined above, and especially given their own track record. Strikes on Syria is poking a large, angry hornet's nest in a climate where numerous countries have enough arsenal to destroy the world. The only answer I can see is a re-modelling of the UN modus operandi.
I don't even know where to begin on this heinously terrible post, but I'll point out the funniest part.
It's that you have no idea who the target of the US attacks would be, and who is being accused of chemical attacks lol.
So for us who aren't up on the whole who's who of shadowy rulers could someone explain who the Rothschilds are supposed to be?