Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 13.11.2017, 16:49
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 419
Groaned at 169 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 1,536 Times in 830 Posts
Pashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputation
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
anything am I only surprised it wasn't headed for Mekka instead to get a more emotional response from the Muslim world...
Haj this year will be interesting. hopefully not repeating 1987
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 13.11.2017, 16:51
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Gallen Kanton
Posts: 933
Groaned at 225 Times in 158 Posts
Thanked 1,951 Times in 890 Posts
J2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
Iran and the arab world have been fighting on since civilization began. maybe the Franco-Germany rivalry would be relevant parallel. It took millions of dead in many wars, forward looking leaders & external threat (russia) to bring France & Germany together.

The gulf region might do the same once oil loses it's importance. Without it the combined economies of Saudi & Iran will be the size of Rorschach. or maybe they'll continue fighting with stones (imported sticks will be too expensive)
Wrong, Its actually since the Iranian revolution that the fighting took on a serious and political undertone. Hell, Iran has only been 'Iran' since 1935, so quite how they could have been fighting everyone else since civilization began is a mystery.

The Iranian revolution was a direct response to the US-backed government of the time. This was anathema to the leading Wahhabis of the time over in the House of Saud, who had signed an alliance with the very same US. Both sides wanted to be the biggest regional power, one was US backed the other was specifically anti-US. The US has rarely been one to let sleeping dogs lie...

If you think its as simple as 'All sunnis vs all shias' then youre not very well informed and should steer clear of such topics.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 13.11.2017, 17:02
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 419
Groaned at 169 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 1,536 Times in 830 Posts
Pashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputation
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
If you think its as simple as 'All sunnis vs all shias' then youre not very well informed and should steer clear of such topics.
instead of falsley quoting me, try to see the bigger picture: Iran's culture one ofthe worlds oldest and is a lot older than the Sunni/Shia schism. Iran and the Arabs have been fighting for the control of the near east for millenia.

Not all the world's troubles are the west's fault.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Pashosh for this useful post:
  #44  
Old 13.11.2017, 17:06
Loz1983's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 1,762
Groaned at 499 Times in 305 Posts
Thanked 7,914 Times in 3,106 Posts
Loz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
the Isreali and Saudi governments are as bad as each other.
One is a functioning democracy, has rights for women and gays and freedom of religion. The other is a monarchy bordering on dictatorship, that punishes homosexuality and apostasy with death and that has been spreading Salafi jihadism around the globe for the past 20 years. But yeah, just as bad as each other.

Quote:
View Post
If you think its as simple as 'All sunnis vs all shias' then youre not very well informed and should steer clear of such topics.
Only it pretty much is all sunnis vs all shias. Some bedtime reading for you.

The vicious schism between Sunni and Shia has been poisoning Islam for 1,400 years - and it's getting worse

"The rift between the two great Islamic denominations runs like a tectonic fault-line along what is known as the Shia Crescent, starting in Lebanon in the north and curving through Syria and Iraq to the Gulf and to Iran and further east."

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 13.11.2017, 17:22
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Gallen Kanton
Posts: 933
Groaned at 225 Times in 158 Posts
Thanked 1,951 Times in 890 Posts
J2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
Leaving aside the unhealthy obsession with Israel : Iran and the arab world have been fighting on since civilization began. maybe the Franco-Germany rivalry would be relevant parallel. It took millions of dead in many wars, forward looking leaders & external threat (russia) to bring France & Germany together.

The gulf region might do the same once oil loses it's importance. Without it the combined economies of Saudi & Iran will be the size of Rorschach. or maybe they'll continue fighting with stones (imported sticks will be too expensive)

Quote:
View Post
Wrong, Its actually since the Iranian revolution that the fighting took on a serious and political undertone. Hell, Iran has only been 'Iran' since 1935, so quite how they could have been fighting everyone else since civilization began is a mystery.

The Iranian revolution was a direct response to the US-backed government of the time. This was anathema to the leading Wahhabis of the time over in the House of Saud, who had signed an alliance with the very same US. Both sides wanted to be the biggest regional power, one was US backed the other was specifically anti-US. The US has rarely been one to let sleeping dogs lie...

If you think its as simple as 'All sunnis vs all shias' then youre not very well informed and should steer clear of such topics.
Quote:
View Post
instead of falsley quoting me, try to see the bigger picture: Iran's culture one ofthe worlds oldest and is a lot older than the Sunni/Shia schism. Iran and the Arabs have been fighting for the control of the near east for millenia.

Not all the world's troubles are the west's fault.
Second time in as many weeks you've started throwing nonsense like this around when you've been called up on it.

The west is not to blame entirely, but it has been a player in the region for a long time and has seen fit to get involved when it suits the west. Do you know what the Sykes-Picot agreement was? An anglo-french agreement after WW1 which drew lines in the sand to split up the arabian peninsula and the middle east entirely, to suit the interests of the UK and France. It was intentionally designed to divide people along sectarian lines, such that no one nation could ever become too powerful and challenge the west. It was that agreement which elevated minority rulers in places like Syria and Iraq, which in turn led to increased sectarian tensions.

Prior to Sykes Picot, there had been wars in the area, but these were mainly along political or nationalistic lines, not sectarian ones. Case in point, the first Wahhabi nation of saudi Arabia was defeated by the Ottomans, who were also sunnis. In fact, between 680 (the Battle of Karbala) and the 1940s, things were relatively peaceful, save for the odd outburst here and there. It wasnt until the 1940s, when the US's bedmates, the Saudis began to export their toxic beliefs to Pakistan, did secterianism lead to all-out conflict once again.

The west was only too happy to jump into bed with the saudis, once they were established, even though the particular strand of salafism they followed was toxic to the whole world. Primarily, this was because ot offered a chance to counteract the gaining influence that the Iranian shias were having. Until the iranian revolution the US's greatest ally in the region was Iran. After the Iranian revolution it switched to Saudi. The US should have stepped back from that region then, but they didnt - they continued meddling and that contributed even further to the sectarian conflict.

So no, i didn't misquote you - Iran has only been Iran since 1935.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank J2488 for this useful post:
  #46  
Old 13.11.2017, 17:26
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Gallen Kanton
Posts: 933
Groaned at 225 Times in 158 Posts
Thanked 1,951 Times in 890 Posts
J2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
One is a functioning democracy, has rights for women and gays and freedom of religion. The other is a monarchy bordering on dictatorship, that punishes homosexuality and apostasy with death and that has been spreading Salafi jihadism around the globe for the past 20 years. But yeah, just as bad as each other.



Only it pretty much is all sunnis vs all shias. Some bedtime reading for you.

The vicious schism between Sunni and Shia has been poisoning Islam for 1,400 years - and it's getting worse

"The rift between the two great Islamic denominations runs like a tectonic fault-line along what is known as the Shia Crescent, starting in Lebanon in the north and curving through Syria and Iraq to the Gulf and to Iran and further east."
Lol.

from your own source:

Quote:
Yet for much of the 1,400 years since the death of the Prophet the majority of Sunni and Shia Muslims have not routinely allowed their theological differences to create hostility. Some Sunnis included ritual denunciations of Ali in their prayers, but in many times and places the two sects have co-existed peacefully.
Your source also agrees with me about the source of the modern conflict, by the way:

Quote:
There have been periods and places of concord. In 1959 the most influential centre of Sunni scholarship, al-Azhar University in Cairo, admitted Shia jurisprudence to its curriculum. In Azerbaijan, where the Shias are in the majority, there are mixed mosques where both sects pray together. But early in the 20th century the Saudi royal family made discrimination against the Shia official and destroyed most of the Shia holy places. With the rise there of the Sunni fundamentalism known as Wahhabism, severe restrictions have been placed on Shia practice and its leaders jailed. Some Saudi scholars brand Shi'ism as a heresy "worse than Christianity or Judaism".
Quote:
Over the years the division has been exploited by outsiders. British colonialists in Iraq in the 1920s used an elite of Sunni army officers to suppress a Shia rebellion, paving the way for Saddam's Sunni minority rule, in which Shia clerics were regularly executed. The legacy has been that most of the 6,000 killings over the past year in Baghdad are Sunni on Shia and vice-versa. Now this ruthless sectarianism has spread to Syria.

Two major developments have triggered the escalation of tension between Sunni and Shia in recent years. The first was the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 when the rule of the pro-Western Shah was overthrown and replaced with a Shia theocracy with Ayatollah Khomeini at the head. Khomeini did his best to build good relations between Shia and Sunni inside Iran but other leaders, religious and secular, have since been more divisive. And Khomeini was from the outset adversarial to the Sunni aristocrats who led Saudi Arabia - calling them American lackeys as well as "unpopular and corrupt" dictators.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 13.11.2017, 17:56
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 419
Groaned at 169 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 1,536 Times in 830 Posts
Pashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputation
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post


So no, i didn't misquote you - Iran has only been Iran since 1935.
Semantics are fun: this makes the Turks a new nation which didnt exist until after ww1.

to name a few examples for Iran's antiquity: The Assyrians, Alexander the great, the Romans and the Arabs all fought against the persians at one time or another. today's Iran is ,for most practical purposes, Persia.
Similar to how the USSR replaced russia after ww1 and russia replaced the USSR after 1991.

The Arab - Iranian conflict was mostly frozen when the Arabs were occupied by the Turks (ottomans, if you insist). once that empire was gone the fight resumed.

The rules of history and politics don't care for semantics.
__________________
"I work abroad, you've gone native, he's an expat"
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 13.11.2017, 20:22
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,571
Groaned at 246 Times in 212 Posts
Thanked 11,574 Times in 6,320 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
One is a functioning democracy, has rights for women and gays and freedom of religion. The other is a monarchy bordering on dictatorship, that punishes homosexuality and apostasy with death and that has been spreading Salafi jihadism around the globe for the past 20 years. But yeah, just as bad as each other.

Only it pretty much is all sunnis vs all shias. Some bedtime reading for you.

The vicious schism between Sunni and Shia has been poisoning Islam for 1,400 years - and it's getting worse

"The rift between the two great Islamic denominations runs like a tectonic fault-line along what is known as the Shia Crescent, starting in Lebanon in the north and curving through Syria and Iraq to the Gulf and to Iran and further east."
Loz quoting the fake news media!
Must be time to open a bottle of red

In some senses everybody is correct, certainly the Shia/Sunni conflicts have been around for almost one and a half millenia. But also the history of violence between Arabs and Persians goes back to 2700 BC, Source.

The Sykes-Picot agreement also ignored local tribes in that the new borders sliced up some tribes into different countries and let us not forget the Kurds who trace their ME roots back 5,000 years and were split across four countries.
Here is an example of a map showing tribes.
And also let us not forget the Jews who were there 4,000 years ago
Attached Thumbnails
ww3-again-heck-getting-boring-tribesme.jpg  
__________________
It is naive to assume my posts are my own work
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 13.11.2017, 20:56
slammer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lummerland
Posts: 4,207
Groaned at 104 Times in 71 Posts
Thanked 6,881 Times in 2,563 Posts
slammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond reputeslammer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
Loz quoting the fake news media!
Must be time to open a bottle of red

In some senses everybody is correct, certainly the Shia/Sunni conflicts have been around for almost one and a half millenia. But also the history of violence between Arabs and Persians goes back to 2700 BC, Source.

The Sykes-Picot agreement also ignored local tribes in that the new borders sliced up some tribes into different countries and let us not forget the Kurds who trace their ME roots back 5,000 years and were split across four countries.
Here is an example of a map showing tribes.
And also let us not forget the Jews who were there 4,000 years ago
Jews were there 4000 years ago, but so where other people. Just surprising that according to Jewish lore the world was created 5778 years ago and they were in the Levant 4000 years ago where where they hanging out for 1778 years?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 13.11.2017, 21:21
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 10,398
Groaned at 249 Times in 210 Posts
Thanked 18,853 Times in 6,899 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
Semantics are fun: this makes the Turks a new nation which didnt exist until after ww1.

to name a few examples for Iran's antiquity: The Assyrians, Alexander the great, the Romans and the Arabs all fought against the persians at one time or another. today's Iran is ,for most practical purposes, Persia.
Similar to how the USSR replaced russia after ww1 and russia replaced the USSR after 1991.

The Arab - Iranian conflict was mostly frozen when the Arabs were occupied by the Turks (ottomans, if you insist). once that empire was gone the fight resumed.

The rules of history and politics don't care for semantics.
While I am finding myself agreeing to you nearly completely for the first time, one small detail is wrong: The Ottomans, not the Arabs have been historically the enemies of Persia. Persia did not randomly become the leader of Shia Islam - Sha Ismail I forced it on the population and slaughtered anyone not willing to convert. He did so for a reason: Muslims aren't allowed to fight Muslims. Yeah, I know, sounds funny given the wars in the region, but anyway... by artificially creating a big divide in the Muslim world did he manage to create a "we against them" situation - "they" are misguided and don't believe in the "right" Islam, so it's ok to fight against them. "They" is the Ottomans... in the 16th century. The period you mention in the first half of the 20th century was more peaceful as the larger Ottoman empire had a modern army and Persia at the time would not stand a chance. So the conflict died down during a time where religion wasnt as radical and important as it is again in 2017 and due to geopolitical circumstances. These days are there Imams in Saudi Arabia who promise believers that they'll go to heaven if they kill five Shiites. There is a shiite minority living in Saudi... it doesnt get much worse.

The new Saudi prince shure is determined and ruthless. And for some reason does he have the Americans on his side (and I personally bet that reason starts with "o" and ends with "il"). However, the Iranians have been pretty clever the last couple of years... and have currently the upper hand.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Treverus for this useful post:
  #51  
Old 13.11.2017, 21:26
JagWaugh's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eglisau
Posts: 6,117
Groaned at 42 Times in 41 Posts
Thanked 11,506 Times in 4,550 Posts
JagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
And for some reason does he have the Americans on his side (and I personally bet that reason starts with "o" and ends with "il").
What did Oetwil ever do to either of them?
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank JagWaugh for this useful post:
  #52  
Old 13.11.2017, 22:35
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 419
Groaned at 169 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 1,536 Times in 830 Posts
Pashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputation
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
While I am finding myself agreeing to you nearly completely for the first time, one small detail is wrong: The Ottomans, not the Arabs have been historically the enemies of Persia. Persia did not randomly become the leader of Shia Islam - Sha Ismail I forced it on the population and slaughtered anyone not willing to convert. He did so for a reason: Muslims aren't allowed to fight Muslims. Yeah, I know, sounds funny given the wars in the region, but anyway... by artificially creating a big divide in the Muslim world did he manage to create a "we against them" situation - "they" are misguided and don't believe in the "right" Islam, so it's ok to fight against them. "They" is the Ottomans... in the 16th century. The period you mention in the first half of the 20th century was more peaceful as the larger Ottoman empire had a modern army and Persia at the time would not stand a chance. So the conflict died down during a time where religion wasnt as radical and important as it is again in 2017 and due to geopolitical circumstances. These days are there Imams in Saudi Arabia who promise believers that they'll go to heaven if they kill five Shiites. There is a shiite minority living in Saudi... it doesnt get much worse.

The new Saudi prince shure is determined and ruthless. And for some reason does he have the Americans on his side (and I personally bet that reason starts with "o" and ends with "il"). However, the Iranians have been pretty clever the last couple of years... and have currently the upper hand.
Interesting points about how Iran became Shia, thanks. Iran was always politically isolated and, as a result, learned to play the political game better than the Arabs.

Saudi was always a client kingdom of the west - all Saudi rulers (at least since ww2) had the backing of the west. the current ruler has some interesting plans (rights for women,new cities, maybe even tourism) - he knows that the old ways have to change.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 14.11.2017, 09:49
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 5,147
Groaned at 160 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,565 Times in 3,370 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
Jews were there 4000 years ago, but so where other people. Just surprising that according to Jewish lore the world was created 5778 years ago and they were in the Levant 4000 years ago where where they hanging out for 1778 years?
In Egypt?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Urs Max for this useful post:
  #54  
Old 14.11.2017, 11:57
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Gallen Kanton
Posts: 933
Groaned at 225 Times in 158 Posts
Thanked 1,951 Times in 890 Posts
J2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
Semantics are fun: this makes the Turks a new nation which didnt exist until after ww1.
to name a few examples for Iran's antiquity: The Assyrians, Alexander the great, the Romans and the Arabs all fought against the persians at one time or another. today's Iran is ,for most practical purposes, Persia.
Similar to how the USSR replaced russia after ww1 and russia replaced the USSR after 1991.
The Arab - Iranian conflict was mostly frozen when the Arabs were occupied by the Turks (ottomans, if you insist). once that empire was gone the fight resumed.
The rules of history and politics don't care for semantics.
Err...The moderns state of turkey did indeed not exist until after WW1. Just like the modern state of Israel didnt exist until 1948.


I like how it becomes 'semantics' when your nonsense is challenged. Neat trick.


Also, each of those nations that you mention may have consisted of some or even all of the modern state of Iran, but none were the exclusive and direct ascendants of the modern state of Iran.


And if you think the USSR = Russia, you're knowledge of history is equivelent to that of a child.


Russia - Russian federation.


USSR = Russia, Ukraine, Belarus,Armenia,Azerbaijan,Estonia,Georgia,Kazakhs tan,Krygyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 14.11.2017, 14:28
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 419
Groaned at 169 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 1,536 Times in 830 Posts
Pashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputation
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Did the Turks, the Iranians, the Russians simply came into existence by government fiat ?

I find your statement about Sykes-picot interesting :
"It was intentionally designed to divide people along sectarian lines, such that no one nation could ever become too powerful and challenge the west. It was that agreement which elevated minority rulers in places like Syria and Iraq, which in turn led to increased sectarian tensions. "

Logically there could be 2 ways to divide territory:
1. along secterian lines - I.e a state for the Kurds, a state for the Shia, a state for the Christians etc.
2. without considering secterian lines - a state which will have various sects in it. like african states based on colonial borders.


Surely the middle east map is an shows that the line were not considering sects, but were set for colonial benefit (namely - UK gets to keep the oil, France keeps influence in Syria/Lebanon)?

Your use of personal insults (Herpes, Childish) indicates that you take this thread personally. Which dog do you have in this race ?
__________________
"I work abroad, you've gone native, he's an expat"
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 14.11.2017, 16:36
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Gallen Kanton
Posts: 933
Groaned at 225 Times in 158 Posts
Thanked 1,951 Times in 890 Posts
J2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
Did the Turks, the Iranians, the Russians simply came into existence by government fiat ?

I find your statement about Sykes-picot interesting :
"It was intentionally designed to divide people along sectarian lines, such that no one nation could ever become too powerful and challenge the west. It was that agreement which elevated minority rulers in places like Syria and Iraq, which in turn led to increased sectarian tensions. "

Logically there could be 2 ways to divide territory:
1. along secterian lines - I.e a state for the Kurds, a state for the Shia, a state for the Christians etc.
2. without considering secterian lines - a state which will have various sects in it. like african states based on colonial borders.


Surely the middle east map is an shows that the line were not considering sects, but were set for colonial benefit (namely - UK gets to keep the oil, France keeps influence in Syria/Lebanon)?

Your use of personal insults (Herpes, Childish) indicates that you take this thread personally. Which dog do you have in this race ?

I didnt suggest you had herpes. If you do, this thread is not the place to mention it and i would recommend a discreet visit your hausarzt. I believe they have ointments which may help.


I didnt call you childish either, i intimated you had as much knowledge of this particular topic as a child. That you may or may not be childish is entirely unrelated to this thread.


When i said that they divided countries along sectarian lines, i didnt mean that they divided it such that each sect had its own lands (ie, not literally dividing up the land based on sectarian geographies).


The land was devided to that there would always be sectarian rivalry, meaning the region as a whole would never be able to achieve the same level of influence in the wider world as the UK or France (or Russia) since they would be too busy squabbling amongst themselves.


You are right though, each country wanted to maintain its sphere of influence in different parts of the middle east, and this also contributed to the arbitrary lines that were drawn. Another example of the west being at least partially responsible for the chaos in the region, no?


Edit: No dog, just know my history.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 14.11.2017, 17:21
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 419
Groaned at 169 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 1,536 Times in 830 Posts
Pashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputation
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
I didnt suggest you had herpes. If you do, this thread is not the place to mention it and i would recommend a discreet visit your hausarzt. I believe they have ointments which may help.


I didnt call you childish either, i intimated you had as much knowledge of this particular topic as a child. That you may or may not be childish is entirely unrelated to this thread.


When i said that they divided countries along sectarian lines, i didnt mean that they divided it such that each sect had its own lands (ie, not literally dividing up the land based on sectarian geographies).


The land was devided to that there would always be sectarian rivalry, meaning the region as a whole would never be able to achieve the same level of influence in the wider world as the UK or France (or Russia) since they would be too busy squabbling amongst themselves.


You are right though, each country wanted to maintain its sphere of influence in different parts of the middle east, and this also contributed to the arbitrary lines that were drawn. Another example of the west being at least partially responsible for the chaos in the region, no?


Edit: No dog, just know my history.
You compared me to Herpes and other unsavoury things, and you continue with personal insults.

You divorce the Iranians (and russians) from their past, suggesting their their conflict with other countries is laregly the west's fault. this ignores millenia of conflict when the west wasn't even civilized.

you now say that "The land was devided to that there would always be sectarian rivalry" (spellcheck...)

How would you suggest to divide the land to avoid the rivalry ?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Pashosh for this useful post:
  #58  
Old 14.11.2017, 17:27
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Gallen Kanton
Posts: 933
Groaned at 225 Times in 158 Posts
Thanked 1,951 Times in 890 Posts
J2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond reputeJ2488 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
You compared me to Herpes and other unsavoury things, and you continue with personal insults.

You divorce the Iranians (and russians) from their past, suggesting their their conflict with other countries is laregly the west's fault. this ignores millenia of conflict when the west wasn't even civilized.

you now say that "The land was devided to that there would always be sectarian rivalry" (spellcheck...)

How would you suggest to divide the land to avoid the rivalry ?

I compared you to Herpes? On this thread? sure?


It does sound like something i would say, though...in so far as you keep popping up on threads where you arent expected, in order to push a very specific, pro-israel agenda.


What on earth are you talking about, divorcing them from their past? if anything sunshine, im taking into account their rich and varied past when i say that it is not as simple as 'Sunni vs Shia'.


For starters, i would have asked the people of the land how they wanted to be given their independance, and then i would have left them to it, instead of seperating them as to how i wanted, and then keep sticking my grubby fingers in for the next 100 years...
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 14.11.2017, 17:51
Pashosh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baden
Posts: 419
Groaned at 169 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 1,536 Times in 830 Posts
Pashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputationPashosh has an excellent reputation
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
I compared you to Herpes? On this thread? sure?


It does sound like something i would say, though...in so far as you keep popping up on threads where you arent expected, in order to push a very specific, pro-israel agenda.


What on earth are you talking about, divorcing them from their past? if anything sunshine, im taking into account their rich and varied past when i say that it is not as simple as 'Sunni vs Shia'.


For starters, i would have asked the people of the land how they wanted to be given their independance, and then i would have left them to it, instead of seperating them as to how i wanted, and then keep sticking my grubby fingers in for the next 100 years...
have a look thru your posts before this thread and re-discover your history. you compared none of the non-jewish members of this forum to viruses - must be a coincidence.

Again - the Iranian/Arab conflict predates Islam and your arbitrary date of 1935. The Sunni Shia part of it is very significant - As TReverus rigtly said - in many Arab countries the Shia are historically a persecuted minority.
Had the "people of the land" their choice they would have massacred the mintorities as usual. this would have left a lot more dead and more chaos.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Pashosh for this useful post:
  #60  
Old 15.11.2017, 09:17
Loz1983's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 1,762
Groaned at 499 Times in 305 Posts
Thanked 7,914 Times in 3,106 Posts
Loz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond reputeLoz1983 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WW3 Again? Heck this is getting boring.

Quote:
View Post
Lol.

from your own source:



Your source also agrees with me about the source of the modern conflict, by the way:
Only you could selectively quote an article which is purely explaining the reasons behind a single issue and turn it on its head to say it's saying the opposite.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What the heck is this? Medea Fleecestealer General off-topic 7 26.02.2014 15:56
This is the most boring forum, I Pink&Pomp Forum support 19 31.05.2011 12:55
Sometimes .... this place is just sooo boring !!! Sada General off-topic 57 14.05.2009 18:30
Is this forum Boring ? tigerli General off-topic 22 21.01.2008 00:48


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:31.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0