AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-10-12, 15:51   Link #21
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Well also because the next time we invade Mexico, they might want us to keep it this time around.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-12, 23:03   Link #22
risingstar3110
Dead Master ★ BRS
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by aohige View Post
Eh, but those FDI are fueled by (pun intended) oil interest.
They aren't investing into the country for no reason.
Then they will attract even more FDI in the coming of oil peak?

I think you lost sight of my original points. Arab oil nations does not simply build their economy by selling up oil , but by being a petroleum-based economy. Not in the physical sense like US (where petroleum drive all of the industries and services) but in both physical sense and international-economical sense (petroleum driven FDI as you mentioned).

There are only 4 scenarios that oil nations will be screwed up economically a)being sanctioned where oil lose its market value status, b)oil being replace by other better, more available energy c) oil just suddenly stop coming out one day, result in b d) ends of globalisation. The first is what they have been doing and doing really well considering how much assess-kissing they got. The second is impossible unless major scientific/politic breakthrough happen. The third is not likely as peak oil will only means oil becomes more scarcity and valuable. The fourth is... simply scary to think about, and Middle East is the least we have to worry about
__________________

Last edited by risingstar3110; 2012-10-12 at 23:26.
risingstar3110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 13:55   Link #23
AnimeFan188
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
"Bill Clinton remarked “[I]t’s only a question of time until [these rockets] are de
facto outfitted with GPS positioning systems. And when that happens and the
casualty rates start to really mount, will that make it more difficult for the
Palestinians to make peace instead of less?”"

See:

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/...adelphi-story/



So, when weapons with JDAM-level accuracy start proliferating throughout the Middle
East, what does that bode for the region?

I don't just mean for Israel/Gaza, I mean for the region as a whole, since many,
if not most, nations in the region have problems with terrorists/rebels/insurgents
/whatever.
AnimeFan188 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 15:56   Link #24
mangamuscle
formerly ogon bat
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Well also because the next time we invade Mexico, they might want us to keep it this time around.
Remember what happened in the Disney-Pixar merger :-p
mangamuscle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 21:04   Link #25
Arturia Polaris
Ponytail Sommelier
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Argentina
I believe that the 2012 Mayan prediction was mis-read.

It'll be the process of the end of the world as we know it. And it's being evidenced in what's going on around the whole world. Mayhem everywhere.

I for one hope that the new world is better and more equal, but it won't be without blood sadly (as we're seeing in the Gaza region right now)

Arty

PS: If the world does end, then enjoy life to the fullest these last few days.
__________________
Arturia's Writing Den

My fanfiction works include:

Tari Tari: Past and Present, As the Gentle Breeze Blows
Little Busters: Bird's Song
Sword Art Online: Vanquishing of the Laughing Coffin

My own works include: Social Fact
Arturia Polaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 21:24   Link #26
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnimeFan188 View Post

So, when weapons with JDAM-level accuracy start proliferating throughout the Middle
East, what does that bode for the region?
hopefully it will kill everyone in the region and the rest of the world can finally have some peace and quiet.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 22:12   Link #27
mangamuscle
formerly ogon bat
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
hopefully it will kill everyone in the region and the rest of the world can finally have some peace and quiet.
Fat chance, if a neutron bomb detonated over the area killing all humans it would be repopulated by both sides ASAP and they would start just where they left off (killing each other). It would require an atomic bomb that transforms the place into a nuclear wasteland to bring peace to that zone.
mangamuscle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 22:17   Link #28
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Even if it did get cleaned out, all we would do is notice another region with similar problems and have it take center stage in the news.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 22:18   Link #29
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Even if it did get cleaned out, all we would do is notice another region with similar problems and have it take center stage in the news.
unless those region have oil we never hear it.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 22:21   Link #30
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Explosions and death draw reporters for the big story.

I didn't say we'd have massive international interventions...just center stage in the news.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 22:41   Link #31
mangamuscle
formerly ogon bat
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Explosions and death draw reporters for the big story.

I didn't say we'd have massive international interventions...just center stage in the news.
Common, be realistic, it is no secret that the jew community on the USA has some leverage on the news industry, that is why you get extensive coverage of the area when there are zero USA troops on the area. Other conflicts without direct usa intervention will never have the same amount of time on USA news channels.
mangamuscle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-20, 15:30   Link #32
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogon_bat View Post
Common, be realistic, it is no secret that the jew community on the USA has some leverage on the news industry, that is why you get extensive coverage of the area when there are zero USA troops on the area. Other conflicts without direct usa intervention will never have the same amount of time on USA news channels.
I wouldn't really call the coverage "extensive." It seems to me that the only time reports on the area are made is when Israel takes military action. As far as I've seen, our (American) news hasn't reported on the random missile launchings that were occurring throughout the year before this latest two-sided conflict broke out. This isn't a good thing for foreign perception of Israel, as it makes people think that one side just randomly starts killing the other and then a fight breaks out. Or, since it's always Israel's military action that makes the headlines, it makes people think that Israel is the aggressor. I'd imagine that if people realized that Israel was enduring regular attacks against their citizens and infrastructure, there would be much more public support for Israel.

As such, the idea that Jews are somehow manipulating the media in Israel's favor seems a bit off to me.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-20, 17:27   Link #33
Asuras
Dictadere~!
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Here's what I don't get, why does the Middle East get this outsized amount of attention(particularly in the USA)? Why don't we pay more attention to South East Asia? Mexico and Central America (a lot closer to home that...)? South America? Sub Saharan Africa? All of these regions have social and political problems as bad as the Middle East.
Because oil.
__________________
Asuras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-21, 22:50   Link #34
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Not that it was fair in any way, but the only periods that Middle East was peaceful, were dutring:

1) Greco-Roman occupation
2) Turco-Mongol occupation
3) Franco-British occupation

Evidently, Israelis (like the Nazis in Europe) totally failed as occupiers to stop the locals from killing each other
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-22, 10:26   Link #35
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 24
^Um, no.

1) If you count being the stage for the Hellenistic kingdoms' internecine warfare and massive Roman-Persian wars as peace. The Arabs only found it so easy to ride in and take everything because Rome (well, Constantinople) and Persia just finished another one of those sack-every-damned-village all out wars they liked to fight every once in a while.

2) One conqueror a generation, often more than one a generation battling each other for supremacy. Even the Mongols destroying everything between Bukhara and Baghdad didn't bring peace, it just means localized Turko-Mongol warlords fighting for scraps within the decade.

3) A very short timeline in comparison, collapsed spectacularly anyway, didn't account for insurgencies and "internal" chaos (like in, say, Iran or Egypt), and left the seeds of current woes. Oh, and the Anglo-Afghan wars.

Being the crossroads of cultures, empires, and migrating peoples, and now the world's oil well, the Middle East has never really known peace. Perhaps the longest stretches of peaceful periods would be during the Ottoman hegemony, and that's only when they and Safavid Persia left each other alone. Though perhaps you may also call Achaemenid Persia a relatively peaceful time in the heartlands (which is quite the opposite of what the Macedonians did to the place).

I also find it very strange that you'd consider Israel an occupying power. Even if it's young in comparison, it's locally based and its citizen don't exactly have anywhere else to go. It's here to stay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
As such, the idea that Jews are somehow manipulating the media in Israel's favor seems a bit off to me.
While US media is markedly more pro-Israel than counterparts in Europe and elsewhere, I do agree that jumping from that to The Jewish Media is kind of a big, and vaguely discomforting, jump.
Irenicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-22, 16:10   Link #36
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
^Um, no.
Huh!? yes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
1) If you count being the stage for the Hellenistic kingdoms' internecine warfare and massive Roman-Persian wars as peace. The Arabs only found it so easy to ride in and take everything because Rome (well, Constantinople) and Persia just finished another one of those sack-every-damned-village all out wars they liked to fight every once in a while.
First of all Persians are not Arabs, and before the Arab conquest of Persia, the hardly had anything to do with the region.

Now during the phoenician and greek colonization of mediterranean there was hardly any conflict, rather peaceful and cooperative trade, between the two races and the celts of continental Europe.

The hellenistic period had no conficts, insurgencies and the like in the middle east, the war was between Persians and Greeks, and this persisted during the successor states.

After (not during) the Roman conquest, the only rebellions in the region were from jewish and these are mainly supported by biblical archeologists, which occasionally have claimed really wild theories.

During the Byzantine era, and post Islam, there were two Arab-Persian invasions, but the two regions enjoyed enjoyed better relationships after the crusades and turkish and mongol invasions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
2) One conqueror a generation, often more than one a generation battling each other for supremacy. Even the Mongols destroying everything between Bukhara and Baghdad didn't bring peace, it just means localized Turko-Mongol warlords fighting for scraps within the decade.
East of the Red Sea, the empires were very stable and peaceful internally. Of course during power struggles there were battles, but that occured once per century or two, not per generation.

West of the Red Sea the situation wasn't that peaceful, particularly in modern Morocco... nonetheless, we can not even begin to compare to the amount of bloodshed that was occurring at the same period in Europe and the Far East. Plus the situation got a lot better after Ottomans conquered them too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
3) A very short timeline in comparison, collapsed spectacularly anyway, didn't account for insurgencies and "internal" chaos (like in, say, Iran or Egypt), and left the seeds of current woes. Oh, and the Anglo-Afghan wars.
I agree that its collapse was spectacular, less so than the everyday war the region is suffering after it. Now in general, modern conquerors (ottomans, english and french) of arabs (and not persians) saw less infighting and rebellions, compared to the periods that they ruled themselves. As for Egypt, I guess you are refering to the Suez Crisis, and that was almost 50 years after the English left the region.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Being the crossroads of cultures, empires, and migrating peoples, and now the world's oil well, the Middle East has never really known peace. Perhaps the longest stretches of peaceful periods would be during the Ottoman hegemony, and that's only when they and Safavid Persia left each other alone. Though perhaps you may also call Achaemenid Persia a relatively peaceful time in the heartlands (which is quite the opposite of what the Macedonians did to the place).
This is a factor, but I think that all cushitic cultures have a tendency towards infighting, and unless under foreign rule or a nationalist-socialist regime (like Ba'ath or Israel), there turn on eachother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
I also find it very strange that you'd consider Israel an occupying power. Even if it's young in comparison, it's locally based and its citizen don't exactly have anywhere else to go. It's here to stay.
Legally Israel occupys Palestine (from Jordan), Gaza strip (from Egypt) and Golan heights (from Syria)... Historically though the presence of Jews (religiously, and not strictly racially) in Levant was not more numerous than Poland, Germany, Spain, etc. Until of course they were massacred.

Anyway, after the second world war, the main problem is that the region was ruled by either Nationalist-Socialist parties (Israel, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen), religious fanatics or bloodthirsty tribal lords. So with or without oil, it's natural that they will kill each other. Plus having two nuclear powers in the region with extremely aggressive foreign policies and pursuing racial, religious and ideological purity, that rather kill a few hundred or thousand people in order to win an election is not particularly good news for the future of the region.
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-22, 18:10   Link #37
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkuth View Post
Huh!? yes...
Um, really, no.

Quote:
First of all Persians are not Arabs, and before the Arab conquest of Persia, the hardly had anything to do with the region.
I was talking about the constant Roman-Persian wars. Who killed Crassus? Where did Trajan head to? Whose capital did Severus sack? Why was Heraclius so renowned in history (hint: Khosrau)? These are a bunch of massive campaigns you can even call the ancient equivalent of a world war. They dragged everybody else nearby in, from Ethiopia to Armenia. You're either a Roman ally or a Persian ally.

They even had Arab clients they used to fight proxy wars with. Yes, the Arabs were always there. They were just stuck in the desert and not yet Muslim and world-conquering.

Quote:
Now during the phoenician and greek colonization of mediterranean there was hardly any conflict, rather peaceful and cooperative trade, between the two races and the celts of continental Europe.
What the. Aside from Greek and Phoenician localized conflicts with "native" (previous inhabitants) tribes and powers, the Greeks and Carthage spent much effort against each other in Sicily, the Greeks fought most among themselves (Athens...Sparta...Thucydides?). Persia conquered everyone east of Greece, and that, temporarily, meant relative peace...and sometimes major rebellions (like in Egypt, with Greek intervention) and succession struggles.

Movements of people did not stop either. Achaemenid Persia managed to stop nomadic invasions from the east (the "Great Persian Wall" and, more importantly, just good Achaemenid horsemanship), but you might or might not have heard of an enterprising Celtic people called the Galatians.

Quote:
The hellenistic period had no conficts, insurgencies and the like in the middle east, the war was between Persians and Greeks, and this persisted during the successor states.
Now that's even worse. The Hellenistic empires always, always fought wars. Against each other over Alexander's legacy, against native ethnic groups and smaller kingdoms, against a resurgent Persia -- more precisely Parthia -- and against Rome. It was not a peaceful period, ever. There were how many goddamned Syrian Wars between Seleucus and Ptolemy's successors again? How many times an Antigonid had to struggle against petty leagues of Greek cities? Mithridatic Wars? Seleucid-Parthian wars?

And moreover, the re-awakening of the Jewish people as a political force happened as a massive and bloody uprising against the Seleucid Empire.

Quote:
After (not during) the Roman conquest, the only rebellions in the region were from jewish and these are mainly supported by biblical archeologists, which occasionally have claimed really wild theories.
Those rebellions happened. What Biblical scholars said aside, the Romans themselves were pretty good at keeping records.

Quote:
During the Byzantine era, and post Islam, there were two Arab-Persian invasions, but the two regions enjoyed enjoyed better relationships after the crusades and turkish and mongol invasions.
They had such a constant low-level conflict going on you'd have no idea. There's a whole frontier culture built on this, glorifying the sort of raider-warrior-border defender lifestyle on both sides as epic heroes. Who were the first Ghazis and where did they "work"? And this is not counting the occasional large campaign on either side into Anatolia (for the Arabs) or Syria (for the [Eastern] Romans). Rome and Damascus -- later Baghdad -- lived side by side, as equal imperial enemies that you could sort of do business with. But they fought. Always. Sometimes very hard (the sieges of Constantinople).

Quote:
East of the Red Sea, the empires were very stable and peaceful internally. Of course during power struggles there were battles, but that occured once per century or two, not per generation.
No, per generation, period. The hegemony of the Great Seljuk lasted like one generation before the successors of Malik Shah tore each other apart. Nomadic empires have very regular succession problems. Who succeeded Hulagu Khan? Who succeeded his successor? How did they gain their position (hint: a lot of killing). And then when the Il-Khanate collapsed, all hell again broke loose. Tribes versus tribes, Black Sheep and White Sheep, Jalayirids and whatever-ids all struggling over burnt out Iran. Then Timur swept in and burn everything again.

For the Middle East Pax Mongolica is never peace. It's never even there (in fact Il-Khanate presence meant continuous war on the Syrian frontier against Egypt and in the Caucasus against "fellow" Mongols.

You really have no idea what the Mongols and their successors did to the region. It was bad, bad, bad. Remember Baghdad? They made a desert, then they fought over it repeatedly for the next few centuries.

Quote:
West of the Red Sea the situation wasn't that peaceful, particularly in modern Morocco... nonetheless, we can not even begin to compare to the amount of bloodshed that was occurring at the same period in Europe and the Far East. Plus the situation got a lot better after Ottomans conquered them too.
Yes, you can compare them to the bloodshed in Europe.

Quote:
I agree that its collapse was spectacular, less so than the everyday war the region is suffering after it. Now in general, modern conquerors (ottomans, english and french) of arabs (and not persians) saw less infighting and rebellions, compared to the periods that they ruled themselves. As for Egypt, I guess you are refering to the Suez Crisis, and that was almost 50 years after the English left the region.
There are plenty of sources documenting the "vibrant" (read: not really) Egypt in the 1920's experiencing severe social unrest. Do you know when and where the first Muslim Brotherhood was born?

Quote:
This is a factor, but I think that all cushitic cultures have a tendency towards infighting, and unless under foreign rule or a nationalist-socialist regime (like Ba'ath or Israel), there turn on eachother.
Israel as a...Nazi regime?

And it's not Cushitic, it's humans. I seriously don't know what sort of racialist propaganda you've been reading, but introduction of foreign elements into the Middle East (which often became native with time) meant another round of conflicts and struggles, not otherwise.
Irenicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-22, 19:44   Link #38
Malkuth
Banned
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Age: 33
Send a message via MSN to Malkuth Send a message via Skype™ to Malkuth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Um, really, no.
Eh? really, yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
I was talking about the constant Roman-Persian wars. Who killed Crassus? Where did Trajan head to? Whose capital did Severus sack? Why was Heraclius so renowned in history (hint: Khosrau)? These are a bunch of massive campaigns you can even call the ancient equivalent of a world war. They dragged everybody else nearby in, from Ethiopia to Armenia. You're either a Roman ally or a Persian ally.
You still are talking about Persians not Arabs, which did not enter the main Middle East politics until much later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
They even had Arab clients they used to fight proxy wars with. Yes, the Arabs were always there. They were just stuck in the desert and not yet Muslim and world-conquering.
Subjects, not clients, that you can hardly call them states. Ypi are probably refering to nomadic warlords and not the states of the region that enjoyed peace (always relatively speaking considering the historical era).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
What the. Aside from Greek and Phoenician localized conflicts with "native" (previous inhabitants) tribes and powers, the Greeks and Carthage spent much effort against each other in Sicily, the Greeks fought most among themselves (Athens...Sparta...Thucydides?). Persia conquered everyone east of Greece, and that, temporarily, meant relative peace...and sometimes major rebellions (like in Egypt, with Greek intervention) and succession struggles.
The subject is the Arab and various Jewish population of the Middle East (Cushitic groups from Morocco to Iraq), not the rest of the world outside that region

Nonetheless, you are right about Carthage, but their aggressive wars against Italic and Greek states spanned the last two centuries of a three thousand long history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Movements of people did not stop either. Achaemenid Persia managed to stop nomadic invasions from the east (the "Great Persian Wall" and, more importantly, just good Achaemenid horsemanship), but you might or might not have heard of an enterprising Celtic people called the Galatians.
Persia again and where do the Galatian tribes of Anatolia fit in

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Now that's even worse. The Hellenistic empires always, always fought wars. Against each other over Alexander's legacy, against native ethnic groups and smaller kingdoms, against a resurgent Persia -- more precisely Parthia -- and against Rome. It was not a peaceful period, ever. There were how many goddamned Syrian Wars between Seleucus and Ptolemy's successors again? How many times an Antigonid had to struggle against petty leagues of Greek cities? Mithridatic Wars? Seleucid-Parthian wars?
More Persian conflicts, I understand that Iran is a big issue now in the US, but its not at all historically relevant before they were conquered by the Mongols 1500 years later

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
And moreover, the re-awakening of the Jewish people as a political force happened as a massive and bloody uprising against the Seleucid Empire.
This I have never heard before, do you have a first or even secondary source handy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Those rebellions happened. What Biblical scholars said aside, the Romans themselves were pretty good at keeping records.
There are two "major" social (not racial) uprisings generally documented in Levant over 1000 years, in Britain there were two dozens in less then half that time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
They had such a constant low-level conflict going on you'd have no idea. There's a whole frontier culture built on this, glorifying the sort of raider-warrior-border defender lifestyle on both sides as epic heroes. Who were the first Ghazis and where did they "work"? And this is not counting the occasional large campaign on either side into Anatolia (for the Arabs) or Syria (for the [Eastern] Romans). Rome and Damascus -- later Baghdad -- lived side by side, as equal imperial enemies that you could sort of do business with. But they fought. Always. Sometimes very hard (the sieges of Constantinople).
First of all, Anatolia is not part of the Middle East, as for the "raider-warrior-border defender" that is prevalent in one form or another everywhere in the world that period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
No, per generation, period. The hegemony of the Great Seljuk lasted like one generation before the successors of Malik Shah tore each other apart. Nomadic empires have very regular succession problems. Who succeeded Hulagu Khan? Who succeeded his successor? How did they gain their position (hint: a lot of killing). And then when the Il-Khanate collapsed, all hell again broke loose. Tribes versus tribes, Black Sheep and White Sheep, Jalayirids and whatever-ids all struggling over burnt out Iran. Then Timur swept in and burn everything again.
Now I see how you came to this conclusion, since you count as Middle East every region from modern Spain to Burma... that is more or less half the "known world"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
For the Middle East Pax Mongolica is never peace. It's never even there (in fact Il-Khanate presence meant continuous war on the Syrian frontier against Egypt and in the Caucasus against "fellow" Mongols.

You really have no idea what the Mongols and their successors did to the region. It was bad, bad, bad. Remember Baghdad? They made a desert, then they fought over it repeatedly for the next few centuries.
I am not saying that it was good, but you are extending isolated events into everyday life over centuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Yes, you can compare them to the bloodshed in Europe.
Not really, the issue is population density and economic structure between the two regions. In medieval times, wars were decided in half a dozen large scale battles in the Middle East, while in Europe needed 3 or 4 dozens, and went through phases, ending up dragging half the continent... that is until the nation-state theory was invented that introduced the modern total war that destroys everything

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
There are plenty of sources documenting the "vibrant" (read: not really) Egypt in the 1920's experiencing severe social unrest. Do you know when and where the first Muslim Brotherhood was born?
No... links?

As for muslim brotherhoods as a group of nutcases finding a solution to their miserable lives through the promise of an afterlife, I guess the other two Abrahamic religions have a lot older ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Israel as a...Nazi regime?
Don't twitch, I am talking about a very young state, serving the interests of its guilty sponsors (or should I say mentors), not the people, but when a state is characterized by:
  • nationalized economy
  • safeguarding racial purity within their territory
  • concentrating and eradicating alien populations (based on religion, race, and ideology)
  • offensive wars
  • messianic references in policies
  • constant state of war
  • historical revisionism
  • ...

... you know what, that's exactly what Germany was in the '30s, which is no surprise when one remembers that the politicians that set the foundation of that state have grown ideologically there. Nonetheless, at least they can offer this as an excuse, the Ba'ath regimes didn't even have that to kill each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
And it's not Cushitic, it's humans. I seriously don't know what sort of racialist propaganda you've been reading, but introduction of foreign elements into the Middle East (which often became native with time) meant another round of conflicts and struggles, not otherwise.
I was talking about the general cultural group historically populous in that region, and its cultural elements prevalent. You want to hear similar spicy comments about other groups, like Anglo-Saxons, Mediterranean Europeans, Germanic people, Persians, Chinese, Japanese, or Africans to make you feel better... or should I rewrite that part in a "politically correct" manner to sugarcoat the substance of the statement, and you can happily agree

It's one thing to sarcastically point where every human culture fails (and succeeds), but completely another to justify based on that the primacy of one over the other. I think that diversity is necessary both in individuals and in groups (however small or large), but that does not mean that we can not criticize or even joke about those differences.
Malkuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-22, 20:33   Link #39
bhl88
Otaku Apprentice
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Unseen Horizon
Send a message via MSN to bhl88 Send a message via Yahoo to bhl88
Where the Middle East is headed? From more democracy to less.
__________________

Dang it Avalon, you c(XD LOL)-block Shirou and Reinforce, but don't protect his mind in other ways? What is wrong, you woman?
Friendship, be made! Magical power, gather! Starlight Breaker.... this world!
bhl88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-22, 22:38   Link #40
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Persia and Turkey (with Eygpt usually as well) counts towards the Middle East, and Arabs or no Arabs, the fighting has be native in that region since the times of the Pharaohs who would match armies through Canaan to war against the larger cities, Kingdoms, and Empires to the north or east of the Dead Sea.

Or is all that is being argued is that the pre-Islam Arabs to the south (in the Arabian Desert and down to modern day Yeman) were peaceful? Because in the matter of the Middle East and peace, that is rather irrelevant.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
middle east

Thread Tools

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.