| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Middle East boundaries
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Middle East boundaries

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Middle East boundaries
    Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 04:10
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 12:49
I guess most people will agree that facts. Classic divide and rule scam.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 13:28
The British left the middle east a shambles for the rest of us to clean up.  The same with Burma, India/Pakistan, and their "Empire" in general. Gandhi begged Mountbatten to leave India as one country. Yes it would have meant more blood in the streets but look at it now. Two countries armed with Nuclear weapons at each others throats.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 14:50
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

I guess most people will agree that facts. Classic divide and rule scam.
 
The boundaries involved are in large part relics of the Ottoman divisions. None of the (Asian) Middle Eastern states (except part of Aden) was ever a British colony.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 15:11
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

The British left the middle east a shambles for the rest of us to clean up.
The British opposed the partition of Palestine and refused to vote for it at the UN. The prime movers in enforciing the partition were the United States and the Communist bloc.
 
The make up of the Peninsula and Transjordan was largely the result of the campaigns of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud against the Husseini dynasty (clan? tribe?) with the favour of Britain, but al Jassas knows more of that than I do.
 
Iraq was a grouping of Ottoman provinces rather than a division.
Quote  
 The same with Burma, India/Pakistan, and their "Empire" in general. Gandhi begged Mountbatten to leave India as one country.
Burma is a natural country all on its own, with its own peoples, language, and religion. (Which is why it was never considered part of India.)
The British would have been quite happy to leave a united India, and indeed tried all they could to keep it that way. But Jinnah and the Moslem League weren't having any. Mountbatten summed up the position (wikipedia):
Quote

The partition seems to have been inevitable after all, one of the examples being Lord Mountbatten's statement on Jinnah - "I tried every trick I could play... to shake Jinnah's resolve... Nothing would move him from his consuming determination for Pakistan..."

Quote
 Yes it would have meant more blood in the streets but look at it now. Two countries armed with Nuclear weapons at each others throats.
And no, or very little, blood on the streets. At least, not resulting from India-Pakistan conflicts, as opposed to conflicts within the Muslim world itself.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 15:13
Actually the Middle East is in more of a mess now than it was in the 20th century. I wonder why that is?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 15:26
Because of fascist Baath dictatorships and foreign involvements. Internal problems in all over middle east cause these kind of mess.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 15:47

Actually mideast boundaries are more or less aligned with their historic boundaries and fault lines and all countries accept them. The boundary issues that still exist are quite trivial since the majority of them involve deserts that are pastoral lands of countries that aligned themselves with one country but found their pastures in another and with no bedouins around any more no one care not even them.

 
The flashpoints in the middle east are a result of ideological/religious/geopolitical issues. Neither Iran nor Turkey (and probably not even Israel) want to control vast seas of restless Arabs who could unite under a strong leader or leaders who is also smart and stir trouble big time. Nasser nearly did it once but he was too much of an idiot and a media whore to realise it. Saddam wasn't that far and in the 70s nearly succeeded before his fears (both imaginary and legitimate) forced him into a destructive war with Iran.
 
Making the Arabs busy killing each other for sectarian purposes and propping up dictatorships based on family or religion is what causing these flashes.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 16:08
Secular oppressive governments and lame monarchies should be overtrown. Local chieftains must be contended. Arab leauge should be a more of economic, military and constitutional structure like EU. These are what should be done. Tongue

Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 07 Mar 2012 at 16:09
Back to Top
fusong View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fusong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 16:22
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Secular oppressive governments and lame monarchies should be overtrown. Local chieftains must be contended. Arab leauge should be a more of economic, military and constitutional structure like EU. These are what should be done. Tongue


Yeah lets organize everything into a few little clusters that will fix EVERYTHING LOL
Every ideology has a kernel of truth and sea of whitewash.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 17:22
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Actually the Middle East is in more of a mess now than it was in the 20th century. I wonder why that is?
 
1) The corrupting effects of oil. It is like being the only one on the block to have a full cupboard of food. The temptation then becomes strong to use this for gain, and also for others to try and take it from you. The intrigues can be endless (and they have been).
 
2) The long term effects of political and social repression. With no legal voice in things, taking to the streets is the only option. Starting a bonfire may seem extreme, but if you can't just write a letter to your MP, it may be the only way to get some action. This can lead to messy results.
 
3) Related to (2), a retreat to the comfort of myth and magic, as a way of escaping an unpalatable reality. This is nothing new in human behavior. The worse reality is, the more alluring fantasy is- it is an escape. Today the most benighted places in the world tend also to be the ones most invested in escapism, ie- religion, drugs, etc.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 17:27
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Actually mideast boundaries are more or less aligned with their historic boundaries and fault lines and all countries accept them. The boundary issues that still exist are quite trivial since the majority of them involve deserts that are pastoral lands of countries that aligned themselves with one country but found their pastures in another and with no bedouins around any more no one care not even them.

 
The flashpoints in the middle east are a result of ideological/religious/geopolitical issues. Neither Iran nor Turkey (and probably not even Israel) want to control vast seas of restless Arabs who could unite under a strong leader or leaders who is also smart and stir trouble big time. Nasser nearly did it once but he was too much of an idiot and a media whore to realise it. Saddam wasn't that far and in the 70s nearly succeeded before his fears (both imaginary and legitimate) forced him into a destructive war with Iran.
 
Making the Arabs busy killing each other for sectarian purposes and propping up dictatorships based on family or religion is what causing these flashes.
 
Al-Jassas
 
But AJ, how about Israel/Palestine, Lebanon/Syria, Iraq/Kuwait, internal disivisions in Iraq itself, Turkey/Kurdistan, minorities in Iran...........there may be other factors here of course, but having boundaries laid down by outsiders, for the most part, for reasons of their own, can't be a positive event. I'm thinking particularly of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 17:34
Iran's borders weren't determined by outsiders in the same way.  Iran lost land in the North through  conflict with Russia and Britain to the East in recent centuries but its boundaries were not arbitrarily determined in some British, Russian or French ivory tower.  
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 18:32
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Actually mideast boundaries are more or less aligned with their historic boundaries and fault lines and all countries accept them. The boundary issues that still exist are quite trivial since the majority of them involve deserts that are pastoral lands of countries that aligned themselves with one country but found their pastures in another and with no bedouins around any more no one care not even them.

 
The flashpoints in the middle east are a result of ideological/religious/geopolitical issues. Neither Iran nor Turkey (and probably not even Israel) want to control vast seas of restless Arabs who could unite under a strong leader or leaders who is also smart and stir trouble big time. Nasser nearly did it once but he was too much of an idiot and a media whore to realise it. Saddam wasn't that far and in the 70s nearly succeeded before his fears (both imaginary and legitimate) forced him into a destructive war with Iran.
 
Making the Arabs busy killing each other for sectarian purposes and propping up dictatorships based on family or religion is what causing these flashes.
 
Al-Jassas
 
But AJ, how about Israel/Palestine, Lebanon/Syria, Iraq/Kuwait, internal disivisions in Iraq itself, Turkey/Kurdistan, minorities in Iran...........there may be other factors here of course, but having boundaries laid down by outsiders, for the most part, for reasons of their own, can't be a positive event. I'm thinking particularly of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
 
Israel/Palestine issue is simple. Everyone wanted to get rid of the jews and the only place that can sufficiently appease them is Palestine so this issue happened. Initially the thought was for a united Palestine with minority rights and guarantees for the jews but neither zionists nor the US or the USSR (especially after the holocaust) would accept this. So in the spirit of mass deportations of the Germans and Poles after WWII the jewish state was created and its leaders were not happy with their share wanting more and nore the Palestinians were happy to see their own lands taken from them and given to aliens.
 
As for Syria and Lebanon, its not much of a boundary issue as it is geopolitical. Lebanon is founded on its historical borders between the upper Galile, the Anti-Lebanon, the sea and the Homs gap. However Lebanon was unfortunately sandwitched between two regional powers and it was a fractured society that divided its loyalties as such. No matter how much good you do to those communities their loyalties won't shift. Syria experienced this first hand when it saved the phalangists from utter destruction in 76 and helped them massacre the Palestinians in the less publicised Tall Al-Zaatar massacre (as big as Sabra) only to see them stabbing them in the back and allying themselves whole heartedly with Israel in 78, 82 and 85.
 
Iraq and Kuwait's issue have nothing to do with boundaries (although Kuwait was an indivisible part of Iraq historically untill either 1899 or 1901). Kuwait was illegally tapping into disputed oil wells (which it didn't need to do in the first place since it already had enough oil from existing fields) so Saddam thinking Saudi Arabia won't object (which in my honest opinion it should have done, in fact we should have annexed Bahrain and Qatar too) but it did and Saddam stayed in Kuwait as a matter of pride rather than strategy when he should have withdrawn.
 
The internal divisions in Iraq are between Arabs and the late comers to nationalism, Kurds. The Sunni-Shia divide never reached to breaking point, in fact never existed to communal struggle point. Even during the so called "civil war" phase of the Iraq war the fight was basically confined to death squads and suicide bombers in limited areas and even these they were not confined to one sect or another.
 
What is happening right now is that shia religious parties despite losing elections still keep armed militias to initimidate the shias of the south. Baathists are still very popular there (the governor or Najaf of all places is a Saddam era Baathist and was popularly elected). In the Sunni north a similar thing occures although AQ was successfully checked (although not fully destroyed) the people there have crossed the line when they overwhelmingly voted for the shia Alawi instead of Sunni religious parties.
 
As for Iran, its problem lies with its policies. Iranian Arabs chose to fight for Iran and not Iraq during the war and Balochis were amongts the earnest supporters of the revolution before the mullahs hijacked it (indeed sunni and shia mullahs allied themselves in Balochistan to hijack it from secular movements there). However ever since Khameni too charge things went on a downward spiral. Anti-minority policies, political repression and the destruction of the revolution institution through the revolutionary guard hijacking the state all are behind the current problems in Iran.
 
Versailles effects are as I said miniscule. Most of the border regions are settled and other than Iskendrun and Palestine (in addition to Kurdistan although this is another matter altogether) territorial claims are not that much of a factor in the struggles going on.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 19:19
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

3) Related to (2), a retreat to the comfort of myth and magic, as a way of escaping an unpalatable reality. This is nothing new in human behavior. The worse reality is, the more alluring fantasy is- it is an escape. Today the most benighted places in the world tend also to be the ones most invested in escapism, ie- religion, drugs, etc.


I didn't get this, explain further please. I always thought people were too much occupied with their daily lifes. God is only remembered in hardship. Unlike you think practising Islam nothing with escapism. It requires self dicipline, self control and comes with heavy cost of sacrifices you have to do. What kind of escapist wakes up for praying before sun rises and doing this five times a day? What about starving everyday for a month in Ramazan? And Islam prohibits all kind of things makes a person high (like alchohol, drugs and even tobacco) and causing their escape from reality.


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 07 Mar 2012 at 19:19
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 20:20
Why wouldn't Iran's Arabs or Baluchis fight for Iran?  Their country was attacked, they were attacked and they defended themselves- the minority oppression is overplayed, all of Iran's minorities still have their own culture and language, there have been no deportation or ethnic cleansing (that's not to say the situation is perfect).  The major problem Iran has is social and religious oppression which can be expected when one fanatical sect consolidates its power over a state, but no less deplorable for that.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 20:48
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

3) Related to (2), a retreat to the comfort of myth and magic, as a way of escaping an unpalatable reality. This is nothing new in human behavior. The worse reality is, the more alluring fantasy is- it is an escape. Today the most benighted places in the world tend also to be the ones most invested in escapism, ie- religion, drugs, etc.


I didn't get this, explain further please. I always thought people were too much occupied with their daily lifes. God is only remembered in hardship. Unlike you think practising Islam nothing with escapism. It requires self dicipline, self control and comes with heavy cost of sacrifices you have to do. What kind of escapist wakes up for praying before sun rises and doing this five times a day? What about starving everyday for a month in Ramazan? And Islam prohibits all kind of things makes a person high (like alchohol, drugs and even tobacco) and causing their escape from reality.
The key I think is your statement that 'God is only remembered in hardship'. Religion therefore becomes an escape from contemplation of that hardship. It is also frequently an escape from having to think things through for oneself: just do as you are told to do and everything will be all right. Physical effort can be an escape from mental effort.
 
I'm not saying that religion is necessarily escapist, just that it frequently and possibly most commonly is.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 20:52
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Why wouldn't Iran's Arabs or Baluchis fight for Iran?  Their country was attacked, they were attacked and they defended themselves- the minority oppression is overplayed, all of Iran's minorities still have their own culture and language, there have been no deportation or ethnic cleansing (that's not to say the situation is perfect).  The major problem Iran has is social and religious oppression which can be expected when one fanatical sect consolidates its power over a state, but no less deplorable for that.
 
Because Saddam came under the banner of liberation (Ahwaz province was only directly ruled from Tehran in the 20th century, before that it was ruled by clients who ruled there autonomously since the Safavids in some cases) and in light of the forced Persification under the shah this should have been expected (as previous events in history showed). They prefered to remain loyal to Iran instead.
 
As for opression, it exists. It is not ethnic cleansing but its not a model society either. The highest illiteracy rates in Iran are among the two aforementioned groups as is the unemployment figures etc. There is widespread discrimination that although not official it is still de facto. That doesn't mean Arabs or Balochis don't make it in Iran, they do (remember that Balochis are not only an ethnic minority, they are a religious one too) but its not as simple as say Blacks in America or Asians where you live. 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 21:04
Escapism means avoiding from struggle. Religion obligates people to struggle for another day and deeply condamns lack of hope.


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 07 Mar 2012 at 21:14
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 21:14
Well it's not much of a liberation, even if you do win, when those who you seek to liberate fight you the hardest.

The Persification was not forced (as in at knife or gun-point), it was propaganda based and funneled through the education system and affected other regions too. Still, by some regional and global standards Iran's policies in this regard are a model of tolerance (for example, what did the Baathists do to Persians and Faylis in Iraq - or Turkey to Armenians and Kurds?). 

Arabs have made it to high office in the Islamic republic era - Admiral Shamkhani springs to mind.  But Baluchis are a different matter as you point out, since they are Sunni, but that is not all - their region overall is one of the most underdeveloped due to remoteness and lack of resources too. Also you have to bear in mind what a mess Saddam made of Khuzistan and her cities that obviously had a huge impact and led to a mass exodus from the South to Tehran.  Arabs don't only live in Khuzistan.  There are communities across the south coast to Baluchistan.




Edited by Zagros - 07 Mar 2012 at 21:16
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 21:41
It's very clear. Middle East is where Western culture first clashed into other cultures. As all we know this clash first hit Ottoman Era Turkey. Now Westernisation process is finally stopped in Turkey. While we handled (actually this was like getting run over by a bulldozer) two main waves already, rest of Middle East just get ridding of first wave (nationalism) and now they are exposed second big wave (democracy). Yes, wave of ideas sometimes travels a bit delayed.

Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 07 Mar 2012 at 22:18
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 21:42
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

3) Related to (2), a retreat to the comfort of myth and magic, as a way of escaping an unpalatable reality. This is nothing new in human behavior. The worse reality is, the more alluring fantasy is- it is an escape. Today the most benighted places in the world tend also to be the ones most invested in escapism, ie- religion, drugs, etc.


I didn't get this, explain further please. I always thought people were too much occupied with their daily lifes. God is only remembered in hardship. Unlike you think practising Islam nothing with escapism. It requires self dicipline, self control and comes with heavy cost of sacrifices you have to do. What kind of escapist wakes up for praying before sun rises and doing this five times a day? What about starving everyday for a month in Ramazan? And Islam prohibits all kind of things makes a person high (like alchohol, drugs and even tobacco) and causing their escape from reality.
 
When faced with a very difficult set of circumstances, it is human nature to try and put a better face on it; to say, in effect, yes this is very bad, but just think, there is a better reality somewhere (if not here). Life may be a pile of crap right now, but just wait until we get to the promised land, or nirvana, or heaven. Then, we will be reassurred that life has meaning, and that we are comfortable. Perhaps we are being bullied right now, but God will get even for us at some point.
 
This sort of escapism can take the form of magical thinking, in which facts are ignored for the purpose of feeling better, safer, or that life has an important and meaningful goal that we can achieve. Religion is of course prominent here. Drugs are another form of escape, one that is chemically induced. The intent is often much the same however. When it comes to psychological angst versus physical discomfort, the former is  much more ominous for most. Many will put themselves through considerable physical discomfort if it bouys up their spirit.
 
The problem with all this is that because it is not real, it can be hijacked by the unscrupulous fairly easily- "It's not my idea to be dictator for life, it's God's will". An answer can be found for endless questions that would otherwise by uncomfortable, or require some complex thinking, or that would have to be abandoned as unanswerable at present, dismaying as that may be.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 22:16
Actually, when I finished my post which you quetoed I knew what was on your mind. I'm still insistent. But typing in English is really annoying, you should already noticed my lack of English language. So, extra typing is pretty boring.

Some of opinions about your paragraphes respectively:

1) Changes nothing. "Religion is the opium of the people", Karl Marx didn't use this by means of your statements. Remember how monarchs legitimatised their rule via "divine right".
2) Yes, there is some examples exists like happened in Fall of Constantinople. (Where people were waiting angels in Agia Sophia for driving Turks back.)
3) Destiny means "all knowledge of past, present and future exists but we don't know it yet".


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 08 Mar 2012 at 10:22
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 22:37
Your, and some of our other fine posters', English puts to shame many people whose first language it is supposed to be.  You should be proud.

Edited by Zagros - 07 Mar 2012 at 22:38
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 00:39

Quote
The British opposed the partition of Palestine and refused to vote for it at the UN. The prime movers in enforciing the partition were the United States and the Communist bloc.
 
The make up of the Peninsula and Transjordan was largely the result of the campaigns of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud against the Husseini dynasty (clan? tribe?) with the favour of Britain, but al Jassas knows more of that than I do.

Of course the British were against it. That could be one reason you turned away Holocaust survivors who wished to land in Palestine. Then you incarcerated them behind barbed wire on Malta.
No doubt that continued to assist in the British concern with their Arab friends and vested interests.

 
Quote
Iraq was a grouping of Ottoman provinces rather than a division.

With not a thought given to religious factors that resulted in so much bloodshed.

Quote
Burma is a natural country all on its own, with its own peoples, language, and religion. (Which is why it was never considered part of India.)

Who said it was ever part of India? The British looted that poor country for decades. Exotic lumber, precious gems, nothing was too little or too much. Then you left in your usual fashion, leaving the Burmese without sufficient democratic institutions in place resulting in what we see today.

Quote
The British would have been quite happy to leave a united India, and indeed tried all they could to keep it that way. But Jinnah and the Moslem League weren't having any. Mountbatten summed up the position (wikipedia):

Oh puleeezzz, you Brits occupied India for centuries. Now your saying you had to adhere to what Jinnah wanted. Give me a break. You didn't care and neither did Mountbatten. Y'aal just wanted out of there like every other place you were finished with. I dare say that the people of Kashmir were also able to dictate to him.

Quote

The partition seems to have been inevitable after all, one of the examples being Lord Mountbatten's statement on Jinnah - "I tried every trick I could play... to shake Jinnah's resolve... Nothing would move him from his consuming determination for Pakistan...

Mountbatten was a weakling. An individual in place due to royal nepotism, and more than a little worthless in peace and war.

Quote
And no, or very little, blood on the streets. At least, not resulting from India-Pakistan conflicts, as opposed to conflicts within the Muslim world itself.

 
The Indian subcontinent was partitioned into Hindu-dominated but nominally secular India and the newly created Muslim state of Pakistan after India’s independence from Great Britain in 1947. Severe rioting and population movement ensued and an estimated half a million people were killed in communal violence. About a million people were left homeless. Since partition, the territory of Jammu and Kashmir has remained in dispute, with Pakistan and India both holding sectors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1947.stm


May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 10:03

Buckskins is completely right about India (except that Pakistan too is officially and supposed to be secular). Mountbatten didn't even try.

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

When faced with a very difficult set of circumstances, it is human nature to try and put a better face on it; to say, in effect, yes this is very bad, but just think, there is a better reality somewhere (if not here). Life may be a pile of crap right now, but just wait until we get to the promised land, or nirvana, or heaven. Then, we will be reassurred that life has meaning, and that we are comfortable. Perhaps we are being bullied right now, but God will get even for us at some point.

This sort of escapism can take the form of magical thinking, in which facts are ignored for the purpose of feeling better, safer, or that life has an important and meaningful goal that we can achieve. Religion is of course prominent here. Drugs are another form of escape, one that is chemically induced. The intent is often much the same however. When it comes to psychological angst versus physical discomfort, the former is  much more ominous for most. Many will put themselves through considerable physical discomfort if it bouys up their spirit.
 
The problem with all this is that because it is not real, it can be hijacked by the unscrupulous fairly easily- "It's not my idea to be dictator for life, it's God's will". An answer can be found for endless questions that would otherwise by uncomfortable, or require some complex thinking, or that would have to be abandoned as unanswerable at present, dismaying as that may be.


Dogmatic Atheist crap.

Sorry, but all this shows is you don't understand religion or why people believe in it.

Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 11:08
Well, when a priori is different, everything will result different. Captain Vancouver's version is consistent in itself. Also I must add, Captain Vancouver is one of most unbiased and clear minded persons in this forum and this is not a bribing praise.

I'm just ridiculing people who talking about universal norms of etc...  Those persons who insists Western ethics as universal norms. In your dreams... LOL




Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 08 Mar 2012 at 12:48
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 11:32
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Buckskins is completely right about India (except that Pakistan too is officially and supposed to be secular). Mountbatten didn't even try.

Mountbatten made a last desperate appeal. But he was only in place less than a year. His instruction from Lndon was that independence (in order to meet pre-war promises) had to be achieved by the end of 1947 at the latest. If agreement on a united India was not met by that time, then division it would have to be.
 
Of course you may believe that independence should not have been granted in that case but I don't think very many people would agree with you, including in fact Nehru and the Congress party.
 
And of course for Buckskins to claim that Mountbatten was a weakling and worthless in war and peace is blatantly ridiculous. Mountbatten's war record up to and including as Supreme Allied Commander was impeccable, especially including his exploits as commander of HMS Kelly.
 
I'm very surprised you take such a dim view of him. Buckskins of course is a thing apart.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 12:03
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Quote
The British opposed the partition of Palestine and refused to vote for it at the UN. The prime movers in enforciing the partition were the United States and the Communist bloc.
 
The make up of the Peninsula and Transjordan was largely the result of the campaigns of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud against the Husseini dynasty (clan? tribe?) with the favour of Britain, but al Jassas knows more of that than I do.

Of course the British were against it. That could be one reason you turned away Holocaust survivors who wished to land in Palestine. Then you incarcerated them behind barbed wire on Malta.
No doubt that continued to assist in the British concern with their Arab friends and vested interests.
So you're saying Britain should have supported a divided Palestine but should have insisted on a united India. My, aren't we consistent.
 
Britain gave up on Palestine because they couldn't see a way out. No-one else has succeeded in finding one either, though there was a brief flash of promise during Carter's presidency.
Quote
 
Quote
Iraq was a grouping of Ottoman provinces rather than a division.

With not a thought given to religious factors that resulted in so much bloodshed.
Why do you say 'without a thought'? You're a mind reader now?
 
Remember Iraq wasn''t a British colony in the first place but a Leage of Nations mandate. But anyway if Britain had split the country up into three or four pieces someone wouldn have accused them of 'dividing to conquer'. If anything there would have been even more bloodshed. between the rival states.
Quote
Quote
Burma is a natural country all on its own, with its own peoples, language, and religion. (Which is why it was never considered part of India.)

Who said it was ever part of India? The British looted that poor country for decades. Exotic lumber, precious gems, nothing was too little or too much. Then you left in your usual fashion, leaving the Burmese without sufficient democratic institutions in place resulting in what we see today.
Burma had a completely adequate parliamentary system up until 1962, when the first military cooup took place. You might as well blame the US for the mess of the Philippines under Marcos, or for the dictatorships in Cuba.
 
What you seem to be saying is that Britain should not have given these places independence. Make a peoplpe independent and what happens to it is up to them.
Quote

Quote
The British would have been quite happy to leave a united India, and indeed tried all they could to keep it that way. But Jinnah and the Moslem League weren't having any. Mountbatten summed up the position (wikipedia):

Oh puleeezzz, you Brits occupied India for centuries. Now your saying you had to adhere to what Jinnah wanted. Give me a break. You didn't care and neither did Mountbatten. Y'aal just wanted out of there like every other place you were finished with. I dare say that the people of Kashmir were also able to dictate to him.
I explained that in my response to Omar. The people of Kashmir in fact weren't able to dictate to anyone: if they had been Kashmir wouldn't have been disputed now.
Quote

Quote

The partition seems to have been inevitable after all, one of the examples being Lord Mountbatten's statement on Jinnah - "I tried every trick I could play... to shake Jinnah's resolve... Nothing would move him from his consuming determination for Pakistan...

Mountbatten was a weakling. An individual in place due to royal nepotism, and more than a little worthless in peace and war.

Snide, envious, weaselly, ankle-biting and a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
Quote
Quote
And no, or very little, blood on the streets. At least, not resulting from India-Pakistan conflicts, as opposed to conflicts within the Muslim world itself.

The Indian subcontinent was partitioned into Hindu-dominated but nominally secular India and the newly created Muslim state of Pakistan after India’s independence from Great Britain in 1947. Severe rioting and population movement ensued and an estimated half a million people were killed in communal violence. About a million people were left homeless. Since partition, the territory of Jammu and Kashmir has remained in dispute, with Pakistan and India both holding sectors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1947.stm
 
We were talking about blood in the streets after the original dislocation. In any case making a united India would have probably led to civil war whereas the subsequent India-Pakistan wars haven't been all that damaging. Civil wars are pretty well always more bloody than small-scale inter-country ones.


Edited by gcle2003 - 08 Mar 2012 at 12:12
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 12:07
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Sorry, but all this shows is you don't understand religion or why people believe in it.
 
The least reliable evidence for why people believe in religion is the word of the people who believe in it.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.