Middle East Mayhem

[grim reaper]

So very sad that ANOTHER 'peaceful' Islamic country is butchering its own people. 
I see Obama condemns the Egyptian Govt. for its 'excessive' force for shooting at people throwing stones at the troops. 

You know, politicians really are the sh*ts of the world, no matter WHICH country they are in! 
WHY does Obama and the American hierarchy continue to SUPPORT Israel when THEIR army shoot to kill youths that throw stones at the troops??   
Israel is in contravention of a number of UN resolutions with regard to the confiscation of Palestinian land and treatment of 'prisoners' and yet the rest of the world does nothing.
Why is this? Because we all kowtow to the great beast in the West......America...the land of the free...unless you happen to be one of the indigenous population...the 'red Indian'. 
Then your life isn't worth a plug nickel.
America...so far up its own ars* it doesn't know if it's day or night.

I really do look forward to the day when Bush & Blair face the charge of war crimes.

[steveL]

Oh those horrible Americans.

Unfortunately, most of today's Middle East troubles can be sourced to our good selves, to Pax Brittanica and the complete c**k-up we made by trying to impose western-style, artificial geographic borders on people who had been traditionally divided principally on nomadic, tribal and religous lines.

[grim reaper]

KD, that's what grown-ups do...agree to disagree. Doesn't mean you are right in your prognosis, or me in mine.
One of the points I was trying to make is that 'Islam' is always heralded as a 'peaceful' religion and yet, look at any Islamic country throughout the world and they are at each others throats.

From the Phillipines to Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Niger, Mali etc. etc.
What difference does it make if you are Sunni or Shia? They both believe in Allah, so what's the beef?

I wasn't being 'muddle headed' when I compared Obama's condemnation of the Egyptian army for shooting at stone throwing youths, to his lack of condemnation of Israeli troops shooting at stone throwing youths.

If it isn't right to use live ammo on youths in Cairo, it can't be right to use live ammo on youths in Israeli occupied Palestine.

But I do agree with you on the 'West' keeping out of a country's internal affairs. America thinks it is the world's policeman, when it suits its purposes. Funny how, despite the humanity abuses that have gone on for decades under Mugabe in Zimbabwe, America has shown no interest in standing up to that particular tyrant.
But anyway, we have issues here in our town to sort out without getting all deep over world problems.

[steveL]

Some additional information on President Assad of Syria.

He is a well known Anglophile and spent much of his education and youth in the UK. He trained as an Optometrist in the UK and is a qualified Optician, married a British woman and sent his kids to an English boarding school.

[Hartlepudlion]

Stevel I think that you will find that most of the M-E  and North Africa and, in particular the troubled countries, were last under French rule or influence rather than British. Whilst Egypt was a British protectorate the French influence was equal. The Suez Canal was different as it was first AngloFrench owned and then British. Algeria, the Lebanon and Syria were French.

[Hartlepudlion]

Whilst I personally have no truck with British intervention in Syria I find Ed Milliband's reason for not voting yes was uninspiring coming from a possible future leader of our country. "I would have had a back bench rebellion" is hardly the voice of a leader or diplomat.

[steveL]

Stevel I think that you will find that most of the M-E  and North Africa and, in particular the troubled countries, were last under French rule or influence rather than British. Whilst Egypt was a British protectorate the French influence was equal. The Suez Canal was different as it was first AngloFrench owned and then British. Algeria, the Lebanon and Syria were French.

Actually, I don't think I'd find that at all. Algeria for sure was a French colony but is hardly Middle East. French influence was minimal in the Middle East until the end of the First World War and the Turkish/Ottoman collapse. At which point it was agreed by the League of Nations to divide up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire to the winners with France being granted authority in Syria and Lebanon and the new country of 'Iraq' created under UK authority - what became known as the Pax Brittanica. The UK had control of 'Palestine' until 1948 and in Iran, was behind the coup detat in 1953 which saw the end of a constitutional monarchy and its replacement with a more British friendly but essentially autocratic Shah - and we all know how that ended.

Understanding the Middle East is less about borders and far more about understanding the links between the various factions of Islam and recognising that Iranians are not classed as Arabs at all, but as Persians.

After Britain realised that it had completely cocked up the Middle East, in 1947 it decided not to make the same mistakes in India and to make a whole set of new mistakes instead. It divided India by splitting off the mainly Muslim areas to the North and created Pakistan. It then forcibly removed millions of Muslims from the new India and sent them North while at the same time, it forced millions of Sikhs and Hindus to move South. Over a million people died during this process with more dying in the decades of conflict between the two 'new' countries which followed.

[Hartlepudlion]

Well Stevel it looks like we could carry this argument on for a year and a day.

The Pax Brittanica, British Peace, was, as the name suggests the relatively peaceful years between 1815 and 1914.

Strictly speaking, The Mediterranean countries of the Asian Continent is the Near East, at least it was when I was at school. The Middle East was from the Jordan to the East, Persia and the Indian sub-continent with the Far East being beyond the sub-continent. But I went to school when the British Empire was still in existence, though not for long, so we may have been taught with an Empire bias so things might have changed.

Saudi, was created by the British but followed the main tribe's, the Saudis main area of influence. The rest could be said to have been created by the Balfour Declaration which were more less as they were at the birth of Christ.

The main reason for the present conflicts is that when a vacuum is created it needs to be filled. We saw this in break up of Yugoslavia after Tito and the resulting violence. The numerous new states formed from the break up of the USSR again with violence in Georgia, Chechnya and the Ukraine to name a few.

The West has interfered in the accepted order in these mainly Islamic countries because they don't meet the mainly US ideal of a democratic country. Not one intervention has been a success. I am pretty sure that most citizens of the affected countries of the Arab Spring would certainly wish to go back.the old order. The West gets muddled up between democracy and civilisation. Civilised society in one part of the world is different from another part.

We went through our civil wars without, in the main, outside interference. It took us from the Romans to the Tudors before we had a peaceful and united country - not including you Scots in this. Why should we not give other countries the chance to settle their differences and create their own ideas of a civilised society? We know from our own example of democracy in this town that it is more than a little flawed and needs to be improved. Why inflict this on other countries?

Don't we all want to live a peaceful life free of mass killings and be allowed to some freedom to do what we want to do?

[steveL]

ALERTS TO THREATS IN 2013 EUROPE
From JOHN CLEESE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "pis*ed Off" to "Let's get the bas**ar*s." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.


Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person