Qatar vs all others

[Gilrandir]

It looks like a string of Arab states fell foul of Qatar to the extent of cutting all relations:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/05/saudi-arabia-and-bahrain-break-diplomatic-ties-with-qatar-over-terrorism
Too harsh a reaction to a statement on the neccessity of dialogue with Iran?

[Shaka_Khan]

I wonder what this will do to the World Cup?

[Beskar]

I wonder what this will do to the World Cup?

Were my thoughts too.

[Fragony]

Should be boycotted anyway,it's graveyard

[AE Bravo]

nvm delete

[Gilrandir]

Some people think it is an artificial scandal aimed at raising oil prices. Otherwise it was overdoing it on the part of Saudis and their lot.

[Dâriûsh]

During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look! (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/872062159789985792)

Regime change in Doha imminent, eh?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Regime change in Doha imminent, eh?

Would it be change or just another "c'est le meme chose" sort of event?

[Gilrandir]

And Al Jazeera is closed in Saudi Arabia (and other countries are to follow suit any time soon?)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-05/saudi-arabia-shuts-local-al-jazeera-office-promoting-plots-terrorist-groups
I wonder if it will eventually undermine Qatar's influence in the Arab world.

[Dâriûsh]

Would it be change or just another "c'est le meme chose" sort of event?

In my humble opinion, if Saud gets a puppet in Doha, then quite a lot would change. Most of the mass media would be pro-Saudi, for one (like a while back when the emir in Doha chummed around with the Saudis), and most of the Islamic organizations around the world would suddenly find themselves bereft of any other benefactor, other than those who furthers the Saudi-aligned agenda.

Let us see if it comes to that. In any case, they will want to beat Doha into submission, or at the very least, scare them away from any future interaction with Iran.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In my humble opinion, if Saud gets a puppet in Doha, then quite a lot would change. Most of the mass media would be pro-Saudi, for one (like a while back when the emir in Doha chummed around with the Saudis), and most of the Islamic organizations around the world would suddenly find themselves bereft of any other benefactor, other than those who furthers the Saudi-aligned agenda.

Let us see if it comes to that. In any case, they will want to beat Doha into submission, or at the very least, scare them away from any future interaction with Iran.

I have trouble with the current agenda of Iran and it's theocracy, so seeing Doha shift away from Iran's influence would be fine by me. Not happy that it would in furtherance of the Saud family, but I've had mixed feelings as to them for some time now.

[Fragony]

Tbis could just be a classic fake-news it seems

[Dâriûsh]

Tbis could just be a classic fake-news it seems

I really have to ask what you consider fake about this?

[Pannonian]

I really have to ask what you consider fake about this?

It hasn't appeared on his social media feed.

[Fragony]

I really have to ask what you consider fake about this?

Because it's really dangerous when it's genuine. I can also understand why tensions should be relieved after all that shit and the media means well in their own way. But this isn't the way it's deception

[Idaho]

I have trouble with the current agenda of Iran and it's theocracy, so seeing Doha shift away from Iran's influence would be fine by me. Not happy that it would in furtherance of the Saud family, but I've had mixed feelings as to them for some time now.

Qatar is mildly pro Saudi, in the Saudi-Iran axis. However the other Arab states have not forgiven it for allowing such a free press (free-ish) - and one that was seen as instrumental in the Arab spring uprisings.

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile in Qatar people seem to be taking active steps against possible food shortages.
http://www.france24.com/en/20170605-food-lines-queus-qatar-borders-shut-amid-diplomatic-row

[Furunculus]

i've been reading articles for years describing how little Qatar liked using its oil wealth to fund a foriegn policy on the cheap via beardy chaps with strong moral views.

now little Qatar is getting bitch-slapped by bigger neighbours in consequence of that foriegn 'policy'. oh well! #sadface

[a completely inoffensive name]

Good move by Trump. I didn't want Qatar as our vassal anyway.

[Gilrandir]

Erdogan puts his spoke in:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/president-erdogan-ratifies-qatar-military-deals--.aspx?pageID=238&nID=114117&NewsCatID=510

[Sarmatian]

i've been reading articles for years describing how little Qatar liked using its oil wealth to fund a foriegn policy on the cheap via beardy chaps with strong moral views.

now little Qatar is getting bitch-slapped by bigger neighbours in consequence of that foriegn 'policy'. oh well! #sadface

Interestingly enough, BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins disagrees:


This is a region largely of absolute monarchs - kings or emirs - who have in common a very firm grip on politics at home to head off any dissent that could represent a threat to their individual regime survival.

But the emir of Qatar pursues a series of policies that simply don't fit into the rigid orthodoxy expected by most of the others, notably Saudi Arabia, the superpower of Sunni Islam.

His unconventional foreign policy is seen as a threat to Sunni solidarity, particularly because the emir and his ministers promote dialogue and a search for good relations with the rival regional superpower, Shia Muslim Iran.

Saudi Arabia is deeply hostile to that approach, and now feels empowered to turn that hostility to action, in the certain knowledge that a new US president, Donald Trump, is at Saudi King Salman's side.

According to him, the real reason is that Qatar isn't openly hostile to Iran, and tries to have an independent foreign policy instead of doing what Saudi Arabia says.

[Idaho]

Yep. Don't believe the hype. This is Saudi tugging on the leashes across the region. It genuinely sees its neighbours as vassal states, and sees any independent action as alarming and dangerous. It has sold the line to Trump that they are the only Arabs to trust (and us foreign policy always likes a simple narrative).

[Pannonian]

Yep. Don't believe the hype. This is Saudi tugging on the leashes across the region. It genuinely sees its neighbours as vassal states, and sees any independent action as alarming and dangerous. It has sold the line to Trump that they are the only Arabs to trust (and us foreign policy always likes a simple narrative).

The western crusaders are far less tight with the reins than the local hegemons, Saudi and Iran. Of the two, Iran is less bad, mainly because Saudi sponsors the worst abominations in the region. And both are worse than Israel, who but for their liberals and socialists are way below the standards of the west. The sooner we reduce our energy consumption so we no longer have to rely on these arseholes the better. I prefer to rely on Russia, and I think they're opportunistic, treacherous, imperialistic bastards - but at least they're relatively sane, unlike the middle east.

[AE Bravo]

The western crusaders are far less tight with the reins than the local hegemons, Saudi and Iran. Of the two, Iran is less bad, mainly because Saudi sponsors the worst abominations in the region. And both are worse than Israel, who but for their liberals and socialists are way below the standards of the west. The sooner we reduce our energy consumption so we no longer have to rely on these arseholes the better. I prefer to rely on Russia, and I think they're opportunistic, treacherous, imperialistic bastards - but at least they're relatively sane, unlike the middle east.
The thread topic is not related to your involvement. You keep rolling that tape and snapping back to the same lines. 3,000 of those posts must be you repeating yourself. You come off as unwell, sir.

Stop cramming in your British-centric views onto every topic, it contributes nothing and we know your stance on this already.

[Idaho]

The thread topic is not related to your involvement. You keep rolling that tape and snapping back to the same lines. 3,000 of those posts must be you repeating yourself. You come off as unwell, sir.

Stop cramming in your British-centric views onto every topic, it contributes nothing and we know your stance on this already.

He's on his way to being a self righteous right wing old man.

Have you travelled much Pannonion?

[Pannonian]

He's on his way to being a self righteous right wing old man.

Have you travelled much Pannonion?

I've been around Europe and Asia.

[drone]

Judging from the disconnect between Tillerson and Trump, it looks to me like the Saudis manipulated Trump into giving them the go ahead for this during his visit. Had he consulted with Tillerson (or better yet Mattis), maybe he would have realized that blockading a country in a strategic location hosting 10K US military personnel might be a bad thing.

A nice template for any future foreign presidential trips, throw a lavish bash and you can probably con him into doing anything for you.

[Pannonian]

Judging from the disconnect between Tillerson and Trump, it looks to me like the Saudis manipulated Trump into giving them the go ahead for this during his visit. Had he consulted with Tillerson (or better yet Mattis), maybe he would have realized that blockading a country in a strategic location hosting 10K US military personnel might be a bad thing.

A nice template for any future foreign presidential trips, throw a lavish bash and you can probably con him into doing anything for you.

Read a story somewhere about the Chinese Communists and Nationalists chasing some millionaire's money to fund their war. The Nationalists gave a lavish bash with no expenses spared, while the Communists gave him a bowl of rice with salted vegetables. The millionaire opted for the Communists. Probably a proverbial story concocted by Mao's supporters, with shades of the tomb of Cyrus (supposedly sparsely fitted as befitting a warrior, but decidedly unbefitting archaeological evidence).

[drone]

Read a story somewhere about the Chinese Communists and Nationalists chasing some millionaire's money to fund their war. The Nationalists gave a lavish bash with no expenses spared, while the Communists gave him a bowl of rice with salted vegetables. The millionaire opted for the Communists. Probably a proverbial story concocted by Mao's supporters, with shades of the tomb of Cyrus (supposedly sparsely fitted as befitting a warrior, but decidedly unbefitting archaeological evidence).

Well, the millionaire in the story probably wasn't a raging narcissist so...

[Fragony]

Judging from the disconnect between Tillerson and Trump, it looks to me like the Saudis manipulated Trump into giving them the go ahead for this during his visit. Had he consulted with Tillerson (or better yet Mattis), maybe he would have realized that blockading a country in a strategic location hosting 10K US military personnel might be a bad thing.

A nice template for any future foreign presidential trips, throw a lavish bash and you can probably con him into doing anything for you.

Didn't think of that, that really makes sense

Have no pity for Qatar though, I hope everyone will boycot the WC there, building these stadiums is a nightmare for those doing it, total disregard for lives

[Gilrandir]

I prefer to rely on Russia, and I think they're opportunistic, treacherous, imperialistic bastards - but at least they're relatively sane, unlike the middle east.

:laugh4:
http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/russians-shocked-as-police-detain-boy-reciting-poetry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBU9g6UvlK0

[Pannonian]

:laugh4:
http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/russians-shocked-as-police-detain-boy-reciting-poetry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBU9g6UvlK0

Relatively. There's a wide margin of bonkers between us and the norm in the middle east. Russia are probably on a par with our far right; basket cases to our eyes, but downright harmless compared with lynchings for blasphemy that have popular support.

[Gilrandir]

Relatively. There's a wide margin of bonkers between us and the norm in the middle east. Russia are probably on a par with our far right; basket cases to our eyes, but downright harmless compared with lynchings for blasphemy that have popular support.

So far.

[Furunculus]

Interestingly enough, BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins disagrees:


According to him, the real reason is that Qatar isn't openly hostile to Iran, and tries to have an independent foreign policy instead of doing what Saudi Arabia says.

That's an interesting point view, no doubt true in its own narrow terms.

But nothing more than a demonstration of the perils of small nations being silly enough to have pushy foreign policy's:

http://fpif.org/is_qatars_foreign_policy_sustainable/
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/dHHtps3m3FN83KkPize4LP/Saudi-Arabias-feud-with-Qatar-has-22year-history-rooted-in.html

[Montmorency]

As an example (http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/23/us/saudis-to-develop-teheran-ties-are-said-to-be-sending-iran-fuel.html) of the convoluted foreign policies of the region, recall that Saudi Arabia funded Iran by refining its crude oil for export during the Iran-Iraq war, even as it more directly funded the Iraqi war effort against Iran. (To be fair, a large proportion of the world, including the United States and several European countries, were involved in similar double-dealing during the 80s.)

[Husar]

From the comments below the video of the 10 year-old boy getting arrested:


He was not arrested, he was stopped by the police for begging. Not for the Hamlet. His mother exploited the child for money. The person who published the video intentionally wants to confuse and show Russia as a terrible country

:shrug:

[Gilrandir]

From the comments below the video of the 10 year-old boy getting arrested:



:shrug:

:laugh4: Comments under the video? :laugh4: Are you serious? Again forgot about troll factory?
1. The boy was taken to the police department. It is not an arrest, it's detainment. Does it really make any difference? Doesn't it attempt to put a smoke screen over the real issue - the way the police treated a harmless nerdy kid?
2. The police stated that it was for begging (they needed some justification, didn't they?), but he was not. He was reciting Hamlet's monologue in Arbat street - a place in Moscow traditionally full of artists, performers and other acting people and his STEPmother was filming him. Can it be taken for begging, especially when she was trying to protest the detainment? How come other people with similar activities were not detained on similar charges?
3. I don't know about the intentions of the person who published the video (neither do "the commentators", don't they?), but it is genuine and it shows the realities of present day Russia. If it doesn't reflect a great credit on the authorities of the said country, is it the fault of the video or its author?

[AE Bravo]

It really didn't take a street clip from Gilrandir to show how clueless Pannonian is about the middle east, Russia, and every place outside the UK.

Even in this thread he has shown zero awareness of the nuance of the issue and the differences between the states involved. They are all the same to him because the templates (that everyone here probably memorized) saved in his brain tell him.

If you don't know much about what is being talked about, it's better to not post at all. If I posted nonense in the UK thread I may come off the same way.

Basically the guy has no geopolitical sense typical of most rightwingers lacking the self-awareness.

[Pannonian]

It really didn't take a street clip from Gilrandir to show how clueless Pannonian is about the middle east, Russia, and every place outside the UK.

Even in this thread he has shown zero awareness of the nuance of the issue and the differences between the states involved. They are all the same to him because the templates (that everyone here probably memorized) saved in his brain tell him.

Of course if I chose not to restrain myself with threads I don't know much about I might come off the same way. You should learn to pipe down and read from the others here who have read up on the details of the thread topic.

Basically the guy has no geopolitical sense typical of most rightwingers lacking the self-awareness.

I have an extremely jaded view of the Muslim world, partly from following the various atrocities in the last decade or two, partly from seeing the liberal left in the UK get pinned for Iraq on an endless roll, and partly from following what's going on in Pakistan. That's the Pakistan that was the origin of a fair few of my friends in the past, that was my favourite cricket team in the past, and quite a lot else. Not much different from any other non-anglo culture in the past, just another culture with its own language, food, films, etc. that I loved mixing with. But increasingly its liberal aspects have disappeared, in step with Saudi Arabia's greater influence, and there is a more homogenous "Muslim" culture that identifies with the wrongs suffered by any other Muslim, and propagates the most backward and militant tribal traditions they can find. Up to and including taking action in the UK to address their tribal feuds.

I'll start thinking of them as separate states once they stop thinking of themselves as Muslims and start thinking of themselves as citizens of their states. As it is, I think of them as blocs, with Iran and any other Shias it can influence as one bloc, and the Saudi alliance as another bloc. I'm not the only one to think that way either, judging by what's going on in the thread subject. It was probably the neocons' mistake that they saw Iraq as its own state, rather than a piece in a multi-bloc puzzle that was better left alone. At the time, I opposed the invasion because I believed in the liberal argument of self determination. Nowadays, I have the same view except that I feel that the region is a hellhole not worth our effort. Muslims will do as Muslims will do, and it's none of our business, and we shouldn't beat ourselves up over how badly they treat each other.

Now, are you going to chastise me for holding views about other cultures that mean we shouldn't interfere in their affairs? Would you like to argue that we are all part of the same world, and thus we should involve ourselves fully in their affairs as they're also our affairs? What do you think of the Iraq invasion of 2003?

[Gilrandir]

Not much different from any other non-anglo culture in the past, just another culture with its own language, food, films, etc. that I loved mixing with.

You are deeply mistaken if you see only positive effects of globalization. As I once said, enjoying outlandish food be ready to deal with outlandish diseases.

[Pannonian]

You are deeply mistaken if you see only positive effects of globalization. As I once said, enjoying outlandish food be ready to deal with outlandish diseases.

I'm ok with the risk of Delhi belly if it means trying out different foods from different cultures. Although they'll be getting their ingredients from the local (British) market, so it's more like rummy tummy. But I miss the days when Pakistanis identified themselves as part of the subcontinent, rather than part of the Muslim world as they increasingly do. How much of this change was due to Saudi-funded madrassas, I wonder.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm ok with the risk of Delhi belly if it means trying out different foods from different cultures. Although they'll be getting their ingredients from the local (British) market, so it's more like rummy tummy. But I miss the days when Pakistanis identified themselves as part of the subcontinent, rather than part of the Muslim world as they increasingly do. How much of this change was due to Saudi-funded madrassas, I wonder.

And how much of it was Mountbatten not taking the extra time despite the pressure?

[AE Bravo]

I'll start thinking of them as separate states once they stop thinking of themselves as Muslims and start thinking of themselves as citizens of their states. As it is, I think of them as blocs, with Iran and any other Shias it can influence as one bloc, and the Saudi alliance as another bloc. I'm not the only one to think that way either, judging by what's going on in the thread subject. It was probably the neocons' mistake that they saw Iraq as its own state, rather than a piece in a multi-bloc puzzle that was better left alone. At the time, I opposed the invasion because I believed in the liberal argument of self determination. Nowadays, I have the same view except that I feel that the region is a hellhole not worth our effort. Muslims will do as Muslims will do, and it's none of our business, and we shouldn't beat ourselves up over how badly they treat each other.
Who are you referring to? The states concerning this thread are nationalists and only two in the area have an Islamist national character. Neocons actually prefer your bloc view and disregarded Iraq's lack of democratic traditions, its history, and civil society. I agree with you that it's not worth the western effort because that effort has been severely incompetent. The problem is your militaristic view of a region with over 200 million people, thinking that it's a basket of clone states with the same way of life because of the headlines that grabbed your attention. The homogenous Muslim culture you're talking about has been outweighed by secular nationalism in a number of states there already, but that hasn't really shown itself to be any better.

Now, are you going to chastise me for holding views about other cultures that mean we shouldn't interfere in their affairs? Would you like to argue that we are all part of the same world, and thus we should involve ourselves fully in their affairs as they're also our affairs? What do you think of the Iraq invasion of 2003?
Nope, just that your broadstrokes geopolitical views be expressed where they are relevant and not in a thread concerned with a small scale rift that has nothing to do with your grievances about Islam.

For a guy who supposedly gave up on Muslims and their world, you sure do like to proffess that you gave up on them at every turn.

[Pannonian]

Who are you referring to? The states concerning this thread are nationalists and only two in the area have an Islamist national character. Neocons actually prefer your bloc view and disregarded Iraq's lack of democratic traditions, its history, and civil society. I agree with you that it's not worth the western effort because that effort has been severely incompetent. The problem is your militaristic view of a region with over 200 million people, thinking that it's a basket of clone states with the same way of life because of the headlines that grabbed your attention. The homogenous Muslim culture you're talking about has been outweighed by secular nationalism in a number of states there already, but that hasn't really shown itself to be any better.

Nope, just that your broadstrokes geopolitical views be expressed where they are relevant and not in a thread concerned with a small scale rift that has nothing to do with your grievances about Islam.

For a guy who supposedly gave up on Muslims and their world, you sure do like to proffess that you gave up on them at every turn.

Are we obliged to think well of the region and say they're jolly decent people and so on?

And in Pakistan, someone has been sentenced to death for blasphemy, posting something on Facebook. And a while back, some university lecturers accused one of their students of blasphemy, resulting in a mob beating said student to death. And let's not forget a few years back, when a couple of high profile politicians who argued against the blasphemy law were assassinated, and their killers subsequently treated as martyrs (even here in the UK). And talking about the UK, how about that guy in Glasgow who was killed for being an ahmadiyya?

If you disagree with broadstrokes, and want to distinguish between individual states, note the guy born of Libyan parents, who got upset by US bombings in Syria, and thus decided to kill kids in Manchester. Why did a Brit of Libyan descent get upset at what's happening in Syria? What did the Syrians have in common with him, if, as you say, the individual states have separate interests? And if he was upset at American actions, why did he take it out on British kids? If the Muslim states are individual and separate, are we westerners an indistinguishable bloc whose deaths are as good as one anothers?

And in any case, why aren't we allowed to hold opinions about other countries that result in us having less to do with them? Plenty of people around the world hate Britain. That's their right. Why isn't this right reciprocated? Why are they allowed to dislike us, but we're not allowed to dislike them back?

[Husar]

:laugh4: Comments under the video? :laugh4: Are you serious? Again forgot about troll factory?
1. The boy was taken to the police department. It is not an arrest, it's detainment. Does it really make any difference? Doesn't it attempt to put a smoke screen over the real issue - the way the police treated a harmless nerdy kid?
2. The police stated that it was for begging (they needed some justification, didn't they?), but he was not. He was reciting Hamlet's monologue in Arbat street - a place in Moscow traditionally full of artists, performers and other acting people and his STEPmother was filming him. Can it be taken for begging, especially when she was trying to protest the detainment? How come other people with similar activities were not detained on similar charges?
3. I don't know about the intentions of the person who published the video (neither do "the commentators", don't they?), but it is genuine and it shows the realities of present day Russia. If it doesn't reflect a great credit on the authorities of the said country, is it the fault of the video or its author?

For a troll factory, a single comment on a comment seems a little light, though I didn't read all the comments.
When the police arrest him, the boy has a yellow bag or hat or whatever that he may have put in front of him to collect money. The part of the video that shows him reciting is so far zoomed in that the surroundings cannot be seen, it tells us nothing other than that he was talking about something. That I don't understand what they're all saying in Russian is not helping either way.

If you say other artists there were not arrested for similar things, perhaps that is because they weren't begging? Also everyone who ever heard about Cinderella knows that evil step mothers make their step children work hard. Of course she was protesting since she will have to work herself if she can't send the boy anymore.

And why would you expect me to believe everything anti-Putin at face value and assume "troll factory" every time someone says it's made up? That's like creating one's own echo chamber. :shrug:

[Dâriûsh]

So apparently, there is concern in the Gulf countries that a coalition of Saud, United Arab Emirates, and Egypt will invade Qatar very soon.

Then of course, this happened (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/president-erdogan-ratifies-qatar-military-deals--.aspx?pageID=238&nID=114117&NewsCatID=510):


“Turkish troops are coming to Qatar for the sake of the security of the entire region,” Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani said in Doha on June 8 while briefing the press on the recent crisis.

In addition, Turkish gendarmes will train Qatari forces, approved under another deal between the two countries’ interior ministries in December 2015.

[Gilrandir]

I'm ok with the risk of Delhi belly if it means trying out different foods from different cultures. Although they'll be getting their ingredients from the local (British) market, so it's more like rummy tummy.
I don't mean the diseases obtained AFTER EATING outlandish food. I figuratively referred to negative sides of bringing a large amount of people from all corners of the world to another country - from aggressive culture to, well, actual diseases.


For a troll factory, a single comment on a comment seems a little light, though I didn't read all the comments.
When the police arrest him, the boy has a yellow bag or hat or whatever that he may have put in front of him to collect money. The part of the video that shows him reciting is so far zoomed in that the surroundings cannot be seen, it tells us nothing other than that he was talking about something. That I don't understand what they're all saying in Russian is not helping either way.

If you say other artists there were not arrested for similar things, perhaps that is because they weren't begging? Also everyone who ever heard about Cinderella knows that evil step mothers make their step children work hard. Of course she was protesting since she will have to work herself if she can't send the boy anymore.

And why would you expect me to believe everything anti-Putin at face value and assume "troll factory" every time someone says it's made up?

But you believed one single comment? Even if he was begging - is it the way policemen should treat harmless kids?

But I guess you are resorting to playing devils advocate just for the plain fun of it. And if you really mean it - well, you are entitiled to believe what you like. It seems it is easier for you to believe in cruel stepmothers (that it was not his mother you somehow believed without any additional proofs, didn't you?) than in groundlessly cruel law inforcement bodies in Russia.

I wish you could follow a furious internet discussion of the accident. By Russians, that is - for you to be absolutely sure it wasn't anti-Putin lip service by disgruntled Ukrainians.

[Pannonian]

I don't mean the diseases obtained AFTER EATING outlandish food. I figuratively referred to negative sides of bringing a large amount of people from all corners of the world to another country - from aggressive culture to, well, actual diseases.


Much of post-medieval English/British history is shaped by foreign foods and other stuff. Take the British Empire for instance, which came about because of the trade of an addictive substance between Britain and China.

Tea.

[Gilrandir]

Much of post-medieval English/British history is shaped by foreign foods and other stuff. Take the British Empire for instance, which came about because of the trade of an addictive substance between Britain and China.

Tea.

So you will have to put up with this "other stuff" if you want to continue your gastronomic trips to Soho. One can't have only the best of other cultures without facing unintended adverse consequences of importing them.

[Pannonian]

So you will have to put up with this "other stuff" if you want to continue your gastronomic trips to Soho. One can't have only the best of other cultures without facing unintended adverse consequences of importing them.

We had the gastronomy in the past without the aggressive religion. Go back 25 years and Islam wasn't an issue in the UK. Just another religion in a country which did not want "windows into the souls of men". Even now, other cultures pose nowhere near the same problems as modern Islamism.

It's a pity that Pakistan is no longer defined by subcontinental culture: food, cricket, music, films, etc. AFAIK there was a fair bit of crossover between Indian (Hindi?) street slang and Urdu. Instead, Pakistan is increasingly defined by Islam, and the most extreme interpretations of it at that. I used to admire the more devout Muslims in the Pakistan team. I now think they're indicative of more poisonous trends in their society. Rather than religion inspiring wide boys to clean up their lives, now people are afraid to criticise religion in society, as open criticism results in lynchings.

[Husar]

But you believed one single comment? Even if he was begging - is it the way policemen should treat harmless kids?

But I guess you are resorting to playing devils advocate just for the plain fun of it. And if you really mean it - well, you are entitiled to believe what you like. It seems it is easier for you to believe in cruel stepmothers (that it was not his mother you somehow believed without any additional proofs, didn't you?) than in groundlessly cruel law inforcement bodies in Russia.

I wish you could follow a furious internet discussion of the accident. By Russians, that is - for you to be absolutely sure it wasn't anti-Putin lip service by disgruntled Ukrainians.

Believe is a strong word, if the shrugging smiley signals a belief to you, you might want to take a class on interpreting expressions.
Israeli policemen shoot kids because kids ain't harmless and Israel are the Good Guys™.

And you're the one who mentioned it was his stepmother, am I to assume you're a liar?

The point was that it's hard to know what happened for sure, at least for me. That Russian police are rather brutal is not news, it's an integral part of the wonderfully colourful Russian culture. If we can be allies with Saudi Arabia, where his (step-)mother wouldn't even be allowed to drive a car, then that is surely not an argument against loving Russia.

[Dâriûsh]

Can we change the title of this thread to Qatar and maybe Turkey (except Turkey won’t quarrel with Saud), and perhaps supported by Iran vs Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Sisi’s Egypt – featuring US military personnel on both sides – also featuring special guest star the amazing silent Pakistan - also also featuring spicy food and kids in Russia? :clown:

[AE Bravo]

I'd like some of the veterans to chime in here. Am I crazy or does Pannonian tend to argue against himself? The discussion was shifted away from hotspots towards the states concerned with this topic yet he keeps bringing them up like I am supposed to be accountable to all these traumatized countries neither I nor the parties in the subject of this topic have much in common with.

I just want to know if I'm wasting my time responding here. Not interested in arguing in circles.

Libya, Syria, Pakistan, what's your point? Am I supposed to blame Britain for Trump using the attacks in the UK as an opportunity to influence its immigration laws?

Yes Pakistan is a hellhole but why is the Gulf made up of a massive Pakistani migrant population? Use your common sense. Not everybody fleeing Islamism goes to the UK.

[Pannonian]

I'd like some of the veterans to chime in here. Am I crazy or does Pannonian tend to argue against himself? The discussion was shifted away from hotspots towards the states concerned with this topic yet he keeps bringing them up like I am supposed to be accountable to all these traumatized countries neither I nor the parties in the subject of this topic have much in common with.

I just want to know if I'm wasting my time responding here. Not interested in arguing in circles.

Libya, Syria, Pakistan, what's your point? Am I supposed to blame Britain for Trump using the attacks in the UK as an opportunity to influence its immigration laws?

Blame? All I'm asking for is for the UK to have less to do with these countries that primarily identify themselves as Muslim, as we've had problems with people who identify themselves as Muslim over the Britain that they live in. Or aren't we allowed to have less to do with other countries now?

Hell, the UK voted in 2016 to regain control of its borders, at the risk of a significant economic price. Should we harden our borders with the EU, but leave the border open for Muslim countries as Showtime plainly thinks we should?

[AE Bravo]

That is not what I think at all. I agree with you that the UK should not involve itself into any mess abroad.

[Pannonian]

That is not what I think at all. I agree with you that the UK should not involve itself into any mess abroad.

And should we be allowed to govern our own borders as we wish?

[AE Bravo]

Absolutely, but that will discredit the faux liberal pretext to foreign policy and I'm afraid many don't realize that.

Personally, I really don't care about the Muslims in the UK. UK can do with them as it wishes but don't think that they can send them back here - not happening, this is their mess. As far as I'm concerned the UK is a haven for terrorism and sorry they will not be allowed to re-export this due to the damage they have already done in the ME. You obviously have a population with severe grievances and if you choose to absolve your poor governance of any responsibility by blaming a religion, I couldn't care less. You can say Islam this and that all you want but you will find that these serial killers will not disappear as the country has a history of serial killing anyway, unlike other countries.

The point is that you lack knowledge of the geopolitical reality of the ME. Your stance on intervention is a seperate issue. My problem was your inability to differentiate between societies where Islamism is prominent and where it is relegated or extinguished.

[Strike For The South]

What separates Qatar from the other gulf states so much that this would happen? Here in the US, it was being reported that the shunning was because of al jazerras liberal reporting. I can't imagine that's the only reason.

[Pannonian]

What separates Qatar from the other gulf states so much that this would happen? Here in the US, it was being reported that the shunning was because of al jazerras liberal reporting. I can't imagine that's the only reason.

It might be indicative of an outlook independent from the Saudis, who want to assert their hegemony.

[Pannonian]

Absolutely, but that will discredit the faux liberal pretext to foreign policy and I'm afraid many don't realize that.

Personally, I really don't care about the Muslims in the UK. UK can do with them as it wishes but don't think that they can send them back here - not happening, this is their mess. As far as I'm concerned the UK is a haven for terrorism and sorry they will not be allowed to re-export this due to the damage they have already done in the ME. You obviously have a population with severe grievances and if you choose to absolve your poor governance of any responsibility by blaming a religion, I couldn't care less. You can say Islam this and that all you want but you will find that these serial killers will not disappear as the country has a history of serial killing anyway, unlike other countries.

The point is that you lack knowledge of the geopolitical reality of the ME. Your stance on intervention is a seperate issue. My problem was your inability to differentiate between societies where Islamism is prominent and where it is relegated or extinguished.

Islamism can emerge in societies where it was not previously evident. See Pakistan, which has historically been the UK's main source of Muslim migrants.

[Strike For The South]

The saudis don't have as cool a city as Doha. That's what this is about.

[AE Bravo]

What separates Qatar from the other gulf states so much that this would happen? Here in the US, it was being reported that the shunning was because of al jazerras liberal reporting. I can't imagine that's the only reason.
As a first in the area the reasons are out there for the public to see and in an official capacity too.

- AJ coverage of Yemen
- Inciting 2011 Arab Spring movements in neighboring states
- Relationship with Iran
- Housing Brotherhood members and wanted criminals from nearby states
- "Lack of commitment" in Yemen
- Funding Hamas

The straw that broke the camel's back was the hostage situation in Iraq where they paid a ransom, and a series of events before that involving literally planeloads of cash landing illegally in Iraq.
https://www.ft.com/content/dd033082-49e9-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43?mhq5j=e2

In depth article about it.

[Strike For The South]

I will have to make time to read that, thank you.

[Pannonian]

As a first in the area the reasons are out there for the public to see and in an official capacity too.

- AJ coverage of Yemen
- Inciting 2011 Arab Spring movements in neighboring states
- Relationship with Iran
- Housing Brotherhood members and wanted criminals from nearby states
- "Lack of commitment" in Yemen
- Funding Hamas

The straw that broke the camel's back was the hostage situation in Iraq where they paid a ransom, and a series of events before that involving literally planeloads of cash landing illegally in Iraq.
https://www.ft.com/content/dd033082-49e9-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43?mhq5j=e2

In depth article about it.

Western liberals thought this was a great thing. More freedom and democracy is good for the west in particular and the world in general!

[Gilrandir]

We had the gastronomy in the past without the aggressive religion. Go back 25 years and Islam wasn't an issue in the UK.

That is the way with foreign culture penetration. It starts with food. Then when the locals are familiar with it and even begin to to like it - you find that you are inside a China town.



And you're the one who mentioned it was his stepmother, am I to assume you're a liar?


You doubted all the rest of my information on the issue yet believed that the woman was his stepmother. Isn't it a strange way to pick the trustworthy facts?



The point was that it's hard to know what happened for sure, at least for me.

Yet you do have an explanation for yourself?



That Russian police are rather brutal is not news, it's an integral part of the wonderfully colourful Russian culture.

Not only the police. It is noteworthy the Russian ombudsman for civil rights (or for children's rights, don't remember exactly) was totally on the side of the police.

[Pannonian]

That is the way with foreign culture penetration. It starts with food. Then when the locals are familiar with it and even begin to to like it - you find that you are inside a China town.


Not much problem with that. Soho Chinatown is an excellent centre for Asian groceries and ingredients. I go quite often to restock on ramen and stuff. 5-10 minutes in either direction to Trafalgar Square and Oxford Street, with Leicester Square next door, so it's a convenient meeting place too, grabbing a bite from one of the nearby food shops while I wait. And if you're of that bent, Shaftesbury Avenue aka the West End is on the other side of Chinatown, so you can literally cross the road and have your pick of the big theatres. I've heard that 30 years ago Chinatown was even more of a centre for Asian culture, but most of that seems to have been assimilated into the semi-mainstream, with Chinatown itself mainly a centre for food. Good food though.

[Gilrandir]

Not much problem with that. Soho Chinatown is an excellent centre for Asian groceries and ingredients. I go quite often to restock on ramen and stuff. 5-10 minutes in either direction to Trafalgar Square and Oxford Street, with Leicester Square next door, so it's a convenient meeting place too, grabbing a bite from one of the nearby food shops while I wait. And if you're of that bent, Shaftesbury Avenue aka the West End is on the other side of Chinatown, so you can literally cross the road and have your pick of the big theatres. I've heard that 30 years ago Chinatown was even more of a centre for Asian culture, but most of that seems to have been assimilated into the semi-mainstream, with Chinatown itself mainly a centre for food. Good food though.

China town is an example showing how ethnic neighborhoods develop. I doubt if you would find "Syria town" as much agreeable, though you may no doubt like the food.

[Pannonian]

China town is an example showing how ethnic neighborhoods develop. I doubt if you would find "Syria town" as much agreeable, though you may no doubt like the food.

Chinatown and the Anglo-Chinese community is a typical example of how ethnic groups develop in the UK. Starting with an alien first generation, subsequent generations are born into the host nation and are largely indistinguishable culturally from the host culture (at least on the street). The host culture takes on aspects of the guest culture.

If only Muslim culture was the same. I certainly used to think Pakistani culture was the same. The problem is it's not, uniquely among the guest cultures in the UK. And sadly, it didn't used to be the case, as there was quite a bit of friendly mixing of cultures in the 90s.

[Greyblades]

Pakistan was a mistake to begin with.

[Pannonian]

Pakistan was a mistake to begin with.

There was a time, certainly among cricket fans, when Pakistan were the team/country to look to. Spinners, tapeball, gully cricket, everything Pakistan was fashionable. When I thought of Muslims, I thought of "Pakistan zindabad", not "Allahu Akbar".

[Greyblades]

There was a time, certainly among cricket fans, when Pakistan were the team/country to look to. Spinners, tapeball, gully cricket, everything Pakistan was fashionable. When I thought of Muslims, I thought of "Pakistan zindabad", not "Allahu Akbar".

I am too young to remember that, what comes to mind I think when I think of Pakistan is kidnappers, extremists, murders, terrorists and pedophiles.

Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq can rot in hell.

[Furunculus]

The host culture takes on aspects of the guest culture.


This is more the way i would like it to work, rather than what we see in practice.

There are three broad ways of doing things:

One extreme - normative multiculturalism with parallel communities. (Britain)
The other extreme - you are french¬!!!! with ghettoes for those that haven't become french enough. (France)
A happy medium - the melting pot - if 10% of the pop are immigrants, the natives become 10% foriegn and the immigrants 90% american. (USA)

That is obviously simplifying things greatly, but i think both Britain and France could do with a closer look at the melting pot idea.

[Pannonian]

This is more the way i would like it to work, rather than what we see in practice.

There are three broad ways of doing things:

One extreme - normative multiculturalism with parallel communities. (Britain)
The other extreme - you are french¬!!!! with ghettoes for those that haven't become french enough. (France)
A happy medium - the melting pot - if 10% of the pop are immigrants, the natives become 10% foriegn and the immigrants 90% american. (USA)

That is obviously simplifying things greatly, but i think both Britain and France could do with a closer look at the melting pot idea.

Have other non-Muslim cultures strengthened their parallel communities in the UK? AFAIK it's only the older members who are distinctively "other", and even they see themselves as guests in a host country. It's mostly been a hodgepodge fusion that existing Brits then claim is uniquely and typically British. Take out the Muslim issue, and there are hardly any cultural problems with the other cultures.

[Brenus]

That is obviously simplifying things greatly, but i think both Britain and France could do with a closer look at the melting pot idea.

So, your idea of great success is for immigrants to destroy the locals, confiscate their lands, put them in ghettos, signed whatever treaties you want as you have no intention to keep your word anyway... Interesting...
The big flaw in your reasoning is both France and England, in their own way, have adsorbed immigration waves in the past. It is not perfect, but we will do the same again.
As the idea of ghettos, I have to laugh... Problem is lack of jobs, urberisation and cuts, not "ghettos" which exists only in newspapers (and in some minds who dream to have populations to exploit), as shown in some reports from fox News that had to apologise later for them.

[Pannonian]

So, your idea of great success is for immigrants to destroy the locals, confiscate their lands, put them in ghettos, signed whatever treaties you want as you have no intention to keep your word anyway... Interesting...
The big flaw in your reasoning is both France and England, in their own way, have adsorbed immigration waves in the past. It is not perfect, but we will do the same again.
As the idea of ghettos, I have to laugh... Problem is lack of jobs, urberisation and cuts, not "ghettos" which exists only in newspapers (and in some minds who dream to have populations to exploit), as shown in some reports from fox News that had to apologise later for them.

Read up on British Pakistanis. Not opinion pieces from white liberals. Actual descriptions by British Pakistanis of what's going on. Ghettoes are forming, not from social deprivation, or British marginalisation, but from ultra conservatives keeping their culture "pure". You're a Pratchett fan. Read Thud! and his other stories that feature deep delvers. That's a pretty good description of what's going on with the ultra conservative Muslims in the UK. Going by the French scale, translated to Islam, they're extreme far right. Goodness knows why you're trying to defend them.

[Dâriûsh]

In other news: Qatar has withdrawn its peacekeeping troops from the Djibouti/Eritrean border.

By the way, here is a fun experiment for anyone who can read Arabic. Try going onto, for instance, UAE’s al-Arabiya and do a comparison on their English versus Arabic Qatar topics. In English they often lambast Qatar for their close ties to Hamas, Ikhwan, and Iran. In Arabic, they often criticize Qatar for their close relationship to Israel as well.



Pakistan was a mistake to begin with.

Unlike British colonialism.

[Gilrandir]

Qararians will drink heavenly milk?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/qatar-plan-airlift-4000-cows-maintain-milk-supplies

[Pannonian]

Qararians will drink heavenly milk?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/qatar-plan-airlift-4000-cows-maintain-milk-supplies

It's a pity they're haram, or we could have flying pigs as well.

[Greyblades]

Unlike British colonialism.
The only mistake made was forcing us to end it early. We could have a world of hong kongs instead of a pile of zimbabwes.

[Dâriûsh]

The only mistake made was forcing us to end it early. We could have a world of hong kongs instead of a pile of zimbabwes.

Amazing.

[Greyblades]

The British Empire is second only to Rome when it came to producing viable successor states.

You want national self loathing, bother a guardian columnist. Or a German.

[AE Bravo]

Don't you think it's pathetic (and third worldly) to have these wet dreams about the jolly old British empire guvna.

They enslaved the globe for a tea fix, slaughtered tens of thousands of defenseless Africans to test the maxim gun, and forcefed the Chinese drugs against their own will to say the least.

It's an inglorious history of stolen valor, bad teeth, and no showers. It would be better if you admired the high culture associated with the time period of your history rather than the severe injustices that haunt it to this day.

[Greyblades]

They enslaved the globe for a tea fix, slaughtered tens of thousands of defenseless Africans to test the maxim gun, and forcefed the Chinese drugs against their own will to say the least.

Don't you think it's pathetic to be so jealous of another's laurel strewn national legacy that you produce blatant fabrications to slander a state that already has plenty of blood in it's past to deny sainthood?

Or do you actually believe the first two tall tales truly transpired?

[Montmorency]

The British Empire is second only to Rome when it came to producing viable successor states.

You want national self loathing, bother a guardian columnist. Or a German.

Which are the successor states of the Roman Empire you identify, and what successor states of the British Empire are there other than the United Kingdom?

[Pannonian]

Which are the successor states of the Roman Empire you identify, and what successor states of the British Empire are there other than the United Kingdom?

Latin speaking states and English speaking states? AFAIK you live in one of them.

[Montmorency]

Latin speaking states and English speaking states? AFAIK you live in one of them.

If you count most of Europe as comprising Roman successor states, then it's not clear which criteria could designate the United States as a "successor" state. Do you think of the Commonwealth as successors?

Russia, for instance, is considered a successor to the Soviet Union because it assumed most of the legal designations and obligations of the defunct Union, and was itself the most significant component of the Union.

[Pannonian]

If you count most of Europe as comprising Roman successor states, then it's not clear which criteria could designate the United States as a "successor" state. Do you think of the Commonwealth as successors?

Russia, for instance, is considered a successor to the Soviet Union because it assumed most of the legal designations and obligations of the defunct Union, and was itself the most significant component of the Union.

You're probably talking different definitions of successor state. Your definition admits only one successor state, and there can be no successor as the original still exists. GB's definition follows the example of the Alexandrian successors, which descended from and developed from the Alexandrian original. Or more specifically, the Roman successors, which claimed cultural and spiritual descent from the original even as they were cut loose.

[Sarmatian]

Don't you think it's pathetic (and third worldly) to have these wet dreams about the jolly old British empire guvna.


His knowledge of British colonial rule starts and ends with Hong Kong.

Somalia, Egypt, Ghana, Uganda, Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Tanzania, Jamaica, Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, India, Guyana...

His knowledge is rather limited in general, so don't be too surprised when he drops a line like that.

[Montmorency]

You're probably talking different definitions of successor state. Your definition admits only one successor state, and there can be no successor as the original still exists. GB's definition follows the example of the Alexandrian successors, which descended from and developed from the Alexandrian original. Or more specifically, the Roman successors, which claimed cultural and spiritual descent from the original even as they were cut loose.

Not at all: the Soviet Union has numerous successors, for its numerous republics. The successor relationship is specifically one of direct territorial, legal, and administrative descent. The Diadochoi were constituted exactly from the administrative extent of Alexander's empire. Rule or influence at some point is not what describes a successor.

Roman successors - do you mean contemporarily, or the modern world? The former, the Eastern Empire is the obvious successor, along with the various Gothic and Frankish fiefdoms. Certainly important in European history, but not appropriate to discuss in our terms of "successful state". The latter, we could just as well call Egypt, Turkey, Russia and the UK Roman successors if we're going by even the most distant cultural relationship.

Bottom line, a successor should probably be succeeding something. If you mean Anglophone countries, just say Anglophone countries.

[Pannonian]

His knowledge of British colonial rule starts and ends with Hong Kong.

Somalia, Egypt, Ghana, Uganda, Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Tanzania, Jamaica, Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, India, Guyana...

His knowledge is rather limited in general, so don't be too surprised when he drops a line like that.

Out of that list, Somalia was half Italian (which the former British bit wants independence from), Cameroon half French (as CamFranglais is the language of choice), Indonesia used to be called the Dutch East Indies, so the British rule there lasted as long as the British rule in Vietnam (aka French Indochina).

[Sarmatian]

Out of that list, Somalia was half Italian (which the former British bit wants independence from), Cameroon half French (as CamFranglais is the language of choice), Indonesia used to be called the Dutch East Indies, so the British rule there lasted as long as the British rule in Vietnam (aka French Indochina).

Yeah, I thought it was longer in parts of Indonesia, but it was just a few years. Not a valid example, I agree. I stand by all the others, though.

I'm sure I could find even more if I look it up, this was just off the top of my head. And those are countries which were partly or in full under British colonial rule. If we move into "under British influence", we could add some really messed up countries, like Afghanistan.

[Pannonian]

Yeah, I thought it was longer in parts of Indonesia, but it was just a few years. Not a valid example, I agree. I stand by all the others, though.

I'm sure I could find even more if I look it up, this was just off the top of my head. And those are countries which were partly or in full under British colonial rule. If we move into "under British influence", we could add some really messed up countries, like Afghanistan.

Afghanistan wasn't that much under British influence after one of our expeditions got annihilated there. It was more a case of denying Russian influence. On Indonesis: we excelled ourselves in SE Asia as we imposed order using Japanese troops, handing over to the other Europeans once they'd arrived to take over. With the US promising freedom and democracy, we managed to piss off yet another lot of locals whom we'd not previously had any business with, using troops whom we'd demonised as inhuman oppressors. The only additional thing we could have done to piss people off would have been to co-opt Unit 731, but the Americans got there first on that count.

I'll have to admit that I don't know much about the African countries on your list. My knowledge of the former British empire mainly extends to the Test playing cricketing countries, and even that is mainly centred on their cricket. So I can tell you that Jamaica has a fantastic cricketing history, Guyana's capital Georgetown rains perpetually, Trinidad & Tobago have a large population of Indians, etc.

[Montmorency]

Afghanistan wasn't that much under British influence after one of our expeditions got annihilated there.

It's always fun to reference this (https://www.amazon.com/Our-Friends-Beneath-Sands-Conquests/dp/0753828561) (preface):


After returning from some months spent 'embedded' in an infantry battalion in Helmand province, Afghanistan, in 2007, Dr. Duncan Anderson recounted a conversation with local fighters. One of them refused to believe that the British army's deployment there was anything more than (an entirely honourable) revenge for the costly defeat of the Berkshire Regiment at Maiwand in July 1880; and another asked, in honest puzzlement, who - while all these British warriors were in Afghanistan - was doing the fighting back home in Britain?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Greyblades shows that British exceptionalism has not died yet.

Some British like to spin the independence of its territories as a humanitarian kindness, granted after sharing the burdens of two world wars.
The British administrative state was 1. too weak and 2. too ineffective to really govern those states. Hence why they were able to 1. break away in the first place and 2. wanted to break away.

[Gilrandir]

Latin speaking states and English speaking states?


the Roman successors, which claimed cultural and spiritual descent from the original even as they were cut loose.

Two mutually exclusive definitions of a successor state.


Afghanistan wasn't that much under British influence after one of our expeditions got annihilated there.

Dr. Watson wouldn't agree.

[Greyblades]

Greyblades shows that British exceptionalism has not died yet.

Some British like to spin the independence of its territories as a humanitarian kindness, granted after sharing the burdens of two world wars.
The British administrative state was 1. too weak and 2. too ineffective to really govern those states. Hence why they were able to 1. break away in the first place and 2. wanted to break away.

Up until 1939 the British empire was fully capable of rule. We had only spent 50 years in Africa outside of the cape and the ivory coast and were only in the early stages of building up the infrastructure of the middle African colonies. British traditions and values had only begun to be instilled in the locals.

India had been directly British for around 100 years, 200 if you count the east india company. It was in the later stages of industrial development and had a British educated middle and upper classes, ghandi himself studied law in London, but the lower classes were still largely distinct from the British.

When the second world war came around the British state was essentially bled dry of men and materials and made indebted to america for the foreseeable future. At the end it was inevitable that British rule could not continue in India. As the Indians and Pakistanis were considered, if not ready for self governance under pre-war conditions, close enough that it would not be a complete regression, Britain let them go without real resistance and for around 30 years until Pakistan's descent into Islamism they were both proven successful.

The african colonies on the other hand were most certainly not ready, still tribal in places with little in the way of a self sustainable middle class so they were retained for as long as it was able. Both sides in the cold war were actively pressuring the colonial nations to release their subjects so it became impossible to maintain rule. So one by one they were released and one by one they collapsed into corruption, anarchy and dictatorships.

The only subsequent African success, that I am aware of, was from South Africa and Rhodesia which were short lived and run by the ex colonists, when both surrendered rule to the hands of the natives they declined. Rhodesia went quickly, south Africa was held back from the brink for a time by the influence of the thoroughly westernized Mandela, but as he died and Zuma took over Rhodesia's fall has started to repeat itself.

As for the middle east, we were in Israel for 25 years, Iraq for ten years, barely 5 for Persia, a 70 year protectorate of Egypt and we left without making much of an impact, Israel was dumped in the lap of the Jews and the rest largely reverted straight back to the semi medieval states they had been before.

The trend is clear as day; the longer the British stayed, the more they invested in the colony and most importantly the more the locals emulated their colonial overlords the better off the immediate successors have become.

By dismissing this and those that acknowledge it as exceptionalism ACIN exhibits the western political left's zeitgeist; a continuous denigration and redefining of western history and a loathing of it's culture once encouraged in the cold war by the soviets and currently maintained by champagne socialists.

History isn't black and white. The man who says the empire was irredeemable is as wrongheaded as the man who says the empire was beyond reproach.

Whoever taught you, husar, showtime and samaritan about our empire has spun this far farther than I have.


His knowledge of British colonial rule starts and ends with Hong Kong.

Somalia, Egypt, Ghana, Uganda, Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Tanzania, Jamaica, Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, India, Guyana...

His knowledge is rather limited in general, so don't be too surprised when he drops a line like that.


Out of that list, Somalia was half Italian (which the former British bit wants independence from), Cameroon half French (as CamFranglais is the language of choice), Indonesia used to be called the Dutch East Indies, so the British rule there lasted as long as the British rule in Vietnam (aka French Indochina).

Yeah, I thought it was longer in parts of Indonesia, but it was just a few years. Not a valid example, I agree. I stand by all the others, though.

I'm sure I could find even more if I look it up, this was just off the top of my head. And those are countries which were partly or in full under British colonial rule. If we move into "under British influence", we could add some really messed up countries, like Afghanistan.


Afghanistan wasn't that much under British influence after one of our expeditions got annihilated there. It was more a case of denying Russian influence. On Indonesis: we excelled ourselves in SE Asia as we imposed order using Japanese troops, handing over to the other Europeans once they'd arrived to take over. With the US promising freedom and democracy, we managed to piss off yet another lot of locals whom we'd not previously had any business with, using troops whom we'd demonised as inhuman oppressors. The only additional thing we could have done to piss people off would have been to co-opt Unit 731, but the Americans got there first on that count.

Samaritan do you ever tire of accusing people of ignorance on subjects you yourself know nothing about?


Roman successors - do you mean contemporarily, or the modern world? The former, the Eastern Empire is the obvious successor, along with the various Gothic and Frankish fiefdoms. Certainly important in European history, but not appropriate to discuss in our terms of "successful state". The latter, we could just as well call Egypt, Turkey, Russia and the UK Roman successors if we're going by even the most distant cultural relationship.
HRE and ERE, those states which was able to reach major historical significance and physical dominance over large portions of humanity by emulating Roman culture, lawmaking and building off their foundations. As of now Britain only has one successor that can rival them in significance, perhaps two if India continues to rise but not quite yet.

Heck it can be argued that america is technically a successor state of both British and Roman empires.

[Gilrandir]

Up until 1939 the British empire was fully capable of rule.

Including Ireland?



Samaritan do you ever tire of accusing people of ignorance on subjects you yourself know nothing about?


He can at least spell names correctly.

[Greyblades]

Including Ireland?
We're still there arent we?

We had the capability, we could have put Ireland under an iron boot with ease, but by then we had become sympathetic, we didn't have the will to revive Cromwell.


He can at least spell names correctly.

Well that's something I guess.

[Pannonian]

Two mutually exclusive definitions of a successor state.


Could you explain why they're mutually exclusive?

[Fragony]

Could you explain why they're mutually exclusive?

In general, they are really cruel

[Montmorency]

The trend is clear as day; the longer the British stayed, the more they invested in the colony and most importantly the more the locals emulated their colonial overlords the better off the immediate successors have become.


Could it be that the contemporary successes (as well as failures) of longest-held colonies has less to do with wise British dominion and more to do with pre-existing and continuous local characteristics and conditions, including those which brought the Empire to seek to gain them, and to manage to hold them for such a long time? And why is South Africa not a Dutch/Boer story more than a British one?




HRE and ERE, those states which was able to reach major historical significance and physical dominance over large portions of humanity by emulating Roman culture, lawmaking and building off their foundations. As of now Britain only has one successor that can rival them in significance, perhaps two if India continues to rise but not quite yet.

Heck it can be argued that america is technically a successor state of both British and Roman empires.

Why was HRE a successor, but not the Carolingian kingdom? They both claimed Roman heritage and continuity - as did many others in Medieval Europe. What is the special thing?

[Crandar]

As for the middle east, we were in Israel for 25 years, Iraq for ten years, barely 5 for Persia, a 70 year protectorate of Egypt and we left without making much of an impact, Israel was dumped in the lap of the Jews and the rest largely reverted straight back to the semi medieval states they had been before.
That's UKIP levels revisionism. In Persia, Britain is directly responsible for turning the country back into the medieval era. It sucked the wealth of the nation (tobacco), forced it to give Herat to Afghanistan and more importantly established tribal fiefdoms in Fars and Khuzestan, autonomous from Tehran, ruled by backward nomands and letting the British milk the oil for nothing.

[Pannonian]

Could it be that the contemporary successes (as well as failures) of longest-held colonies has less to do with wise British dominion and more to do with pre-existing and continuous local characteristics and conditions, including those which brought the Empire to seek to gain them, and to manage to hold them for such a long time? And why is South Africa not a Dutch/Boer story more than a British one?


Parliamentary democracy is generally held to be preferable to presidential democracy as a governmental form for new democracies, as presidential democracy tends towards dictatorship. I was just reading up on one of Sarmatian's examples of basket cases that Britain left behind, Jamaica, and their political wranglings, with their own localised issues, is pretty similar to the UK's. I recommend reading up on Michael Manley for anyone wanting to learn about post-colonial West Indian politics. And I recommend reading Michael Manley for anyone wanting to learn about West Indian cricket.

[Dâriûsh]

…the rest largely reverted straight back to the semi medieval states they had been before.

That is an obnoxious statement given the British involvement in crushing the constitutional revolution and later usurping Mosaddegh.

I know plenty of Iranians who frown at the “death to America”™ and “death to Israel”™ crap the regimes likes to make people shout, but a lot of people genuinely still dislike Britain for its past actions in Iran.

[Fragony]

Still the fattest in the universe and surroundings,.

[Sarmatian]

Samaritan do you ever tire of accusing people of ignorance on subjects you yourself know nothing about?


I'm not accusing anyone. I'm just warning people in advance not to take you seriously. Otherwise they would have to spend some time discussing stuff with you before they reach the same conclusion. Tiresome, but saves time in the long run.

[Greyblades]

How could anyone take your warning seriously when you yourself are demonstratably ignorant and frequently wrong about the matters you say I am wrong about?


That is an obnoxious statement given the British involvement in crushing the constitutional revolution and later usurping Mosaddegh.

I know plenty of Iranians who frown at the “death to America”™ and “death to Israel”™ crap the regimes likes to make people shout, but a lot of people genuinely still dislike Britain for its past actions in Iran. I stand by my statement, you exited british occupation to the same as you entered: with a Shah and his government.

[Sarmatian]

How could anyone take your warning seriously when you yourself are demonstratably ignorant and frequently wrong about the matters you say I am wrong about?


Because you do most of the work yourself and people here tend to take me more seriously. You're arrogant, self-righteous and ignorant. I'm just arrogant and self-righteous.

[Fragony]

I'm not accusing anyone. I'm just warning people in advance not to take you seriously. Otherwise they would have to spend some time discussing stuff with you before they reach the same conclusion. Tiresome, but saves time in the long run.


Nowtht is what they call passive'agression. Greyblads did nothing wrong

[a completely inoffensive name]

When the second world war came around the British state was essentially bled dry of men and materials and made indebted to america for the foreseeable future. At the end it was inevitable that British rule could not continue in India. As the Indians and Pakistanis were considered, if not ready for self governance under pre-war conditions, close enough that it would not be a complete regression, Britain let them go without real resistance and for around 30 years until Pakistan's descent into Islamism they were both proven successful.

The african colonies on the other hand were most certainly not ready, still tribal in places with little in the way of a self sustainable middle class so they were retained for as long as it was able. Both sides in the cold war were actively pressuring the colonial nations to release their subjects so it became impossible to maintain rule. So one by one they were released and one by one they collapsed into corruption, anarchy and dictatorships.

So in other words, the British administrative state was too ineffective to convince the colonies of the positive change they brought. And the state was too weak to resist external pressures demanding they give up the territories.

That's a whole lotta words to type just to spin what I already said into some romantasized fantasy of what could have been, with a dash of rhodian supremacy mixed in.

[Greyblades]

Because you do most of the work yourself and people here tend to take me more seriously. You're arrogant, self-righteous and ignorant. I'm just arrogant and self-righteous.

If you aren't ignorant. why don't you ever make the attempt to actually prove me wrong instead of making unsupported proclamations towards my supposed lack knowledge?

Try debating me for once instead of hiding behind your group's consensus.


So in other words, the British administrative state was too ineffective to convince the colonies of the positive change they brought. And the state was too weak to resist external pressures demanding they give up the territories.

That's a whole lotta words to type just to spin what I already said into some romantasized fantasy of what could have been, with a dash of rhodian supremacy mixed in.The British administrative state was only ineffective due to being reduced by war and hindered by outside powers. I contend that a British empire not reduced by war and not pressured by the cold war would have produced stronger states.

I produce verifiable examples and trends in an attempt to engage in debate and all I get in response is unsubstantiated accusations of spin and supremacy.

Stop screaming "wrong-think" like an unsupervised lobotomite and put some fucking effort into your arguments.

[Husar]

The British administrative state was only ineffective due to being reduced by war and hindered by outside powers. I contend that a British empire not reduced by war and not pressured by the cold war would have produced stronger states.

Oh cry me a river. The development of the African countries was also only ineffective due to being reduced by war (you know, people in red coats coming to make war) and hindered by outside powers (you know, foreign people in red coats trying to force their culture upon them).

You didn't ever consider that these wars and outside influences might be a natural consequence of Britain's imperial ambitions and the failure to deal with them a purely British problem? You just seem to assume that British world hegemony is somehow God's gift to the greatest country on earth and all the other powers not liking it are obviously inspired by the devil and trying to keep the world a worse place than godly Britain could have made it. *insert facepalm smiley here*

[Pannonian]

Oh cry me a river. The development of the African countries was also only ineffective due to being reduced by war (you know, people in red coats coming to make war) and hindered by outside powers (you know, foreign people in red coats trying to force their culture upon them).

You didn't ever consider that these wars and outside influences might be a natural consequence of Britain's imperial ambitions and the failure to deal with them a purely British problem? You just seem to assume that British world hegemony is somehow God's gift to the greatest country on earth and all the other powers not liking it are obviously inspired by the devil and trying to keep the world a worse place than godly Britain could have made it. *insert facepalm smiley here*

Wars have been going on around the world before Britain entered the scene, and after Britain left the scene. Eg. in southern Africa, the Zulus would have achieved a regional hegemony had they not encountered the Europeans (more specifically, the British). Compare with the Comanches in Texas, who'd carved out a sizeable hegemony until the US imposed itself. It's not just Europeans who had imperial ambitions. They were just better at it, beating their non-European imperial competitors. The British Commonwealth is basically a collection of regional hegemons using common Anglo-descent administrative and cultural links to foster regional alliances. So you have South Africa lording it over southern Africa, Nigeria doing the same in western Africa, etc.

[Gilrandir]

Could you explain why they're mutually exclusive?

In one you speak of language as a key factor to trace succession by, in another it is the cultural and spiritual issues. Judging by the first Moldova is the successor of the Roman empire, judging by the second it is not (rather a USSR successor).

[Pannonian]

In one you speak of language as a key factor to trace succession by, in another it is the cultural and spiritual issues. Judging by the first Moldova is the successor of the Roman empire, judging by the second it is not (rather a USSR successor).

In their immediate passing, language was a key factor in determining succession, as it's the language the old imperial bureaucracy used. In many cases, even the old structures of government themselves persist (senates from the Roman empire, parliaments from the old British empire).

As for cultural and spiritual: I'm talking about how the successors keep up the spirit of the old empire, long after the empire's passing. The goths allowed some of the trappings even of the old republic to remain after they'd taken over, and the old Roman way of life persisted for a while where the locals could. Even if we discount wholesale examinations of culture, you can still see archaic English in use in America and India, not used in England itself since the 18th century and Edwardian times respectively.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The British administrative state was only ineffective due to being reduced by war and hindered by outside powers. I contend that a British empire not reduced by war and not pressured by the cold war would have produced stronger states.

I produce verifiable examples and trends in an attempt to engage in debate and all I get in response is unsubstantiated accusations of spin and supremacy.

Stop screaming "wrong-think" like an unsupervised lobotomite and put some fucking effort into your arguments.

So a state that doesn't go to war would have more resources to improve internal processes? Blowing my mind here.

But seriously, what are you even arguing here. My point was that the British state lacked the necessary structure and power and thus could not hold onto its territories if it wanted to.
Your argument is that this is true, but only because war had depleted the state.

We are actually in complete agreement here and I stated so in my last post. The only reason you continue to reply is because I throw in a quip or two about British exceptionalism and now you feel compelled to make responses against phantom interlocutors.

Why am I not engaging you in an honest debate? because there was no debate to begin with, we agree on the broad strokes I just outlined. But because you are thickheaded and eager to rush into what you perceive is a leftist attack on your national pride, you blindly start spewing garbage on the internet. Talk about wrong-think, you can't even digest the content of an internet post if it means reconciling your views with a "champagne socialist" .

Ignore that last sentence, wrote this in a bad mood.

[Sarmatian]

If you aren't ignorant. why don't you ever make the attempt to actually prove me wrong instead of making unsupported proclamations towards my supposed lack knowledge?

Try debating me for once instead of hiding behind your group's consensus.


I did try debating you in the past, it was pointless. You ignore all rational arguments and cling to your preconceived notion of the world. Sometimes (rarely) you present some anecdotal evidence. You either unable or unwilling to consider factors that disprove your badly thought out hypotheses, that are often influenced by your parochialism.

Case in point - you've produced a single example of well run colony, and when you were presented with 10-15 examples that contradicted your hypothesis, you tried to weasel your way out of it.

On top of all that, you're irritating and have a bad personality. You're barely better than a troll. You try to hide your ignorance behind strong words and strong opinions, going for flash instead of substance, but even that doesn't work as you don't have enough charisma to pull off flash.

Look at ACIN. He was a little troll when he came but he grew, both personally and intellectually, over the years. He now makes insightful comments that are on topic. You, on the other hand, appear to have regressed, because instead of admitting to yourself that you actually have to make an effort and broaden your knowledge to contribute, you withdrew back to your little bubble.

Hopefully that answers your question.

[Husar]

Wars have been going on around the world before Britain entered the scene, and after Britain left the scene. Eg. in southern Africa, the Zulus would have achieved a regional hegemony had they not encountered the Europeans (more specifically, the British). Compare with the Comanches in Texas, who'd carved out a sizeable hegemony until the US imposed itself. It's not just Europeans who had imperial ambitions. They were just better at it, beating their non-European imperial competitors. The British Commonwealth is basically a collection of regional hegemons using common Anglo-descent administrative and cultural links to foster regional alliances. So you have South Africa lording it over southern Africa, Nigeria doing the same in western Africa, etc.

Well, then perhaps he should stop whining about how others ruined Britain's glorious plans. These others were behaving just like Britain after all and if they made Britain fail, then Britain just wasn't good enough.

[Pannonian]

Well, then perhaps he should stop whining about how others ruined Britain's glorious plans. These others were behaving just like Britain after all and if they made Britain fail, then Britain just wasn't good enough.

I'm not going to disagree with you on that. Britain's empire was done, and anything else I might say is just banter.

[Gilrandir]

Look at ACIN. He was a little troll when he came but he grew
The sentence is of a dubious value if it was meant to be a compliment.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Look at ACIN. He was a little troll when he came but he grew, both personally and intellectually, over the years. He now makes insightful comments that are on topic.

I try to read a book a year, yeah.

[Strike For The South]

South Africa and the former Rhodesia were only "successful" if they were judged by their very small white minority populations. Even then, it took massive subsidies from the apartheid era government to keep up the veneer of prosperity.

[Pannonian]

South Africa and the former Rhodesia were only "successful" if they were judged by their very small white minority populations. Even then, it took massive subsidies from the apartheid era government to keep up the veneer of prosperity.

South Africa, both past and present, are successful in their imperial ambitions, insofar as they dominate their region. Any proposed interventions in their region has to have their say so. If they don't give it, it doesn't happen. And if they decide to intervene, they do it. Global powers apart, that's as imperial as one gets in this day and age; their own mini-Monroe doctrine. If you're a Great Power like China, you can even play this role in the face of the US, eg. North Korea. Smaller global powers like Britain and France can play this role among their smaller former colonies, if the regional hegemons don't raise too much fuss.

[Strike For The South]

South Africa dominated the region during the cold war because of the United States good graces. Most of the material wealth in the country has already been staked out by Westerners anyway. In that sense, their region is unimportant, if China or the US wanted a bigger role, South Africa could do nothing to stop them. They are not a successful country.

[a completely inoffensive name]

South Africa dominated the region during the cold war because of the United States good graces. Most of the material wealth in the country has already been staked out by Westerners anyway. In that sense, their region is unimportant, if China or the US wanted a bigger role, South Africa could do nothing to stop them. They are not a successful country.

For about a decade, South Africa did have a small nuclear arsenal and could have leveraged that. Sending 6-12 nukes in the air could provoke both sides into launching their arsenals, MAD logic would apply here.

[AE Bravo]

If there was any doubt this was a premeditated campaign, it's gone now.

http://www.wsj.com/video/saudi-arabia-crown-prince-three-things-to-know/68AE14BD-2A88-4951-9888-3E0D37A88BBC.html?mod=e2tw

Now that the main regional elite opposition (Qatar) has been ostracized, the Saudi line of succession is secured and no more dinosaur kings. Qatar will have no choice but to pay their fair share to the Trump administration and if they don't submit to the list of demands, there will be a forced bloodless regime change. The Americans at Al Udeid are the only thing preventing this from happening tomorrow.

If the Americans take a firm stance with the Saudis and Turkey starts to favor their relationship with the Saudis over Qatar, it will be over for the legitimacy of the Qatari royal family.

[Greyblades]

Oh cry me a river. The development of the African countries was also only ineffective due to being reduced by war (you know, people in red coats coming to make war) and hindered by outside powers (you know, foreign people in red coats trying to force their culture upon them).

You didn't ever consider that these wars and outside influences might be a natural consequence of Britain's imperial ambitions and the failure to deal with them a purely British problem? You just seem to assume that British world hegemony is somehow God's gift to the greatest country on earth and all the other powers not liking it are obviously inspired by the devil and trying to keep the world a worse place than godly Britain could have made it. *insert facepalm smiley here*

You seem to assume they would have developed anywhere close to our level by now without our influence, or at all.

This is delusional; constant progression is not the automatic "natural" state of humanity, we spent 186,000 years before we started farming, from there it took 14,000 for us to reach where we are now and we only really spent 600-800 of those with any degree of constant advancement. To say the Africans would have developed on their own is to believe in some form of human predeterminism' that humanity cannot help but advance, the very idea is ridiculous when you consider the periods of Japanese and Chinese isolation.

Europe became what it did through what could be explained as anything from a fluke of circumstance and geography to some sort of genuine superiority, whatever floats your boat but the point remains it only developed in Europe, nowhere else. Without European influence Africa would still be what has been for 10000 years; kingdoms and tribes selling their people as slaves to foreigners for weapons to use to capture more slaves.

At best maybe they'd one day go through the same millennia long process of bloodshed and toil that produced Europe as it is today, but more likely they would continue wallowing in medieval stagnancy forever. The only way the continent would have been properly modernized in any reasonable time frame was through the process of colonialism.

The British Empire alongside the French, German and Portuguese, whether through intent or by accident were the only source of progression in the continent and their influence would have eventually produced states of the caliber of India, maybe even the dominions. Cut short as it was we instead got half baked nations with insufficient education and cultural appreciation of democracy to prevent usurpation. Most of the eventual democracies have had to undergo their own periods of conflict and oppression to learn themselves what could have been taught, saving so much blood and tears.


So a state that doesn't go to war would have more resources to improve internal processes? Blowing my mind here.

But seriously, what are you even arguing here. My point was that the British state lacked the necessary structure and power and thus could not hold onto its territories if it wanted to.
Your argument is that this is true, but only because war had depleted the state. What are you arguing?

My argument was that the British empire produced the best colonial states, in response you called it exceptionalism, tried to associate my position with revisionism and said the "British administrative state was 1. too weak and 2. too ineffective to really govern those states."

In the context of the antagonism before it, I interpret it as an allegation that the British empire's failures was solely down to incompetence, so I respond that it was not incompetence but circumstance; that were it not for the downgrade in capacity and urgent need to cut weight the African colonies would have had a chance to become fully developed before independence, that they could have stood alongside the dominions as successful colonial projects instead of being pushed out the gate half finished.



Why am I not engaging you in an honest debate? because there was no debate to begin with, we agree on the broad strokes I just outlined. But because you are thickheaded and eager to rush into what you perceive is a leftist attack on your national pride, you blindly start spewing garbage on the internet. Talk about wrong-think, you can't even digest the content of an internet post if it means reconciling your views with a "champagne socialist" .

Ignore that last sentence, wrote this in a bad mood. My arguments were was working under the premise that the native Africans were fully capable of meeting modern standards of self governance if only they had been under a sustained British administration for long enough to develop democratic traditions. I have never in any way implied that race that a factor in their capability to adopt the infinitely more advanced British culture yet you called my arguments Rhodian supremacy.

Cecil Rhodes was an Anglo Saxon race supremacist, you accuse me of blindly spewing garbage but you outright called me a goddamn Nazi!

And why did I receive the standard go to accusation of the oddly comfortable champions of the proletariat? As far as I can tell, from yours, Husar's and Samaritan's lack of anything resembling actual effort to disprove my assessment it's for not following to the long standing left wing contention that colonialism was an irredeemable mistake.


I did try debating you in the past, it was pointless. You ignore all rational arguments and cling to your preconceived notion of the world. Sometimes (rarely) you present some anecdotal evidence. You either unable or unwilling to consider factors that disprove your badly thought out hypotheses, that are often influenced by your parochialism.

On top of all that, you're irritating and have a bad personality. You're barely better than a troll. You try to hide your ignorance behind strong words and strong opinions, going for flash instead of substance, but even that doesn't work as you don't have enough charisma to pull off flash. Strange, that is almost exactly what I think of you.

You are a man who exhibits a frequent lack of comprehension. You leave point after point unaddressed, constantly retreating from meeting challenges and instead insinuate base motivations by your opponent which has not been exhibited or even alluded to. You lecture on subjects you are clearly lacking expertise in and attempt to hide your bare bones grasp, at times even outright ignorance, behind condescension and antagonism.

Case in point, in response to the statement that Britain produced the best successor states you decide to insinuate my knowledge of the empire is limited to Hong Kong, despite the myriad times I have learned about and exhibited prior knowledge when discussing the various parts of the empire on this very forum; my knowledge of colonial Ireland, India, South Africa and Gibraltar, to name a few, have been enhanced by this very board.

You follow by presenting a list of colonies, presumably to exhibit the failed states produced by colonial rule. This would be largely irrelevant as the failures do not discount the near unparalleled success of America and the dominions, but your ignorance of the empire's history has resulted in you presenting pre-independance success stories as failures.

Nigeria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Nigeria)was the model colony; prosperous, educated middle class, developing political identity. Uganda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Protectorate)was also prosperous under the British, to the point of being relatively unaffected by the great depression. Ghana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast_(British_colony)), the gold coast colony, was highly profitable, it was built up by the British significantly and it was in all respects a successful colony, lasting 10 years before being taken over in a coup. These nations were entirely successful under British rule and had they remained under it for a few more decades they might have reached the levels of the dominions.

You even presented fairly successful independents as failures; Guyana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Guyana)left as a republic that never actually fell and continues to this day, India is the same and is now the worlds biggest democracy set to rival china as the next great power Jamaca (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_of_Jamaica) left the empire prosperous and while it only stayed economically successful up until the mid 80s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica#Independence_.281962.29) it's still standing.

That you lump them in together with the abject failures of Kenya and Burma let alone the mistake of Pakistan shows a lack of awareness so blatant it seems almost like it's intentional, yet you have the gall to call my knowledge limited?


Look at ACIN. He was a little troll when he came but he grew, both personally and intellectually, over the years. He now makes insightful comments that are on topic. You, on the other hand, appear to have regressed, because instead of admitting to yourself that you actually have to make an effort and broaden your knowledge to contribute, you withdrew back to your little bubble.
I've long stopped considering you as a reliable judge of other orgahs; when I look at ACIN and several others on this forum I notice that they have made a significant downgrade in insight since last year.

People I once considered moderate now jump on every chance to attack their political opposites, ones I considered wise now spend their time shouting propaganda into the void.

I try not to instigate but I am hardly innocent of joining in.


South Africa and the former Rhodesia were only "successful" if they were judged by their very small white minority populations. Even then, it took massive subsidies from the apartheid era government to keep up the veneer of prosperity.

Rhodesia failed, and what came after turned bread basket to famine.

[Husar]

You seem to assume they would have developed anywhere close to our level by now without our influence, or at all.

This is delusional; constant progression is not the automatic "natural" state of humanity, we spent 186,000 years before we started farming, from there it took 14,000 for us to reach where we are now and we only really spent 600-800 of those with any degree of constant advancement. To say the Africans would have developed on their own is to believe in some form of human predeterminism' that humanity cannot help but advance, the very idea is ridiculous when you consider the periods of Japanese and Chinese isolation.

Europe became what it did through what could be explained as anything from a fluke of circumstance and geography to some sort of genuine superiority, whatever floats your boat but the point remains it only developed in Europe, nowhere else. Without European influence Africa would still be what has been for 10000 years; kingdoms and tribes selling their people as slaves to foreigners for weapons to use to capture more slaves.

At best maybe they'd one day go through the same millennia long process of bloodshed and toil that produced Europe as it is today, but more likely they would continue wallowing in medieval stagnancy forever. The only way the continent would have been properly modernized in any reasonable time frame was through the process of colonialism.

The British Empire alongside the French, German and Portuguese, whether through intent or by accident were the only source of progression in the continent and their influence would have eventually produced states of the caliber of India, maybe even the dominions. Cut short as it was we instead got half baked nations with insufficient education and cultural appreciation of democracy to prevent usurpation. Most of the eventual democracies have had to undergo their own periods of conflict and oppression to learn themselves what could have been taught, saving so much blood and tears.

That's a whole lot you pulled out of your arse there and still managed to miss the point.
You're applying a double standard when you say Britain would have been glorious without the foreign invaders holding it down and at the same time claiming that other nations would have been stagnant without it. In fact you say yourself that European nations may have developed in the first place due to the constant mutual interference. In that case no outside influence was holding Britain back, it was instead developing Britain further. Unless of course you want to claim that British exceptionalism led the nation to greatness all on its own. In which case the same could just as well be true for Africans.

The rest of the argument is complete shite because technological progress does not have to be imposed by colonizing, it can also be shared by trade, like it was done in Japan and even Africa before the colonization. The problems African states seem to have now to use that effectively are a lack of stability and rigid political traditions since their former colonial overlords completely disturbed their development in that regard. That they had somehow planned to give them new stability and failed is not an excuse. If someone slips on the banana peel you dropped, you won't get away with claiming that you planned to pick it up after thinking about how to do it for two weeks.

[Pannonian]

That's a whole lot you pulled out of your arse there and still managed to miss the point.
You're applying a double standard when you say Britain would have been glorious without the foreign invaders holding it down and at the same time claiming that other nations would have been stagnant without it. In fact you say yourself that European nations may have developed in the first place due to the constant mutual interference. In that case no outside influence was holding Britain back, it was instead developing Britain further. Unless of course you want to claim that British exceptionalism led the nation to greatness all on its own. In which case the same could just as well be true for Africans.

The rest of the argument is complete shite because technological progress does not have to be imposed by colonizing, it can also be shared by trade, like it was done in Japan and even Africa before the colonization. The problems African states seem to have now to use that effectively are a lack of stability and rigid political traditions since their former colonial overlords completely disturbed their development in that regard. That they had somehow planned to give them new stability and failed is not an excuse. If someone slips on the banana peel you dropped, you won't get away with claiming that you planned to pick it up after thinking about how to do it for two weeks.

There is little indication that Africa would have significantly developed without European intervention, and most evidence points against this. Most of what we now recognise as the modern world developed among the Eurasian axis (see Jared Diamond), with other cultures developing a regional hegemony at best. And let's not forget that even these regional hegemonies, when trading with globalised European powers, weren't exactly ethically pleasant by present day standards (the slave trade, anyone?).

There's no point in pointing fingers at Britain and saying that it's all Britain's fault. Britain did little different from what any of her contemporaries did within their ability, and in retrospective has left behind a better legacy than her contemporaries managed. Certainly not perfect by any means. But good enough that the world can afford to perch on their ivory towers to preach about what Britain has done wrong. Just about the only reason why other countries haven't done as much wrong as Britain is because they weren't in a position to do so. Other countries, trying to catch up on the business of empire building, did try emulate Britain. Nearly all of them are hated far more than Britain is (check out the generation of Indians who were young adults in the 1940s).

[Gilrandir]

Europe became what it did through what could be explained as anything from a fluke of circumstance and geography to some sort of genuine superiority, whatever floats your boat but the point remains it only developed in Europe, nowhere else. Without European influence Africa would still be what has been for 10000 years; kingdoms and tribes selling their people as slaves to foreigners for weapons to use to capture more slaves.



There is little indication that Africa would have significantly developed without European intervention, and most evidence points against this. Most of what we now recognise as the modern world developed among the Eurasian axis (see Jared Diamond), with other cultures developing a regional hegemony at best.


I heard a theory that civilization moves on faster in lands of moderate climate. People in the places where it is too hot don't have to try hard to get provisions, so they don't have to move faster. People in the places where it is too cold just can't overcome the severe nature and devote all their time on the struggle to survive.

[Pannonian]

I heard a theory that civilization moves on faster in lands of moderate climate. People in the places where it is too hot don't have to try hard to get provisions, so they don't have to move faster. People in the places where it is too cold just can't overcome the severe nature and devote all their time on the struggle to survive.

Diamond's theory is that the east-west Eurasian axis allowed packages of crops and animals to move swiftly along a generally similar climate, whereas the north-south American axis allowed only so much movement before climate changed drastically. Similarly for the north-south African continent. European colonisation of the other continents allowed the Eurasian technological advantages to colonise these previously isolated areas. So any of the Chinese, Arabs or Europeans could have used these advantages to colonise the world. In the end, for one reason or another, it was the Europeans (although the other two also had a go).

[Sir Moody]

I heard a theory that civilization moves on faster in lands of moderate climate. People in the places where it is too hot don't have to try hard to get provisions, so they don't have to move faster. People in the places where it is too cold just can't overcome the severe nature and devote all their time on the struggle to survive.

Your kind of on the right track - its an abundance of resources and "free" time which propagates development of civilisation - in cultures which struggle to "break even" in food production you see less development. This is the primary reason Southern Africa was mostly undeveloped when European interference began - due to the temperature the native crops yielded very little food and thus the tribes spent most of their time and energy farming.

The Zulus are a good example of how this plays out - prior to the arrival of the Dutch the Zulu and other tribes were not overly warlike - while there was conflict it was mostly bloodless as they couldn't afford the loss of farmers and so they developed tactics mostly involving skirmishing.

Then the Dutch arrived and brought with them European crops - they sold these crops to the local tribes in exchange for lands. The Local tribes began farming these crops which flourished producing an abundance of food which lead to a population boom and thus a reduction in the amount of labour required to keep the tribe fed.

With this newly acquired free time the Zulus pioneered a new set of tactics which emphasised close quarters fighting rather than skirmishing - they used these new tactics to brutally conquer the other local tribes and form their own Kingdom - without the abundance of manpower, which was a result of the abundance of food, the Zulu Kingdom would probably have never arose.

going back to your original statement, cultures which arose in moderate climates had far easier times producing food which leads to more free time to do other things - including developing a civilisation.

[Sarmatian]

The only mistake made was forcing us to end it early. We could have a world of hong kongs instead of a pile of zimbabwes.


Ok, I'll play ball. This was your original statement. Do you seriously want to have a discussion based on this or do you want to revise it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If there was any doubt this was a premeditated campaign, it's gone now.

http://www.wsj.com/video/saudi-arabia-crown-prince-three-things-to-know/68AE14BD-2A88-4951-9888-3E0D37A88BBC.html?mod=e2tw

Now that the main regional elite opposition (Qatar) has been ostracized, the Saudi line of succession is secured and no more dinosaur kings. Qatar will have no choice but to pay their fair share to the Trump administration and if they don't submit to the list of demands, there will be a forced bloodless regime change. The Americans at Al Udeid are the only thing preventing this from happening tomorrow.

If the Americans take a firm stance with the Saudis and Turkey starts to favor their relationship with the Saudis over Qatar, it will be over for the legitimacy of the Qatari royal family.

I can't see either America or Britain signing off on a toppling of the Qatari Royals. Both Great Powers have interests in the region outside of Audi Arabia and Britain has significant political interest in Bahrain. Whilst no Western Power like Qatar supporting Islamists I don't think there's a serious belief in the Foreign Office or the State Department that Qatar supports terrorists more than Saudi Arabia does. Add to this the fact that the current Emir is entirely British educated and I suspect the Anglophone powers at least prefer him as a partner to the Saudis themselves.

Regime change might also give Islamists another opportunity to gain a foothold in another oil-rich country. Britain has, for over a century, favoured theocratically sanctioned monarchies and incremental reform over regime change and Republicanism for this reason.

Installation of a Saudi client in Qatar might also signal Bahrain would be next and that really isn't going to fly with the US, UK or NATO bearing in mind CENTCOM is based in Bahrain as well as significant Royal Navy facilities which support operations East of Suez.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, I'll play ball. This was your original statement. Do you seriously want to have a discussion based on this or do you want to revise it?

Last Christmas I discussed exactly this issue with a very attractive Columbian Academic.

I observed that, whilst we should not now endorse the doctrine of "White Man's Burden" which spurred on British Colonialism we should remember that the Foreign Office had long term plans for our Colonies to ultimately become independent and self-governing. For example, the 1919 Act for the Government of India was aimed at ultimately providing for an Independent Government a la Canada or Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act,_1919

Irrc it was assumed this would take about 40 years to set up in India - so Independence around 1960, or roughly a generation earlier later than happened historically.

This pattern of "early withdrawal" was repeated throughout our former Colonies as agitation and rebellion continued after WWII. It can reasonably argued that without WWII the transition from Empire to Commonwealth would have been managed more gradually and everyone, including Britain, would now be better off.

HOWEVER, and this is the essential point, a people have a right to self-determination and there are practical reasons why we were "thrown out early", not least of which was ill-use during WWII where the Colonies were either bled or neglected in order to defeat Hitler in Europe. So, on a purely practical level Greyblades may be correct that early withdrawal had a negative impact on many former colonies, but early withdrawal should not be something the locals should be blamed for. Rather, we should look at the circumstances which turned historically passive local populations actively hostile to Colonial Administration.

[Pannonian]

I can't see either America or Britain signing off on a toppling of the Qatari Royals. Both Great Powers have interests in the region outside of Audi Arabia

Bloody Germans have taken over the middle east.

[Husar]

There is little indication that Africa would have significantly developed without European intervention, and most evidence points against this.

That still doesn't make it the white man's burden to go there and develop it. And when I blame colonialism, it's not just Britain, Britain was just one of the pioneers and the largest offender. The German decision to get colonies was purely driven by greedy corporatist needs and monarchic arrogance wanting to accumulate greatness as the British role model that they wanted to catch up to.

If what Sir Moody says is even half true, trade with Europeans could have started their development just as well, but perhaps without having the Europeans to blame for all the atrocities as long as the trade would have been mostly kept to civilian things and not enormous arms deals...

I'm nowhere saying Africa would have been a wonderland, I'm saying because we didn't leave it alone, we may now be partially to blame for its current status. It might be even worse now without colonialism, but apart from that being pure speculation, at least we'd then not be to blame for it. I do admit that the line between meddling and "just trade" can be blurry sometimes, but with colonialism it seems pretty clear on which side of the line it is.

As for what could have been if WW1 hadn't happened, well, WW1 happened because of colonialism and the pursuit of power and glory. Maybe WW1 hadn't happened if Europeans hadn't put so much effort into this pursuit of glory around the world in the first place?
Or in other words, it sounds like blaming WW1 is putting the blame somewhere in the middle of a long chain of events where it happens to be convenient.

[Pannonian]

That still doesn't make it the white man's burden to go there and develop it. And when I blame colonialism, it's not just Britain, Britain was just one of the pioneers and the largest offender. The German decision to get colonies was purely driven by greedy corporatist needs and monarchic arrogance wanting to accumulate greatness as the British role model that they wanted to catch up to.

If what Sir Moody says is even half true, trade with Europeans could have started their development just as well, but perhaps without having the Europeans to blame for all the atrocities as long as the trade would have been mostly kept to civilian things and not enormous arms deals...

I'm nowhere saying Africa would have been a wonderland, I'm saying because we didn't leave it alone, we may now be partially to blame for its current status. It might be even worse now without colonialism, but apart from that being pure speculation, at least we'd then not be to blame for it. I do admit that the line between meddling and "just trade" can be blurry sometimes, but with colonialism it seems pretty clear on which side of the line it is.

As for what could have been if WW1 hadn't happened, well, WW1 happened because of colonialism and the pursuit of power and glory. Maybe WW1 hadn't happened if Europeans hadn't put so much effort into this pursuit of glory around the world in the first place?
Or in other words, it sounds like blaming WW1 is putting the blame somewhere in the middle of a long chain of events where it happens to be convenient.

Remember the slave trade happened without the Europeans getting involved in the interior. By the time Europeans (maybe not the barbaric Belgians) got stuck into the interior, the worst of the evils of imperialism was over. One rarely sees the African slave traders blamed though. It's always the Europeans.

[Sarmatian]

Concept of white man's burden and concept of holding Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans to the same standards don't really go well together.

[Pannonian]

Concept of white man's burden and concept of holding Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans to the same standards don't really go well together.

They're all the same. The people who did all that are all dead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Concept of white man's burden and concept of holding Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans to the same standards don't really go well together.

That depends a great deal on your definition of White Man's Burden.

The strongest current in British thought was that we needed to civilise the "barbarians". Britain didn't really have an Imperial ideology until after we had an Empire, probably after the end of Company Rule in India. So we basically copied the Roman ideaology.

So "Britishness" is not an innate quality but a set of values, Parliamentary Democracy, fair play, quiet living - tea and cricket. At the same time "British Rule" was analogous to "Pax Romana", it had to be beneficial to the locals and the long-term goal was to make them British.

In essence, the "White Man's Burden" here is the burden of carrying on Roman Civilisation and ensuring its return to dominance.

[Montmorency]

That depends a great deal on your definition of White Man's Burden.

The strongest current in British thought was that we needed to civilise the "barbarians". Britain didn't really have an Imperial ideology until after we had an Empire, probably after the end of Company Rule in India. So we basically copied the Roman ideaology.

So "Britishness" is not an innate quality but a set of values, Parliamentary Democracy, fair play, quiet living - tea and cricket. At the same time "British Rule" was analogous to "Pax Romana", it had to be beneficial to the locals and the long-term goal was to make them British.

In essence, the "White Man's Burden" here is the burden of carrying on Roman Civilisation and ensuring its return to dominance.

But in its colonies during this last century Britain tended to empower conservative local elites who were conservative both in the general sense and in the sense of rejecting or holding at arm's length the culture of the colonizers. These locals went a long way in suppressing the nascent intellegentsia who were educated to Western norms and might agitate for things like "parliamentary democracy" and "fair play". I would think the British had more interest in extracting the resources within those colonies than converting their inhabitants to a new way of life of enlightenment and cosmopolitan comity.

[Pannonian]

But in its colonies during this last century Britain tended to empower conservative local elites who were conservative both in the general sense and in the sense of rejecting or holding at arm's length the culture of the colonizers. These locals went a long way in suppressing the nascent intellegentsia who were educated to Western norms and might agitate for things like "parliamentary democracy" and "fair play". I would think the British had more interest in extracting the resources within those colonies than converting their inhabitants to a new way of life of enlightenment and cosmopolitan comity.

Have a look at post-colonialist cricket literature for a reading on the cultural relationships you're talking about. A History of West Indies Cricket looks at cricket within the context of colonial and post-colonial societal relations, within a politic that exists culturally and as a cricketing entity, and was written by one of the giants of West Indian politics. Cricket within the (former) British Empire has a history of reflecting the relations between the rulers and the ruled, both British and native.

[Furunculus]

without having to read the original source, would you briefly elaborate on the point you are making?

[Pannonian]

without having to read the original source, would you briefly elaborate on the point you are making?

Are you asking me or Montmorency?

[AE Bravo]

I can't see either America or Britain signing off on a toppling of the Qatari Royals. Both Great Powers have interests in the region outside of Audi Arabia and Britain has significant political interest in Bahrain. Whilst no Western Power like Qatar supporting Islamists I don't think there's a serious belief in the Foreign Office or the State Department that Qatar supports terrorists more than Saudi Arabia does. Add to this the fact that the current Emir is entirely British educated and I suspect the Anglophone powers at least prefer him as a partner to the Saudis themselves.

Regime change might also give Islamists another opportunity to gain a foothold in another oil-rich country. Britain has, for over a century, favoured theocratically sanctioned monarchies and incremental reform over regime change and Republicanism for this reason.

Installation of a Saudi client in Qatar might also signal Bahrain would be next and that really isn't going to fly with the US, UK or NATO bearing in mind CENTCOM is based in Bahrain as well as significant Royal Navy facilities which support operations East of Suez.
While approval by these countries is beginning to seem less necessary, the regional consensus will provide external powers enough incentive to side with those who are willing to normalize relations with Israel and crack down on political Islam. Bahrain is a protectorate (Saudi), so the Saudis are not interested in regime change there. I don't see how the Emir's college education factors into the decision-making process of the British authorities or any western incumbent for that matter. Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood oppose the geopolitical vision of the west and Arab allies. As for the Anglophone powers preferring Tamim as a partner, you may be right about the American deep state and Britain but again, regional consensus will ultimately be how the decision will be evaluated.

I think you may have overlooked some of the details of a potential regime change. There is a prince in exile who failed a coup in 2005, the current Emir's father Hamad had gained power through a coup decades ago as well so the legitimacy of the Qatari throne is quite fragile. In the event of a regime change, he would become the ruler of Qatar.

Despite the political imprudence of this blockade, it's more likely that countries like Britain will side with those who are trying to get rid of elements in society that demonize the west. Qatar has doubled down on this attitude when backed into a corner.

[AE Bravo]

Bloody Germans have taken over the middle east.
Have you heard of Israel?

[a completely inoffensive name]

My argument was that the British empire produced the best colonial states, in response you called it exceptionalism, tried to associate my position with revisionism and said the "British administrative state was 1. too weak and 2. too ineffective to really govern those states."

In the context of the antagonism before it, I interpret it as an allegation that the British empire's failures was solely down to incompetence

Then you saw things that were not there simply because you were baited by the banter.



My arguments were was working under the premise that the native Africans were fully capable of meeting modern standards of self governance if only they had been under a sustained British administration for long enough to develop democratic traditions. I have never in any way implied that race that a factor in their capability to adopt the infinitely more advanced British culture yet you called my arguments Rhodian supremacy.

Cecil Rhodes was an Anglo Saxon race supremacist, you accuse me of blindly spewing garbage but you outright called me a goddamn Nazi!

A. Cecil Rhodes died 30 years before the Nazi's even took over Germany. Learn more history.
B. There is a difference between calling an argument 'Rhodian' or 'facistic', etc... and calling the individual those things. Get rid of the victim complex.




I've long stopped considering you as a reliable judge of other orgahs; when I look at ACIN and several others on this forum I notice that they have made a significant downgrade in insight since last year.

People I once considered moderate now jump on every chance to attack their political opposites, ones I considered wise now spend their time shouting propaganda into the void.

And in true narcissistic fashion, instead of asking yourself why you have moved so far away from everyone else, you ask everyone else why we have moved so far away from you.

That is the real reason why I don't even pretend to give you respectful responses. I couldn't care less if you disagree with me, everyone else does.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But in its colonies during this last century Britain tended to empower conservative local elites who were conservative both in the general sense and in the sense of rejecting or holding at arm's length the culture of the colonizers. These locals went a long way in suppressing the nascent intellegentsia who were educated to Western norms and might agitate for things like "parliamentary democracy" and "fair play". I would think the British had more interest in extracting the resources within those colonies than converting their inhabitants to a new way of life of enlightenment and cosmopolitan comity.

Is that really true?

You should look up the first Black President of Rhodesia.

Certainyl, since Independence we have tended to support local conservative elites, but as I already explained the British exit aborted whatever plans we had for many of our Colonies.


While approval by these countries is beginning to seem less necessary, the regional consensus will provide external powers enough incentive to side with those who are willing to normalize relations with Israel and crack down on political Islam. Bahrain is a protectorate (Saudi), so the Saudis are not interested in regime change there. I don't see how the Emir's college education factors into the decision-making process of the British authorities or any western incumbent for that matter. Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood oppose the geopolitical vision of the west and Arab allies. As for the Anglophone powers preferring Tamim as a partner, you may be right about the American deep state and Britain but again, regional consensus will ultimately be how the decision will be evaluated.

I think you may have overlooked some of the details of a potential regime change. There is a prince in exile who failed a coup in 2005, the current Emir's father Hamad had gained power through a coup decades ago as well so the legitimacy of the Qatari throne is quite fragile. In the event of a regime change, he would become the ruler of Qatar.

Despite the political imprudence of this blockade, it's more likely that countries like Britain will side with those who are trying to get rid of elements in society that demonize the west. Qatar has doubled down on this attitude when backed into a corner.

So far as I can see the Emir has never been to what the Americans term "College". He has, however, graduated from Sandhurst and you should not under-estimate the value of that to the British Military Establishment.

[Pannonian]

Have you heard of Israel?

Do they produce good cars too?

[AE Bravo]

Touche.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, these other Gulf Countries want Qatar to close award winning and highly respected news channel Al Jazeera.

This will greatly annoy onlooking Western Powers.

[AE Bravo]

Huge difference between AJA and AJE.

You can still find some of their worst moments on Youtube like calling for the genocide of Alawites and their mufti making a case for suicide bombing, justifying such attacks that happened in Manchester. It has also been a point of conflict between the current Emir and his father so the regime may want it shut anyway. When Britain was threatened, it took measures including severe media censorship. Morally it may have to support allies doing the same.

[rory_20_uk]

So, these other Gulf Countries want Qatar to close award winning and highly respected news channel Al Jazeera.

This will greatly annoy onlooking Western Powers.

Except the American President.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

http://www.newsofbahrain.com/viewNews.php?ppId=43489&TYPE=Posts&pid=21&MNU=3&SUB=

I'm confused. Can you dig a channel? Would it be rather a canal?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

http://www.newsofbahrain.com/viewNews.php?ppId=43489&TYPE=Posts&pid=21&MNU=3&SUB=

I'm confused. Can you dig a channel? Would it be rather a canal?

I believe you are correct, canal being man-made and channel being natural. Either a bad translation effort or, because it would connect one part of the Persian Gulf with another rather than connecting to different bodies of water, someone thought channel more appropriate.

[Gilrandir]

I believe you are correct, canal being man-made and channel being natural. Either a bad translation effort or, because it would connect one part of the Persian Gulf with another rather than connecting to different bodies of water, someone thought channel more appropriate.

But the title of the article has "canal":dizzy2: Probably translation issue.

[AE Bravo]

Channel and canal share the same word in Arabic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Channel and canal share the same word in Arabic.

Translation issue as suspected.

And, as I understand it, the reason that any translation of the Q'uran is not considered fully authentic.

[AE Bravo]

I've been thinking about what the conduct of the US is (if any) in the event of a confrontation between its allies if anyone can help me out.

Recent developments in Somalia and Socotra from a certain country have shown that there is a committed effort to build up a naval power in the Arabian Penninsula. This is supposed to be a response to Iran's naval superiority. I wonder how the US would react in a hypothetical blockade of Qatar's ports, the home of US Al Udeid base? I can see a naval exercise happening at the expense of Qatar.

Edit: Interesting report right here on US strategic interests in the middle east (which actually deserves it own thread): https://www.joshualandis.com/blog/u-s-involves-itself-ever-deeper-in-middle-east-with-no-clear-strategic-interest-by-sam-farah/

[drone]

Recent developments in Somalia and Socotra from a certain country have shown that there is a committed effort to build up a naval power in the Arabian Penninsula. This is supposed to be a response to Iran's naval superiority. I wonder how the US would react in a hypothetical blockade of Qatar's ports, the home of US Al Udeid base? I can see a naval exercise happening at the expense of Qatar.

That would all depend on how much money gets funneled into Kushner/Trump business concerns.

[Gilrandir]

I wonder how the US would react in a hypothetical blockade of Qatar's ports, the home of US Al Udeid base? I can see a naval exercise happening at the expense of Qatar.


Or article 5 of NATO statute may be applied:
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/qatar-says-it-wants-to-join-nato