It looks like a string of Arab states fell foul of Qatar to the extent of cutting all relations:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...over-terrorism
Too harsh a reaction to a statement on the neccessity of dialogue with Iran?
Printable View
It looks like a string of Arab states fell foul of Qatar to the extent of cutting all relations:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...over-terrorism
Too harsh a reaction to a statement on the neccessity of dialogue with Iran?
I wonder what this will do to the World Cup?
Were my thoughts too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
Should be boycotted anyway,it's graveyard
nvm delete
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.
Regime change in Doha imminent, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by President Twitter
Would it be change or just another "c'est le meme chose" sort of event?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
And Al Jazeera is closed in Saudi Arabia (and other countries are to follow suit any time soon?)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...rrorist-groups
I wonder if it will eventually undermine Qatar's influence in the Arab world.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Tbis could just be a classic fake-news it seems
I really have to ask what you consider fake about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It hasn't appeared on his social media feed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
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 deceptionQuote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Meanwhile in Qatar people seem to be taking active steps against possible food shortages.
http://www.france24.com/en/20170605-...diplomatic-row
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
Good move by Trump. I didn't want Qatar as our vassal anyway.
Erdogan puts his spoke in:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/pre...&NewsCatID=510
Interestingly enough, BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins disagrees:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Have you travelled much Pannonion?
I've been around Europe and Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Well, the millionaire in the story probably wasn't a raging narcissist so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Didn't think of that, that really makes senseQuote:
Originally Posted by drone
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
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
http://www.straitstimes.com/world/eu...eciting-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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
So far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
That's an interesting point view, no doubt true in its own narrow terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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/dHH...rooted-in.html
As an example 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.)
From the comments below the video of the 10 year-old boy getting arrested:
:shrug:Quote:
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
:laugh4: Comments under the video? :laugh4: Are you serious? Again forgot about troll factory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
And how much of it was Mountbatten not taking the extra time despite the pressure?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
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?
For a troll factory, a single comment on a comment seems a little light, though I didn't read all the comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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:
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:
Quote:
“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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But you believed one single comment? Even if he was begging - is it the way policemen should treat harmless kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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.
Believe is a strong word, if the shrugging smiley signals a belief to you, you might want to take a class on interpreting expressions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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.
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:
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
The saudis don't have as cool a city as Doha. That's what this is about.
As a first in the area the reasons are out there for the public to see and in an official capacity too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
- 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-...91d43?mhq5j=e2
In depth article about it.
I will have to make time to read that, thank you.
Western liberals thought this was a great thing. More freedom and democracy is good for the west in particular and the world in general!Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yet you do have an explanation for yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq can rot in hell.
This is more the way i would like it to work, rather than what we see in practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
Unlike British colonialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Qararians will drink heavenly milk?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-milk-supplies
It's a pity they're haram, or we could have flying pigs as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
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.Quote:
Unlike British colonialism.
Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades