Utopia Talk / Politics / Britain’s policy on Syria has imploded

Paramount Member	Mon Dec 16 10:49:31 Britain’s policy on Syria has just been sunk, and nobody noticed The final bankruptcy of American and British policy in Syria came 10 days ago as Islamic Front, a Saudi-backed Sunni jihadi group, overran the headquarters of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) at Bab al-Hawa on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey. The FSA, along with the Syrian National Coalition, groups that the United States and Britain have been pretending for years are at the heart of Syrian military and political opposition, has been discredited. The remaining FSA fighters are in flight, have changed sides, or are devoting all their efforts to surviving the onslaught from jihadi or al-Qa’ida-linked brigades. The US and Britain stopped the delivery of non-lethal aid to the supply depot at Bab al-Hawa as the implications of the disaster sank in. The West’s favourite rebel commander, General Salim Idris, was on the run between Turkey and his former chief supporter and paymaster, Qatar. Turkey closed the border, the other side of which is now controlled by the Islamic Front. The so-called moderate wing of the Syrian insurgency has very limited influence, but its representatives are still being urged by Washington and London to attend the peace conference in Geneva on 22 January to negotiate Bashar al-Assad’s departure from power. Confusion over what is happening is so great that Western leaders may not pay as much of a political price at home as they should for the failure of their Syrian policy. But it is worth recalling that the Syrian National Coalition and the FSA are the same people for whom the US and UK almost went to war in August, and saw as candidates to replace Assad in power in Damascus. The recent debacle shows how right public opinion in both countries was to reject military intervention. Who are the winners in the new situation? One is Assad because the opposition to him – which started as a popular uprising against a cruel, corrupt and oppressive dictatorship in 2011 – has become a fragmented movement dominated by al-Qa’ida umbrella organisation the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil); the other al-Qa’ida franchisee, the al-Nusra Front; and the Islamic Front, consisting of six or seven large rebel military formations numbering an estimated 50,000 fighters, whose uniting factor is Saudi money and an extreme Sunni ideology similar to Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam. The Saudis see this alliance as capable of fighting pro-Assad forces as well as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but Riyadh’s objections to the latter appears to be based on its independence of Saudi control rather than revulsion at its record of slaughtering Shia, Alawi, Christians, Armenians, Kurds, Turkomans or any dissenting Sunni. The allegation of Saudi control is becoming easier to substantiate. Until a year ago, the Saudis stayed somewhat in the background when it came to funding the Syrian rebels, in which the leading role was played by Qatar in association with Turkey. But the failure of the rebels to win and US anger that the Qataris and Turks had allowed much of the aid to go to jihadis led to an important change this summer, when Saudi Arabia took over from Qatar as chief supporter of the rebels. An interesting example of just how hands-on this Saudi direction has become is illustrated by a fascinating interview given by a top defector from the FSA to Isil, Saddam al-Jamal. Commander of the Liwa Allah Akbar battalion, he was until recently the top FSA commander in eastern Syria, much of which is under rebel control. He recalls that “we used to meet with the apostates of Qatar and Saudi Arabia and with the infidels of Western nations such as America and France in order to receive arms and ammo or cash”. He says Western intelligence operatives had of late been worried about the growing influence of al-Qa’ida affiliates and repeatedly asked him why he was growing a beard. Jamal gives an account of a recent three-day meeting between the FSA commanders from northern and eastern Syria with Western, Saudi, Qatari, Emirati and Jordanian intelligence operatives. This appears to have been soon after the Saudis took over the Syria file from the Qataris. He says the FSA commanders, including General Idris, had a meeting with Prince Salman bin Sultan, the Saudi deputy defence minister who was the leading figure at the meeting. Jamal says that Prince Salman “asked those who had plans to attack Assad positions to present their needs for arms, ammo and money”. The picture that Mr Jamal paints is of an FSA that was a complete pawn to foreign intelligence agencies, which is one reason why he defected. The Saudis subsequently decided that the FSA would not serve their purposes, and were frustrated by America backing away from war in Syria and confrontation with Iran. They set about using their limitless funds to attract into alliances rebel brigades such as the Islamic Front which would be Sunni fundamentalist, committed to the overthrow of Assad, against political negotiations, but distinct from al-Qa’ida. In reality, it looks highly unlikely that Saudi money will be enough to bring down or even significantly weaken Assad though it may be enough to keep a war going for years. The old, supposedly moderate, opposition has been marginalised. Its plan since 2011 has been to force a full-scale Western military intervention as in Libya in 2011 and, when this did not happen, they lacked an alternative strategy. The US, Britain and France do not have many options left except to try to control the jihadi Frankenstein’s monster that they helped create in Syria and which is already helping destabilise Iraq and Lebanon. Turkey may soon regret having given free passage to so many jihadi on their way to Syria. Ankara could close its 500-mile border with Syria or filter those who cross it. But Turkish policy in Syria and Iraq has been so dysfunctional in the past three years that it may be too late to correct the consequences of wrongly convincing itself that Assad would fall. The Geneva II peace conference on Syria looks as if it will be born dead. In so far as the FSA and its civilian counterparts ever repres-ented anyone in Syria they do so no longer. The armed opposition is dominated by Saudi-sponsored Islamist brigades on the one hand and by al-Qa’ida affiliates on the other. All US, British and French miscalculations have produced in Syria is a re-run of Afghanistan in the 1980s, creating a situation the ruinous consequences of which have yet to appear. As jihadis in Syria realise they are not going to win, they may well look for targets closer to home. http://www...nd-nobody-noticed-9005332.html
jergul large member	Mon Dec 16 11:03:25 "Britain’s policy on Syria has just been sunk, and nobody noticed" I noticed :).
The Children Member	Mon Dec 16 12:22:35 a slap in the face of welfaeros and hot dog rods alike.
cloud strife Member	Mon Dec 16 12:27:13 Chuckle@hot dog rods
Aeros Member	Mon Dec 16 12:46:47 Honestly at this point its better for Assad to win the war.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 16 12:49:32 You don't say? Where have we heard that said before I wonder? Pattern recognition for the win!
Aeros Member	Mon Dec 16 13:00:14 Situations change, the Secular rebel forces failed miserably, so that does not leave very many palatable options.
The Children Member	Mon Dec 16 13:17:24 and ur government supported them for years now. and u supported ur governments actions.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 16 15:22:42 Aeros Angry expats have been huddling in Swiss hotels for years now. There is nothing new about their miserable failure.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Dec 16 16:04:11 TC, you really are as stupid as they say.
Dakyron Member	Mon Dec 16 16:46:04 Basically, the public at large managed to figure out what Seb, the US government, and the UK government could not: that any arms and money sent to Syria would be counter-productive to the "war on terror" since it is mainly islamists running the real rebellion with a few misguided idealists with AKs pretending otherwise.
Dakyron Member	Mon Dec 16 16:48:46 Other than Seb and Aeros, who *did* support intervention? Mr P? I dont remember... The majority was against it.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon Dec 16 16:50:01 I think you are right this time Dak.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 16 17:18:23 So lets see: The western policy has been contain-contain-contain-oh-shit-chemical-weapons-fuck-what-do-we-do-oh-look-they-will-hand-them-over-ok-contain-contain-contain. This is the British Government's policy on Syria: http://www...key-eu-illegal-immigrants-visa The collapse of the FSA is the unsurprising result of the Wests misguided containment policy (as represented by the Axis of Ostrich tendency on this forum). As the only group *not* getting any real military backing from outside they are militarily much weaker and have been predictably marginalised by those factions with outside backing. The Saudis and Quataris have decided moderate Islamists are the ones to back, and so they have all defected from the secular FSA to form the Islamic Front as a counterweight to Al-Nursa and ISIS. Yay for self fulfilling prophesies. Dakyron: "that any arms and money sent to Syria would be counter-productive to the "war on terror" since it is mainly islamists running the real rebellion with a few misguided idealists with AKs pretending otherwise." You have that ass backwards: in a shooting war the side that isn't getting shiny weapons by the truckload is pretty irrelevant. The Syrian opposition are dominated by crazies because the only people getting weapons and military assistance are either allied to Al-Quaeda groups in Iraq or being funded by Saudi Arabia and Quatar. There were some moderates but we decided to give them nigh-vision goggles and flack jackets rather than guns, but it turns out RPG's and small arms are rather more effective so those people that used to support secularism have decided to join the factions that actually have some weaponry. There is a direct parallel here to Afghanistan in the 90's. Jergul is essentially arguing that the Soviets should have been supported against the Afghan rebellion. You are essentially arguing that the Taliban marching into Kabul demonstrates that it would have been stupid to arm the Northern Alliance. When we end up with a lovely terrorist dominated safe-haven in Northern Syria, we can then say it was an inevitable consequence of intervention: despite the fact the only people to actually intervene in Syria is everyone BUT the West.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 16 17:21:29 I can't really decide which of the two of you is more idiotic. Jergul's position at least has the more consistent bent: he thinks the Assad regime is just peachy to begin with as anything it was doing was within it's sovereign rights to do. Yours is just illogical: Of course the side we haven't supported has got defeated, that was why we wanted to support them in the first place!
Dakyron Member	Mon Dec 16 17:25:53 "There is a direct parallel here to Afghanistan in the 90's. Jergul is essentially arguing that the Soviets should have been supported against the Afghan rebellion. You are essentially arguing that the Taliban marching into Kabul demonstrates that it would have been stupid to arm the Northern Alliance. " You are a retard. Syria is hardly the same as the USSR and the spread of Syrian government influence is hardly a threat to the United States(or UK, France, etc...). To equate the threat posed by Syria and cold-war era USSR is asinine and anyone doing it should kill themselves, immediately. "You are essentially arguing that the Taliban marching into Kabul demonstrates that it would have been stupid to arm the Northern Alliance." Err... what? The Taliban did not exist or were marginalized during the Soviet invasion. When the Afghan civil war developed between the Taliban, a pakistani grown religious army, and the rest of Afghanistan, it was hardly worth the interest of western powers. You can point to 9/11, but if preventing 9/11 is the end game, then we should have supported the fucking Soviets in oppressing Afghanistan to start with. You see the stupidity of siding with one side over another in some shithole halfway across the world? No matter what happens, you make enemies and sometimes, even when you win, you still end up losing, as in Afghanistan.
Dakyron Member	Mon Dec 16 17:26:46 "Of course the side we haven't supported has got defeated, that was why we wanted to support them in the first place! " The side you wanted to support never had a real chance without it basically being western troops doing to fighting with some Syrian douche claiming the results.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 16 17:31:28 Seb Containment has been a disaster. How many UK nationals do your security services reckon have recieved what by all accounts is seriously advanced insurgency training and extremist indoctrination? To name a single country.
seb Member	Mon Dec 16 18:55:45 Jergul: Yes. I know. but you support containment - you think interfering in a civil war is the worst sin. Or are you arguing the west should intervene to support assad?
seb Member	Mon Dec 16 18:56:48 Dakyron: The non free syrian army gives the lie to that though.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Dec 16 19:18:29 if only the people of the world would have focused on the non existant and or fabricated proof of the world's next hitler in Syria,things could have been different. maybe the world will get it right with Bahrain.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 16 20:30:13 Seb is right, we should help people achieve democracy where they lack. We are all human beings and we are moving towards a more global civilization every day. It is inevitable. Yet I can't support his interventionist side of the fence because there is such a degree of inconsistency in the action taken and not taken. Yes it is all inevitable, that we will live as on civilization and military action is merely a police force responding to crime, but we are not there yet.
Hrothgar Member	Mon Dec 16 20:56:32 It wanted Romney to win last election - but the sole fact that he probably would have went to war for these evil bastard terrorists and Obama was calm enough to not jump into the fight is reason enough to be glad Obama was the one in power while this went down. Those terrorist rebels in Syria are bad news and need to be put down.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 17 06:05:21 Seb Its actually pretty formalistic 1. The state can be supported while it is facing civil disturbances and limited insurrection. 2. Neither the state nor the rebels can be supported when a conflict reaches a loosely defined civil war status. 3. If either the state or the rebels is supported during a civil war, then the other party can likewise be supported proportionately. I have held the position that nationalists could and should be supported by the west for a while now. The Kurds and any others you can find. I do think that intelligence sharing with the regime against specific islamist targets is also reasonable. There is no problem supporting several sides in the conflict. The outcome will have to be political anyway, so why not? The important thing is stopping the arab et al supported islamists. You have non-kurd nationalists supported by the west, the regime supported by Iran and Russian, and the islamist supported by a vast array of arab states + Turkey and Pakistan. Symmetry would suggest Israel should back the Kurds :). Nimi The UN has a mechanism for an international military police keeping force. I am with you the moment nations are willing the transfer command and control of their contingents to a UN military command. Otherwise forget it for reasons similar to those you mentioned.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 17 07:10:59 Yea no, the UN is shit. Needs to be completely reworked before any of that is possible or even desirable.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 17 07:53:30 The UN is only as good as its members. Who are shit. Particularly the permanent seat holders of the UNSC.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 17 07:59:46 Yea that permanent UNSC is the first thing that needs to go. What the fuck is that shit? Can you imagine permanent incumbency in your parliament/congress?
Aeros Member	Tue Dec 17 12:33:37 At this point, offering the fig leaf to assad presents better alternatives to seeing him fall. We should have backed the fsa at the start, yes. But we did not so here we are. At this point, its possible assad is as done with the clowns in the east and north as we are. If he wins the war, or at least gains enough power, he can partition the country on his terms. Let al qaeda rule the desert, while maintaining control of latakia and damascus.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 17 13:00:13 Aeros Just give him usable intel against islamists exclusively. I dont think anyone wants to give up the oil however.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 17 14:08:50 Dakyron: The USSR in the 80's invading afghanistan wasn't a major threat to US control - it was just a convenient place to bleed them. I would argue that until the recent breakthrough in diplomacy, Iran plays the role of the USSR as a spreading influence that is backing one side of the proxy war. The threat - as with AFghanistan - is the power vacuum that exists afterwards if we disengage or attempt to contain it at a distance. The Taliban emerged afterwards: and that is my point. With the Syrian (i.e. proxy Iranian) regime compromised and flopping around we are ignoring the potential for problems when Pakistan (i.e. Saudi Arabia) sets up their proxies (The Islamic Front) who will probably turn out to be not that much different from Al-Quaeda - and we shall later regret the fact we didn't continue to back and stabalise a secular regime (the northern alliance) because we foolishly thought it was all contained. Does that clear it up for you?
Seb Member	Tue Dec 17 14:11:07 Nim: You realise what you are saying sounds very much like: "I think intervention to help the secular factions liberate their country would have been a good thing in principle, but I disagree with any process that would have delivered the right outcome for what I think would have been the wrong reasons." Is it any wonder that we have zero credibility with the secular arab world?
Rugian Member	Tue Dec 17 14:18:22 Once again, Seb falsely claims that the entire free secular Syrian people opposed Assad. Something which we know to be categorically false. With any conflict, there is rarely a clear good and a clear evil division. Many aspects of Syrian society have done relatively well under Assad, and the arbitrary replacement of his government would have caused those groups to suffer. Yet Seb, arrogant as he is, believes that the UK is in a special place to dictate winners and losers in a domestic conflict thousands of miles away. It really makes me happy that, by this time next century, the UK is going to be in no position whatsoever to carry on its imperialist agenda abroad.
Rugian Member	Tue Dec 17 14:23:01 I have to confess though, I was slightly amused by the Axis of Ostrich name. So I guess there's that. Generally though, Seb seems to fall victim to the superficial analysis that the MSM delivers with regards to any conflict, which tends to simplify factors and factions in order to fit their coverage into a 30-second sound byte.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 17 15:01:48 Seb Iranians and arabs are not fond of each other. Even in Syria. Its an enemy of my enemy arrangement where Syria has actively tried to limit Iranian influence through alignment with Russia. There was no winning scenario in Syria. The best that could have been gained was offered by the regime long before the conflict took off in earnest. You were curveballed by expat syrians to ever have thought otherwise. The expats were the only ones with anything significant to gain if we exclude the obvious outcome where islamist step into any void anglo-american bombings might create. Wahabis will fill any void the west might care to create in the muslim world. That will be a truth until the regime in Saudi Arabia and Yemen (and Libya and...) are replaced with something suitably secular.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 17 15:35:17 Rugian: I assumed I didn't need to put democratic in there explicitly. Unless you genuinely think the Assad regime is one you would be content to live in? I don't know what planet you are on, but if you hadn't noticed the mainstream media perspective is the one driving the disastrously populist "ignore, contain, do nothing" response. As you yourself noticed, the vast majority - media included - think Iraq demonstrably proves you shouldn't engage with these situations, despite it being massively different. So we shall see - your non-interventionist policy is the one in play, but my bet is that we are going to end up with something halfway between Somalia and Afghanistan really close to Europe exporting lunatic terrorists - kind of like Chechnya was for Russia during the late 90's. I think we have already reached the point where the number of deaths exceeds that in Iraq so I've pretty much been proven right on that one: Syria has got worse, faster than Iraq did. Isolationists can at least point out that it has cost us less in blood and treasure - so far - shame about the locals but hey ho, eggs and omelettes and all that. But going back to the point about the MSM and my alleged status as one of the sheeple (albeit the strangely isolated herd of two) - by all means if you desire to gain credibility through adopting a faux contrarian attitude - it's hardly as delusional as your actual policy position so why quibble on the window dressing.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 17 15:42:41 jergul: "Iranians and arabs are not fond of each other." So? Hasn't stopped Iran having remarkable influence over Hezbollah has it? "There was no winning scenario in Syria." Depends what you define as winning. I continue to think early and robust intervention and engagement from the west could have prevented the situation escalating to the point it has. "The best that could have been gained was offered by the regime long before the conflict took off in earnest." I simply disagree with your defeatist assessment which seems calculated to justify your callous disregard of the oppositions desire not to leave under a regime that has proven as murderous as we have always suspected it to be. "Wahabis will fill any void the west might care to create in the muslim world." Again with the self fulfilling prophesy tinged with racism: "there are no democrats or liberals among the arabs, those that profess to think as we do are venal and cowardly, as a people they are violent and superstitious - the choice is between a dictator or a death cult" blah blah blah. Damn straight there is a vacuum being filled by Whabbists - it is because we have deliberately and consciously chosen not to fill that vacuum - something you overwhelmingly appear to think is a good idea. You can't use the consequences of your policy to argue that this was the only possible outcome. We ceded Syria to the fundies and we shall see how terribly clever and sophisticated a policy choice that turned out to be over the next decade or so.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 17 16:14:23 Hezb is a 150 million dollar investment a year done for reasons you know of. Robust intervention would simply have handed Syria to Islamists. See Libya for details. Or because those expats of yours lacked the basis for transition through the ballot box. Seriously, you have been "Curveball"ed so hard, it hurts to watch. The regime is actually quite circumspect in its use of force. There are democrats and liberals in Syria. They just happen to be on the side of the regime. You have the expats. You have also deliberately and consciously chosen not to fill the vacuum in Libya. And you would deliberately and consciously have chosen to not fill the vacuum with boots on the ground even if you had bombed the crap out of Syria. Or Afghanistan. How is your staying power in terms of filling the vacuum there? It was the only possible outcome seb. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya prove it. Assad may very well overcome the fundies. Have fun with them when they return to roost.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 01:45:16 The point is: You cannot break things, the expect the pieces will be reassembled in an acceptable form. Too many "forces of evil" will recreate society in their image if given an anarchistic clean slate. There are political and economic tools you could anchor an intervention on. *50 000 2 year trainee/student visas in the EU. *10 000 yearly immigrant visas *Preferental trade agreement with a couple things *250 billion aid package Conditional on "democrats and liberals" taking power. Thus giving the democrats and liberals something for people to rally around. If your politicians are willing to commit to benefit packages on a scale like that, then perhaps we can believe they seek the betterment of this or that country when they bomb it to crap. Just bombing things does nothing but turn nation-states into training grounds for radicals.
murder Member	Wed Dec 18 03:22:37 The solution to this problem is a simple one ... bomb Saudi Arabia until they get the hell out of Syria.
seb Member	Wed Dec 18 06:49:15 Step one : arrange straw men. Step two : ignite. Step three : listen to deafening silence.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 07:14:57 Seb If you cannot be in the business of nation building, then you should not be in the business of nation breaking. Anyway, hopefully the US will get around to sharing actionable intel on the islamists with Assad.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 18 10:34:47 >>Is it any wonder that we have zero credibility with the secular arab world?<< The reason you have zero credibility with the secular world and why people like myself can not support your position is precisely because of the things I mentioned. The historical inconsistency in support for dictators and total disregard for many secular opposition groups, not just historical, but present. Sadly it seems hard for you to understand that the motivation behind actions means a lot. Threatening Syria and turning a blind eye to Bahrain because you have no national interest in Syria and a fleet command in Bahrain is not an irrelevant detail. Yes I am with you in principle, that foreign police should be used to bring everyone closer and expand the in group where foreign policy becomes policing each other. But it isn't seb, foreign policy is still all about safeguarding my countries interest and if I have no interest in your country that could possibly be jeopardized by a secular revolution and the overthrow of the dictator then go ahead I will even send you some bombs. If not, then what is going on is not a secular movement for freedom, they are terrorists. We have seen this so many fucking times over the past 15 years without fault how the countries line up for or against invading a third world country based on the damage to the interest they have in said country. Most recently over the sanctions on Iran, the last countries willing to join and the degree in which they joined were China and Russia.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 18 15:35:40 jergul: Well, your policy of non-intervention while everyone else intervened and the regime decided to go for a 75% solution based on sectarian division is pretty much the definition of nation breaking. Do let me know how it goes. Nim: "The reason you have zero credibility with the secular world and why people like myself can not support your position is precisely because of the things I mentioned." Yeah, essentially you are waiting for a disinterested, perfect, all-powerful entity to arrive to deliver justice untainted by being in anyway embedded in any national politics. It's not going to happen. Which to someone being slaughtered sounds very much like a convenient bit of dissembling to explain why the west ONLY intervenes when it is in their interest to do so: for it is only when sufficient vested interest lines up that we can get enough momentum to expend blood and treasure on an intervention in the face of opposition of those seeking an imaginary perfect entity to do it. If I were an Arab I would look at the west and think "The west only cares about civilians being killed when they are white, or European." Of course, this is the kind of thinking that led to the Palestinian terrorist attacks outside of the middle east.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 18 15:36:16 Nim: How many people would stand up and say that the intervention in Bosnia was wrong? Kosovo?
Seb Member	Wed Dec 18 15:36:25 Sierra Leone?
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 15:55:49 Seb You intervened and are still supplying dual use equipment and giving intel with whatever is left of the FSA. I think it about time to declare the civil war over and consider Syria to be under proxy attack by Saudi Arabia, Yemen and to a certain extent Turkey.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 16:02:34 Bosnia and Serbia illustrate the kind of carrot approach you need to employ if you absolutely want to attack countries. Here you have a long term EU commitment to supporting transition. Also, not the limited use of force and lack of regime change being the goal of military activity. You barely scratched the Serbian military beyond convincing it that offensive operations were impossible. Can you even fight like that anymore. Additionally, a lot of the activity was under UN sanction and UN command and control (in sense that Nato honoured UN Commander requests). So all told a decent, though imperfect template for action.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 18 17:14:19 jergul: How can you possibly be arguing that we are intervening and driving the situation, and at the same time that the intervention has failed because the people we are supporting (with super effective night goggles and flak jackets while the "quite restrained" regime drops scuds on them) are so outgunned their warehouses are in other factions hands? "I think it about time to declare the civil war over and consider Syria" You give a seriously worrying amount of legitimacy to the incumbent regime by virtue of it's incumbency and irrespective of it's enormous crimes. We have provided no real military assistance to the FSA, which is why their fighters have defected to the Islamic Front, which is getting shiny kit from the Saudi's; or Al Nursa that is getting shiny kit from Al-Quaeda. "Bosnia and Serbia illustrate the kind of carrot approach you need to employ if you absolutely want to attack countries." We absolutely did not when the intervention happened. "regime change being the goal of military activity." Regime change is a straw man of your own invention and I have frankly got tired of rebutting that. I advocated a strategy akin to that pursued by the west during Bosnia. If you want to invent differences and pretend I am proposing a re-run of Iraq I can't help you - it's your madness not mine. It's also fairly stupid to imply that there is a covert plan to re-run Iraq (as Nim does) in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the Wests government have already resolved to do absolutely nothing in Syria at all: the very issue I am taking umbrage with. You, Obama and Cameron are in violent agreement on 90%: we need to quietly ignore Syria. The difference is that you actually think we need to help Assad because the status quo (no matter how horrible it may be) is sanctified by the absence of any criticism sanctioned by Putin - who is held akin to the Pontif of cynical contrarianism.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 17:54:38 Seb I think you should provide actionable intel to the regime. The problem is the Islamists. You have been pretty clear being firmly against a political end to the conflict before Assad is gone. So yes, regime change. I thought I was clear that the benefits would also need to come post conflict in any conflict. But the prospect of aid and greater integration is vitally important if you wish to avoid islamification. Dual purpose and military equipment is in the region of 500 million this year (or 3 times what Hezb. gets in funding and equipment from Iran). So hardly insignificant. We can assume actionable intel in addition. Which is tremendously important. Assad's regime is of course the only significant legitimate force in Syria. Or who were you thinking of? The Kurds? The regime's road map to democracy is a good starting point for a future post conflict Syria. But you sort of need to crush the Islamists first.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 18 18:21:12 >>Yeah, essentially you are waiting for a disinterested, perfect, all-powerful entity to arrive to deliver justice untainted by being in anyway embedded in any national politics.<< No, I am full aware the any improvement will come in increments, most probably not under the current UN power structure. I don't know when that is, but it isn't now. >>Which to someone being slaughtered sounds very much like a convenient bit of dissembling to explain why the west ONLY intervenes when it is in their interest to do so:<< Listen, we are probably not as far apart as it may seem. Someone should have removed Assad, someone should have intervened, but we didn't, because there are no national interests in the short term. We do not give a shit (not you and me personally) and that is my point. >>If I were an Arab I would look at the west and think "The west only cares about civilians being killed when they are white, or European.<< And my argument is that they would be correct and should view any western intervention with fearful suspicion. Specially considering that the Israeli issue has still to be resolved. Yes we will pressure and remove Arab tyrants, but we will will never do anything about the Israeli tyranny on the Palestinians. >>How many people would stand up and say that the intervention in Bosnia was wrong? Kosovo?<< I have no idea. But the reason Europe did was because it was in the interest of the EU. Why did we tell Rwanda to go fuck itself? Because we don't really care about dead babies, specially not African babies. We care about national interest. Now I am not saying there are no exceptions, but that is exactly what they are, exceptions.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 18 18:27:38 >>Iranians and arabs are not fond of each other.<< The degree of truth in this statement is trivial. In the circles this is true it is mainly aimed towards Saudis, more specifically Wahabis. The term Wahabi in persian is synonymous with uncivilized barbarian. Hence the persian term "Vahshi e wahabi".
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 18:55:02 “I think the majority of Iranians of all types hate Arabs, and I believe they hate us, too,” Sadek Zibakalam, who is also a professor at the University of Tehran, said in an interview with the Iranian weekly Sobh Azade. Zibakalam said there is a link between racism and a lack of education, and pointed out that this is the case in Europe, where people who express hatred against Jews or Muslims or foreigners are mostly uneducated. However, the situation tends to be different in Iran. “The phenomenon of hating Arabs is very common among intellectuals in Iran,” he said. He added that religious people also frequently express their resentment of Arabs, which usually comes in the form of curses directed at Sunnis. “As a matter of fact, Iranians’ constant attacks on Sunnis stem from their hatred of Arabs.” This hatred, Zibakalam argued, is not the product of the current hegemony conflict in the region, as many people might suspect, but has its roots in history. “Persians will never forget their defeat at the hands of Arabs in the Battle of Qadisiya 1,400 years ago. It is as if a fire keeps seething under the ashes and is waiting for the right moment to explode,” he said. Iran’s attempts to gain supremacy in the region are not triggered by political ambition as much as by a racist drive that pushes Iranians to prove they are superior, the professor said. “Whenever Iran issues any fiery statement about our neighbors in the U.A.E, Qatar, or Kuwait, you can easily detect that they revolve around a belief that Persians are superior. Listen to our foreign minister, parliament speaker, or even mosque imams, and you will notice that derogatory tone they use and which focuses on the racial and not the political superiority of Persians.” He cited the example of the U.A.E., which many Iranians, politicians and clergy derides in their statements. “They would say that if Iranians just blow some air across the Persian Gulf, they would wipe the U.A.E off the map,” he said. When asked whether the stance of the people is similar to that of the government as far as hatred of Arabs is concerned, Zibakalam replied in the affirmative. “Yes, people are like the government, and may be even more racist and intolerant.” For example, he said, when a couple of years ago the U.A.E said it was not going to drop its opposition to Iran’s occupation of three disputed Islands in the Gulf and referring to the “Persian Gulf,” large numbers of people rallied in front of the U.A.E embassy in Tehran with a cake that had 35 candles: they were making fun of the U.A.E’s 35-year history, compared to Iran’s 2,500.” He added that Iranians also criticize their compatriots who travel to Arab countries. For example, they always ask why they would go and spend their money in Arab countries, while they never do the same with Turkey, where huge numbers of Iranians go. “This even applies to religious trips to the Arab world, while if Mecca or Karbala were in Turkey or Malaysia, Iranians would not have a problem with people going there,” Zibakalam said. He added that Persian racism against Arabs becomes very clear in language, and that the establishment of the Persian Language Institute was intended to carry out a plan to remove Arabic words from the Persian language. “Arabic words that have been in the Persian language for more than 1,00 years would be removed even though they are mentioned in great literary works like The Shahnameh and the poetry of Rumi, all of which are parts of our history.” Zibakalam also admitted that this “racism” for which Iranians are known is not practiced against Arabs only, but also against other non-Persian ethnicities inside Iran. “If for example we take jokes as an indication of the way we view people, you will find how the Turkmens and the Lur are the most ridiculed in our jokes.” That same goes for other groups, such as Kurds and the Baluchi, he added. Zibakalam was born in 1948 to a Shiite family in Tehran and obtained his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Bradford in the U.K. He is currently a member of the Scientific Association at Tehran University. Zibakalam was a critic of the Shah and a supporter of former Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadeq. He was sent to jail for two years during the Shah’s reign. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Zebakalam held several government positions and played a major role in the Iranian Cultural Revolution, in which academics who did not toe the line of the new republic were dismissed. He, however, expressed his regret for taking part in the revolution and issued a direct apology. One of the things known about Zebakalam is that he has never belonged to any party, and that he criticizes both conservatives and reformists. He is also said to be close to former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 18 20:38:44 Oh wow you got me there. You found a guy who agrees with you. GG On a more serious note. U.A.E, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq together hold about 1.5-2 million Iranian expats.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 00:50:23 Nimi I used to spend time in the now defunct Iran defence forums. Posters there convinced me that Iranians are racists fucks in general. Much more so than anything ever seen in this forum. There is not problem finding sources that support that opinion. Zebakalam simply had a nice theory (Iranians say sunni/wahabi, but mean Arab).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 00:56:52 You went to the Iranian version of Stormfront and found racist Iranians. Amazing stuff, mind blowing.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 01:00:57 I would not know, I do not frequent Stormfront as much as true Aryans like yourself might nimi. But the forum mainly discussed military, economic, and industrial stuff. I learned tons about automobil production statistics and read about the metro system while it just was a twinkle in the Shahs's eye.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 01:13:35 So how many times did you have to visit stormfront before you knew it was racist white pride site?
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 01:25:07 Nimi I have no idea. I have never been to Storm Front. Amnesty International believes Arabs were specifically targeted by the judicial system and executed for crimes not punishable by death in Iran. Racism is a serious problem in Iran regardless of your word claiming otherwise. Ironically, jews seem generally excempt and even have a designated MP in the Iranian paliament.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 01:30:24 Then how did you make the true aryan connection, Nazigul? Oops... Racism has lost meaning like the word terrorists because people like you whored it out.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 01:42:10 I was suggesting even you and your family might consider yourselves Aryan. Most Persians do. A breed apart so to speak. The concept fell out of popular practice in Europe by 1945.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 01:44:05 Too late Nazigul, too late...
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 01:46:17 Nice deflection there neo-nimi.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 01:49:12 Nazitom, Nazimot. Heh. Funny what rearranging the letter of your tags gives. Coincidence? I think not.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 10:16:15 I am not the one getting caught in making a stupid lie that I haven't heard of a White pride website. Now why would you lie about that? You are a closet nazi. You do this after you have deemed that an entire country is "this and that negative thing". Extremely racist. When confronted with your own faulty logic, you waste no time in insinuating that I am a racist and ad hominem. Not very impressive Jergul and it all follows the exact same pattern every time we engage in longer discussion. Jergul : bla bla Iran facts Nimatzo : not really so and so Jergul : bla bla bla I know lots of fact about Iranian mining industry Nimatzo : ? Jergul : you are an Aryan ad hominem ad hominem
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 12:44:47 Nimi I said I have not frequented white pride websites. Yes, I have not ignored your opinion, but felt it appropriate to provide one of many, many possible sources contradicting your view. The racist spillover on a site mainly preoccuppied with Iranian technology was quite an eye-opener that I verified with other sources. One of the oddities is that Persians often consider themselves Aryan, as opposed to turkmens, Arabs and other groups in Iran. The term fell out of fashion in the west by 1945. You may not consider yourself to be Aryan, but I am damned sure you uncles' do. So yah, Persians are generally racist pricks and cunts. You may be an exception. Who knows.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 13:25:00 >>I said I have not frequented white pride websites.<< No you actually said this "Nimi I have no idea. I have never been to Storm Front." All of it completely irrelevant to my initial point as long as you understood my comparison of Iran defence with Stormfront. You decided to lie. It is impossible to have any form of civilized discussion with you. >>The racist spillover on a site mainly preoccuppied with Iranian technology was quite an eye-opener that I verified with other sources.<< I seriously doubt this oh sourceless wonder. You went to an online forum created in the wake of war on terror and axis of evil. Full of reactionary nationalist and concluded that Iranians are racist more so than anyone else. >>One of the oddities is that Persians often consider themselves Aryan, as opposed to turkmens, Arabs and other groups in Iran.<< You really think it is odd that the main ethnic group of a country who has it's namesake from the word Aryan and historically called themselves Aryan, would still call themselves that. >>The term fell out of fashion in the west by 1945.<< How is a the vernacular fashion of Europe relevant to the historical name of Iranians? >>You may not consider yourself to be Aryan, but I am damned sure you uncles' do.<< I am a little confused here. Do you think the word Aryan is evil and has luggage? Because in the context of Iranian history and language it doesn't, so in that context I could not give half a fuck what you think I may or may not do or what you are damned sure my uncles do. >>So yah, Persians are generally racist pricks and cunts. You may be an exception. Who knows.<< This is very personal for you I see, because you can't seem to help yourself from turning it into a subject about me and my family, when we are talking about general populations. I have to be a little honest and personal with you Jergul, but getting to know you, in the manner possible here on UP, has been very disappointing.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 13:34:19 Just go back in the thread and read Jergul. I disagreed with your conclusion. You provided "evidence" and I questioned your reasoning and the source you based you conclusions on. You essentially went to a website full of nationalist and concluded that it is representative for the general populations. Kinda like me going to the Norwegian section of Stormfront and concluding that Norwegians are racist as fuck. Then I would start talking nonsense of how you might not consider yourself a Viking, but I bet your uncles do. So was that it then?
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 13:57:31 Nimi Actually I provided an academic source with the Iran defence forum being a supplemental anectdotal source providing context. Iran defence forum was in no manner shape or form an Aryan Superiority Forum. The racist spillover coincidental to other things. Similar to how Eastern European happily express their loathing of Gypsies coincidentally while discussing other things. You would note I did not say your family was racist, but rather that they would consider being Aryan a defining Persian trait. Persians in general are racist fucks and live in a fascist technocracy that encourages such view points.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 13:58:49 Also, feel free to disagree. You have the right to your opinion. You will however note I provided a source I found rather convincing. In addition to the anectdotal background information I provided.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 15:10:21 >>Actually I provided an academic source<< You made an argument from authority. A warning sign for you should be when this professor says that the people are like then government, racist, with you vast understanding of Iran, you are of course aware that Khamenei is an Azeri turk. >>You would note I did not say your family was racist, but rather that they would consider being Aryan a defining Persian trait.<< Which is irrelevant to the topic. You seem to think otherwise, based on what you think is a valid and correct understand of Iranians. >>Iran defence forum was in no manner shape or form an Aryan Superiority Forum.<< I never said it was, nice straw man though. One of the many great tools in your repertoire. >>Persians in general are racist fucks and live in a fascist technocracy that encourages such view points.<< 1. So the claims are so far that people of Persian ethnicity are (you claimed earlier) the most racist people in the world. 2. The government encourages this. You have a lot of work ahead of you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 15:19:08 *the most racist people in the world. amongst*
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 16:09:44 It is relevant that your family might consider Aryan as a defining Persian characteristic. For there to be others, there must first be an us. You said Iran defence forum was the equivalent of Storm something. Aryan Superiority forum would be the appropriate cultural equivalent. I have not claimed they are amongst the most racist in the world. I have simply stated they are racist pricks and cunts. There is a lot of structural racism in Iran. Anyone who knows anything about the country knows that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 18:00:30 We got here because you made a sweeping statement that Iranians hate Arabs. I told you that to the extent that it is true, it is trivial. Meaning yes there are those Iranians that have a racist hatred for Arabs, but as far as social discourse and government policy, it is irrelevant. >>Aryan as a defining Persian characteristic.<< No one at any significant rate identifies as either of those words in the Farsi language. The word Persian does not exist in Farsi. Aryan declares ethnic heritage and includes all Iranian people, including Kurds, Pashtun and Baluchis. No one in Iran uses this word to identify themselves. Iranian nationalism based on ethnicity is insignificant inside Iran. It is just a fact of life you are going to have to deal with. It is a figment of imagination and misunderstanding. >>For there to be others, there must first be an us.<< And in Iran the us and them is divided along religious lines, not ethnic. >>I have simply stated they are racist pricks and cunts. There is a lot of structural racism in Iran. Anyone who knows anything about the country knows that.<< << That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 19:14:32 So considering this structural racism in Iran and this Arab hatred, you have explain how Lets disregard Ali Khamenei who is the supreme leader and Azeri and just look at Iranian Arabs Ali Shamkhani, admiral (former minister of defense) Mohammad Reza Naqdi commander of the Basij Mohammad Khazaee Irans UN ambassador Ali Akbar Salehi Head Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Iranian Arabs form 2% of the population, so that is some massive failure in the structural racism, to hand over some of the highest office in Iran to them.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 20:14:10 Also as far as I can tell. Your article of this supposed interview with Zibakalam is fake. Published in only Al Arabiya which is Saudi owned and it sources to a translation from a non existent weekly called Sobh Azade. gg
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 00:06:35 Nimi Oh come on. The USSR had no structural prejudice against jews by the same logic. As far as I can tell, the interview is legitimate. It would otherwise be one of the most sophisticated propaganda pieces I have ever seen. Which just does not seem "saud". But it is just one of any number of sources you can find on the topic. GG
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 00:16:19 >>Oh come on. The USSR had no structural prejudice against jews by the same logic.<< I would not know, I have no expertise on USSR politics. >>As far as I can tell, the interview is legitimate.<< Which is not very far. I researched the man a bit and he never touches the subject, ever in any interview or on Iranian TV or in any article, but that one. >>sophisticated propaganda pieces I have ever seen.<< Mind blowingly sophisticated. Make a bunch of shit up, attach low res photo of said guy and source a newspaper that does not exist. Clearly Saudis are too stupid to achieve such technology.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 00:38:46 Nimi "make a bunch of shit up" - The stuff is very low-key for a propaganda hack piece. And the article was also well-written. The US seldom produces quality propaganda of that type, let alone Saudi Arabia. But like I said, its just one of a gazillion sources. On a bit more serious a note: I have been generalizing about Persians for a while and calling them all racist pricks and cunts (with the exception of your family). I was kind of expecting you to run with that :). I remain convinced Persians (as a whole) do have serious racism related issues as indeed the State plays an important structural role in propagating prejudice. Its not worse than what we can find in most countries east and south of Germany if that makes you feel any better.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 01:14:55 >>The US seldom produces quality propaganda of that type, let alone Saudi Arabia.<< I agree. Those Saudis are sneaky, what with their Internet connections and keyboards. Scary stuff. The pounce on unsuspecting Norwegians with their lies like lightning from a clear blue sky. >>But like I said, its just one of a gazillion sources.<< For everyone of those I have a bazillion refutations. That is some quality arguments right there. >>have been generalizing about Persians for a while and calling them<< Iran has a lot of issues but being abnormally racist is not one of them. The words you keep using like Persian and Aryan has no place or meaning in Iranian language or public discourse. The issues run along religious and political fault lines. >>I remain convinced<< Very troubling. >>Its not worse than what we can find in most countries east and south of Germany if that makes you feel any better.<< Why would that make me "feel" anything? I engaged in this discussion because you were categorically wrong, not because you hurt my "feelings". I does explain all your attempts to involve personal life. I try to argue with facts and reason, not feelings. You should try it some time.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 01:21:49 Nimi If you have a bazillion sources, then why not share at least one of them? The "it aint so" opinion of yours is getting repetative. By public discourse, you mean expat discourse? We agree, Iran is not abnormally racist compared to its peers. But that would still make it abnormally racist compared to the west. All you have argued with here is your opinion. And your opinion has been fundamentally wrong before (in reference for you desire that the US attack Iran during the Bush era. How crazy was that?).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 01:37:35 >>If you have a bazillion sources, then why not share at least one of them? The "it aint so" opinion of yours is getting repetative.<< I have made no positive statements, so I don't have a burden of proof. >>By public discourse, you mean expat discourse?<< No I mean Iranian national discourse. The degree of nationalism is noticeably higher amongst Iranian expats. >>All you have argued with here is your opinion.<< It is not my opinion that all of the outstanding issues of Iran vis a vis it's neighbors have very reasonable explanations rooted in politics, religion and struggle over hegemony. It is not my opinion that the word Persian does not exist in Farsi. Or that no one in Iran identifies as Aryan. Or that Aryan includes pashtun, baluchis and Kurds. It is not my opinion that Azeris and Arabs sit on some of the highest offices in Iran. A lot of your confusion is rooted historical misunderstanding, myths, loss in translation and listening too to much bullshit from overtly nationalistic Iranian expats and thinking that they represent people in Iran. Specially Iranian expats in countries like Norway and Sweden.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 01:45:35 >>And your opinion has been fundamentally wrong before (in reference for you desire that the US attack Iran during the Bush era. How crazy was that?).<< I also argued in this thread that in principle I agree with Intervention, when there is injustice. So not very crazy. Remember when you agreed with me provided "I am with you the moment nations are willing the transfer command and control of their contingents to a UN military command." How crazy is that? You mistake what I wished for, with what I would have wanted to take place given the choices.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 01:57:18 You specifically wanted a regime changing US lead intervention. Jergul: "Nimi, you should not with a US intervention on your worst enemies, let alone your own countrymen" A statement that enraged you to no end at the time.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 01:57:25 Discrimination – ethnic minorities Iran’s ethnic minority communities, including Ahwazi Arabs, Azerbaijanis, Baluch, Kurds and Turkmen, suffered ongoing discrimination in law and in practice. The use of minority languages in government offices and for teaching in schools remained prohibited. Activists campaigning for the rights of minorities faced threats, arrest and imprisonment. Prisoner of conscience Mohammad Sadiq Kabudvand continued serving a sentence of 10 and a half years for his role in founding the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan, and was denied adequate medical treatment. Mohammad Saber Malek Raisi, a Baluch youth aged 16 from Sarbaz held since September 2009, possibly to force his elder brother to surrender to the authorities, was sentenced to five years’ prison in exile – meaning that he must serve his sentence at a prison far from his home. Amnesty international 2012.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 02:10:26 Above was on structural racism. Incidentally, your rant on "Persian" not being used in Iran is just silly. We know the Persian term for Persian is Farsi. Or where you saying that Farsi is not used in popular discourse. Or that Aryan is not use in IRAN? Remind me again, what is Aryan in Farsi? Feel free to capitalize the Farsi word for Aryan if you like.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 02:20:07 >>You specifically wanted a regime changing US lead intervention.<< That would be very strange. For me to specifically want it to be US lead. Why would I care who did it? You have a link? >>A statement that enraged you to no end at the time.<< I call Jergulspeak on this one. >>Iran’s ethnic minority communities, including Ahwazi Arabs, Azerbaijanis, Baluch, Kurds and Turkmen, suffered ongoing discrimination in law and in practice.<< Yea see, that is the thing. I have read these reports before and while I am sure Amnesty is a great organization it is doing no one a service least of all the people in Iran by misrepresenting the reality of the situation. The degree of how badly you are discriminated against in Iran is directly related to how far you stand from the official Islamic Republic position, not whether you are Azeri or Kurd. You might also be aware that many of the ethnic groups mentioned have one or two irredentist or separatists groups funded by third parties actively operating in Iran. Many times the people mentioned in these reports as being executed, tortured etc. are members of or connected to these groups. Obviously not practices you agree with, inhuman, but are they done out of racism? I think not. For example a Kurdish journalist who criticizes the Iranian regime and is then sent to prison now qualifies as statistics in these amnesty report. Even though him being Kurdish has absolutely nothing to do with anything. These reports are a disservice to all Iranians and removes focus from the real issue and real target of injustice based on religion, like the Bahai's.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 02:33:43 Farsi is the name of the language, which in English is interchangeable with Persian as the name of the language. But the western ethnic classification Persian does not exist in the Farsi language. Even on wikipedia article "Persian people" when you switch to Farsi the direct translation is "Farsi zabanan", which means Farsi speaking. That only makes thing worse, because that term in English includes many more people than the term Persian. As evident by the differing population numbers under the articles. The term Persian it is either completely useless or too broad in that it describs anyone from Tajikistan to Iranian Iraqis.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 02:47:07 >>Or that Aryan is not use in IRAN?<< I said no one identifies as such. It is an archaic term. The farsi word is ARIYAYE. And that term includes a bunch of people who do not qualify under the western ethnic classification Persian. The term you do use in Iran and Iranian academics is Aghvame Irani, which means Iranian tribes or rather Iranian people. Which is everyone from Kurds to Pashtun.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 02:56:06 It is precisly because of how confusing Iran is ethnically that ethnic tension and racism based on ethnicity is difficult to maintain. Iran has always been mixed bag and absorbed many population migration, with different groups ruling at different times. It is just much easier to discriminated based on other things.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 03:30:37 Fact is, you wanted those that bombed the crap out of Iraq to bomb the crap out of Iran. Iran is a derivative of Aryan in Farsi since you are putting so much effort into clouding that basic fact.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 11:11:01 Jergulfacts. >>Iran is a derivative of Aryan in Farsi since you are putting so much effort into clouding that basic fact.<< And what does that have to do with the fact thst the word Aryayie is not used to identify yourself? What am I trying to cloud?
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 12:53:22 Iranian academics is Aghvame Irani, which means Aryan tribes or rather Aryan people. Fixed.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 13:34:49 You are obviously unfamiliar with etymology and how words change over time. The gentilic ēr- and ary- (in e.g. ērān/aryān) in the Middle Iranian languages of Persian and Parthian derives from Old Iranian *arya-[1] (in e.g. Old Persian: ariya-, Avestan: airiia-, etc.), meaning "Aryan,"[1] in the sense of "of the Iranians."[1][2] This word (i.e. *arya-) is attested as an ethnic designator in Achaemenid inscriptions and in Zoroastrianism's Avesta tradition,[3][n 1] and in Middle Iranian era (ca. 400 BCE - 700 CE) it seems "very likely"[1] that the word ērān in Ardashir's inscription still retained the same meaning as in the Old era, i.e. denoting the people rather than the empire while the empire was properly named as ērānšahr.[1] Notwithstanding this inscriptional use of ērān to refer to the Iranian peoples, the use of ērān to refer to the empire (and the antonymic anērān to refer to the Roman territories) is also attested by the early Sassanid period. Both ērān and anērān appear in 3rd century calendrical text written by Mani. In an inscription of Ardashir's son and immediate successor, Shapur I "apparently includes in Ērān regions such as Armenia and the Caucasus which were not inhabited predominantly by Iranians."[4] In Kartir's inscriptions (written thirty years after Shapur's), the high priest includes the same regions (together with Georgia, Albania, Syria and the Pontus) in his list of provinces of the antonymic Anērān.[4] Ērān also features in the names of the towns founded by Sassanid dynasts, for instance in Ērān-xwarrah-šābuhr "Glory of Ērān (of) Shapur". It also appears in the titles of government officers, such as in Ērān-āmārgar "Accountant-General (of) Ērān" or Ērān-dibirbed "Chief Scribe (of) Ērān".[1] Shapur's trilingual inscription at Ka'ba-i Zartosht also introduces the term ērānšahr (Eranshahr.svg), "kingdom of the Iranians", that is however not attested in any other texts of this period other than in royal inscriptions (it is however preserved in post-Sassanid-era Zoroastrian texts[n 2]).[1] Because an equivalent of ērānšahr does not appear in Old Iranian (where it would have been *aryānām xšaθra- or in Old Persian *- xšaça-, "rule, reign, sovereignty"), the term is presumed[1] to have been a Sassanid-era development. In the Greek portion of Shapur's trilingual inscription the word šahr "kingdom" appears as ethnous "nation". For speakers of Greek, the idea of an Iranian ethnous was not new: In the 1st century BCE, Strabo had noted a relationship between the various Iranian peoples and their languages: "[From] beyond the Indus [...] Ariana is extended so as to include some part of Persia, Media, and the north of Bactria and Sogdiana; for these nations speak nearly the same language." (Geography, 15.2.1-15.2.8).[7]
Crownroyal Member	Fri Dec 20 13:39:47 Jergulfacts is less controversial than jergulmath!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 13:44:59 Only in a room where no one has access to the Internet.
Crownroyal Member	Fri Dec 20 13:46:29 I stake no position here, on Iran. Too deep for me.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 13:47:10 Fucking pussy.
Crownroyal Member	Fri Dec 20 13:48:31 This is out of laziness, not pussiness. I tried to follow, I really did. Too boring, no offense. Too detailed and repetitive.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 13:49:45 You fat assed pussy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 20 13:50:19 Oh NO! QUICKLY FILL THE THREAD BEFORE JB HEARS THAT!
	show deleted posts