Pyrian on 18/11/2015 at 16:51
Why not? Several soviet satellites have already fractured.
Assidragon on 18/11/2015 at 20:09
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Why not? Several soviet satellites have already fractured.
Yeah, but the russians were almost always against the process. Even when Yugoslavia was dissolving in a civil war, they opposed attempts to stop serb ethnic cleansing because... well, status quo is god I guess.
heywood on 18/11/2015 at 22:16
Russia may have greater interest in Syria than Yugoslavia because Syria hosts the only Russian naval base in the Mediterranean. However, Russia has said that the base is no longer of strategic importance.
Anyway, this sure is a multi-dimensional chess game.
demagogue on 19/11/2015 at 00:39
I guess I'll rephrase. The civil war and people themselves are already carving themselves up, and they weren't talking about formally splitting the state into new states, but effective control (what Kurds already have had in Iraq since 2003), which is why I said de facto so many times. And it won't really matter who cares about what. The groups balkanize themselves and the endgame is 30 years from now the fighting can reach no further than that point, and your new status quo is a balkanized Iraq and Syria.
Edit. I think their point was you won't be able to put them together and have a functioning state before war just starts again, though they might try it a few times before it sinks in. That's what I meant by it doesn't matter what Russia or anyone thinks, since you can only force an unstable situation for so long until the new status quo reasserts itself, and why they use the term endgame, not just some temporary strategy for the time being.
icemann on 19/11/2015 at 03:12
I could certainly see it happening in Iraq. Just not Syria.
LkoRas on 19/11/2015 at 07:25
I come from where muslims make about 20% of the population, has the largest muslim population after possibly Indonesia and where they constitute a strong vote bank for politicians. Oh, and pakistan is next door.
Normally, I try to deal with people as per their function instead of what religion they follow, just getting on with my own life. But every once in a while muslims say or do something that makes me really conscious of their religion. For instance, I asked a muslim cab driver after the 26/11 attacks in India in 2008 (don't know if the attacks registered in the western radar) about his views on this. "Yes, such attacks should not happen as even a muslim might get killed by being in a wrong place at the wrong time." That was the sum total of his concern.
We see muslim leaders/intellectuals playing the usual 'religion of peace' card whenever such attacks happen, but are they ever seen doing anything more? "Islam does not condone killing of innocents". Great, but can we get their definition of 'innocent' here? No we will not because one of the central tenets of islam is how being a non-muslim itself is a crime, and infidels are only fit to be killed or made slaves.
Nothing will ever change unless muslim vote-bank politics is rejected in India, Europe and Canada and it is well and truly understood that muslims just don't believe in peaceful coexistence with others. Muslims cry how they are the poor, suffering minority here but can't think of a reason why after a thousand year iron rule in India (it was not a union then hence the islamic rule) today they find themselves as economically backward with hardly any progressive leaders to show them the way.
Every jumme ki namaz (Friday prayers) ends with some kind of resolution about how they are being oppressed and how to hit back. Even the 21st century failed to change that. It is in their roots. ISIS is just the most perverted manifestation of that.
icemann on 19/11/2015 at 14:03
As soon as you paint all of a particular race or religion with the same brush, then your doing no better than ISIS.
It's exactly that line of thinking that they want in all non Muslims. Good work. Without knowing it your helping ISIS with that style of stuff.
Don't believe me? Read their charter.
Assidragon on 19/11/2015 at 15:27
Following that logic, by issuing blanket statements about all ISIL members, you are also perpetuating the same kind of mentality.
Azaran on 19/11/2015 at 15:34
Quote Posted by icemann
As soon as you paint all of a particular race or religion with the same brush, then your doing no better than ISIS.
It's exactly that line of thinking that they want in all non Muslims. Good work. Without knowing it your helping ISIS with that style of stuff.
Don't believe me? Read their charter.
I know a guy on Facebook from India who regularly posts what goes on there, and pretty much whenever Muslims gain significant numbers in an area, things go bad for others. Most religious flare ups are provoked by Islamist inspired youth, but go largely unreported in their media. E.g. this (
http://www.chakranews.com/muslims-torch-and-loot-200-hindu-homes-in-west-bengal/3645) Hindu village torched by a mob of fanatics. Or Hindus forbidden from celebrating their festivals in Muslim majority areas. I'm tempted to blame the influence of Wahhabism in the region, but still, it has become a (
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_muslim_takeover_of_west_bengal.html) consistent pattern.
As for the 'religion of peace'? It's Jainism
