I don't usually read either of those publications. They're half-assed only because you strongly disagee with me. Grow up and if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
I don't usually read either of those publications. They're half-assed only because you strongly disagee with me. Grow up and if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Yes....there's a mix of ethnic groups throughout the middle east, which leads on many of the problems (they often don't get along any better than we do here
Originally posted by: hagbard
Yes....there's a mix of ethnic groups throughout the middle east, which leads on many of the problems (they often don't get along any better than we do here
Well.. actually, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are South Asia, not the middle east.
And technically, the middle east isn't a correct label. It is West Asia.
Sorry Hagard, seems like i'm pickin on you today,huh?
Regarding the ethnic conflict, you are correct. It is predominant in the Muslim areas though. For example, in Pakistan, you have Sindhis, Punjabis, and Pasthuns (Pathans, mostly in AF, but a number in PK as well). That have conflict. the Punjabis are constantly criticized for being ethnocentric, and they run the military (Musharraf isn't one tho), govt, and finance. In AF the same situation occurs. Pashtuns fight Tajiks and Uzbeks constantly. I can't speak for Iran though, not that familiar on the place. Only in India do you have a situation where an EXTREMELY diverse group of people actually coexist peacefully for the most part (what happened in Gujurat during the riots is really small if you take into account the diversity and sheer population of India being over 1.2 Bn).
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab[/bYes....there's a mix of ethnic groups throughout the middle east, which leads on many of the problems (they often don't get along any better than we do here
Well.. actually, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are South Asia, not the middle east.
And technically, the middle east isn't a correct label. It is West Asia.
Sorry Hagard, seems like i'm pickin on you today,huh?
Regarding the ethnic conflict, you are correct. It is predominant in the Muslim areas though. For example, in Pakistan, you have Sindhis, Punjabis, and Pasthuns (Pathans, mostly in AF, but a number in PK as well). That have conflict. the Punjabis are constantly criticized for being ethnocentric, and they run the military (Musharraf isn't one tho), govt, and finance. In AF the same situation occurs. Pashtuns fight Tajiks and Uzbeks constantly. I can't speak for Iran though, not that familiar on the place. Only in India do you have a situation where an EXTREMELY diverse group of people actually coexist peacefully for the most part (what happened in Gujurat during the riots is really small if you take into account the diversity and sheer population of India being over 1.2 Bn).[/quote]
Yeah...I know...I'm having a bit of trouble concentrating (I'm a bit po, but not at you). I think I'm going to give myself a permanant "vacation" from this forum. It doesn't take much to set people off there. I'll stay with more welcoming, open-minded forums. Now, what was that about the First Amendment
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab[/bYes....there's a mix of ethnic groups throughout the middle east, which leads on many of the problems (they often don't get along any better than we do here
Well.. actually, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are South Asia, not the middle east.
And technically, the middle east isn't a correct label. It is West Asia.
Sorry Hagard, seems like i'm pickin on you today,huh?
Regarding the ethnic conflict, you are correct. It is predominant in the Muslim areas though. For example, in Pakistan, you have Sindhis, Punjabis, and Pasthuns (Pathans, mostly in AF, but a number in PK as well). That have conflict. the Punjabis are constantly criticized for being ethnocentric, and they run the military (Musharraf isn't one tho), govt, and finance. In AF the same situation occurs. Pashtuns fight Tajiks and Uzbeks constantly. I can't speak for Iran though, not that familiar on the place. Only in India do you have a situation where an EXTREMELY diverse group of people actually coexist peacefully for the most part (what happened in Gujurat during the riots is really small if you take into account the diversity and sheer population of India being over 1.2 Bn).
Yeah...I know...I'm having a bit of trouble concentrating (I'm a bit po, but not at you). I think I'm going to give myself a permanant "vacation" from this forum. It doesn't take much to set people off there. I'll stay with more welcoming, open-minded forums. Now, what was that about the First Amendment
[/quote]Wow, a volunteer "permanent vacation" on AT, now thats gotta be the first. For what its worth, you made things interesting, and i know ppl here get really rude really quickly. still haven't figured out why though.
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab[/bYes....there's a mix of ethnic groups throughout the middle east, which leads on many of the problems (they often don't get along any better than we do here
Well.. actually, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are South Asia, not the middle east.
And technically, the middle east isn't a correct label. It is West Asia.
Sorry Hagard, seems like i'm pickin on you today,huh?
Regarding the ethnic conflict, you are correct. It is predominant in the Muslim areas though. For example, in Pakistan, you have Sindhis, Punjabis, and Pasthuns (Pathans, mostly in AF, but a number in PK as well). That have conflict. the Punjabis are constantly criticized for being ethnocentric, and they run the military (Musharraf isn't one tho), govt, and finance. In AF the same situation occurs. Pashtuns fight Tajiks and Uzbeks constantly. I can't speak for Iran though, not that familiar on the place. Only in India do you have a situation where an EXTREMELY diverse group of people actually coexist peacefully for the most part (what happened in Gujurat during the riots is really small if you take into account the diversity and sheer population of India being over 1.2 Bn).
Yeah...I know...I'm having a bit of trouble concentrating (I'm a bit po, but not at you). I think I'm going to give myself a permanant "vacation" from this forum. It doesn't take much to set people off there. I'll stay with more welcoming, open-minded forums. Now, what was that about the First Amendment
Wow, a volunteer "permanent vacation" on AT, now thats gotta be the first. For what its worth, you made things interesting, and i know ppl here get really rude really quickly. still haven't figured out why though.[/quote]
Well, I've seen some pretty cude things in forums, that pic that has the moderator upset actually came from another forum (no, not an adult forum). Just couldn't resist, especially given the dancing hitler thing. Since he was being..you know
Anyway, might as well finish up with a few last postings. Right after I started this thread, I found this from one of my favorate analysts on the mid east:
Text
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab[/bYes....there's a mix of ethnic groups throughout the middle east, which leads on many of the problems (they often don't get along any better than we do here
Well.. actually, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are South Asia, not the middle east.
And technically, the middle east isn't a correct label. It is West Asia.
Sorry Hagard, seems like i'm pickin on you today,huh?
Regarding the ethnic conflict, you are correct. It is predominant in the Muslim areas though. For example, in Pakistan, you have Sindhis, Punjabis, and Pasthuns (Pathans, mostly in AF, but a number in PK as well). That have conflict. the Punjabis are constantly criticized for being ethnocentric, and they run the military (Musharraf isn't one tho), govt, and finance. In AF the same situation occurs. Pashtuns fight Tajiks and Uzbeks constantly. I can't speak for Iran though, not that familiar on the place. Only in India do you have a situation where an EXTREMELY diverse group of people actually coexist peacefully for the most part (what happened in Gujurat during the riots is really small if you take into account the diversity and sheer population of India being over 1.2 Bn).
Yeah...I know...I'm having a bit of trouble concentrating (I'm a bit po, but not at you). I think I'm going to give myself a permanant "vacation" from this forum. It doesn't take much to set people off there. I'll stay with more welcoming, open-minded forums. Now, what was that about the First Amendment
[/quote]One last insult from our Canadian friend. hagbard, stay or go, whichever pleases you but to condemn an entire forum as being close-minded because they do not agree with your ideals is pretty 'close-minded' wouldn't you say?
As far as I am concerned you have the right to say whatever you want but you should also be willing to stand behind and validate what you say.
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab[/bYes....there's a mix of ethnic groups throughout the middle east, which leads on many of the problems (they often don't get along any better than we do here
Well.. actually, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are South Asia, not the middle east.
And technically, the middle east isn't a correct label. It is West Asia.
Sorry Hagard, seems like i'm pickin on you today,huh?
Regarding the ethnic conflict, you are correct. It is predominant in the Muslim areas though. For example, in Pakistan, you have Sindhis, Punjabis, and Pasthuns (Pathans, mostly in AF, but a number in PK as well). That have conflict. the Punjabis are constantly criticized for being ethnocentric, and they run the military (Musharraf isn't one tho), govt, and finance. In AF the same situation occurs. Pashtuns fight Tajiks and Uzbeks constantly. I can't speak for Iran though, not that familiar on the place. Only in India do you have a situation where an EXTREMELY diverse group of people actually coexist peacefully for the most part (what happened in Gujurat during the riots is really small if you take into account the diversity and sheer population of India being over 1.2 Bn).
Yeah...I know...I'm having a bit of trouble concentrating (I'm a bit po, but not at you). I think I'm going to give myself a permanant "vacation" from this forum. It doesn't take much to set people off there. I'll stay with more welcoming, open-minded forums. Now, what was that about the First Amendment
One last insult from our Canadian friend. hagbard, stay or go, whichever pleases you but to condemn an entire forum as being close-minded because they do not agree with your ideals is pretty 'close-minded' wouldn't you say?
As far as I am concerned you have the right to say whatever you want but you should also be willing to stand behind and validate what you say.[/quote]
Sorry, I call it as I see it. I always try to respond when someone has a critique of something I said, this is the first time I've ever been threatened with a ban in the ten years I've been on the net. Oh well.
Yeah, instead of being able to destroy the entire world five times over, you will only be able to destroy it four times over
We arent going to attack Iran. We will help the Iranians overthrow their government though.
The majority of Iranians dislike the government. Most are under 26. Most would be happy if the US helped them overthrow their government.
We wont be doing footwork, but we will be helping bring down the current government of Iran at one point or another.
The majority of Iranians dislike the government. Most are under 26. Most would be happy if the US helped them overthrow their government.
We wont be doing footwork, but we will be helping bring down the current government of Iran at one point or another.
Saddam gased the kurds in the 80s.
However he killed and destroyed much of the Kurdish regions into the '90s.
We supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. At the time it was a lesser of two evils. We needed some form of stability in the region. That was until he invaded Kuwait and wouldnt leave until he was forced. Then burned the oild feilds which are the cause of the extremely high cancer rate in Iraq and Kuwait.
However he killed and destroyed much of the Kurdish regions into the '90s.
We supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. At the time it was a lesser of two evils. We needed some form of stability in the region. That was until he invaded Kuwait and wouldnt leave until he was forced. Then burned the oild feilds which are the cause of the extremely high cancer rate in Iraq and Kuwait.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
You forgot China. When do we attack them and start WWIII?Originally posted by: her209
And India and Pakistan.Originally posted by: hagbard
You forget N. Korea and Israel..oh, and France.Originally posted by: her209
Russia and Britain has nukes too.
Cutting our trade off with china would hurt them more than a nuke.
Cutting trade with China will hurt US as bad as China ... not a good scenario.
No war needed ... lets just use brains and money plz
I am glad you have a updated knowledge of how Saudia Arabia and Pakistan are reasons of concern. Now Korea and Iraq. Add to that Iran making its nuclear program.
In next 10-15 years, I see every third world country obatining nukes .. including starving Burundi to some small island like Tonga in pacific.
All nations must decide who will govern the right to possess nukes/WMD.
If US feels it has the right to stop anyone obtaining WMD and nukes, then US wussies better do something .. not verbal diahrroea like Bush and CLinton.
Show it .. you have military might and the money to afford it . just do it bubba.
Please ... do not jump into another mindless government overthrow by jolly good americans.
Are you an Iranian ? Have you met any Iranians from Iran recently ?c How many have you talked to/discussed this issue about ?
What is your above conclusion based on ?
Iran is the most anti US of all moslems. It is foolish to think a student revolt will throw away the ISlamists. Students will be crushed under tanks and their bodies roasted while they still alive.
YOung Irani generation is even more anti US than the old one .. do me a favor . go visit IRAN once and see what 26 year olds talk about Uncle sam and how you get treated there .. LMAO
US has tried this a multiple number of times in all over and EVERY TIME it has back fired.
The best example is dear osama .. shall I tell you how much America is responsible for his birth and success ?
Leave your 1980's dream of overthrowing regimes at home. It is harder than actual wars or battles.
And lets take care of Iraq first .. then talk about rest.
Analog
Lifer
- Jan 7, 2002
- 12,755
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: hagbard
Yes....there's a mix of ethnic groups throughout the middle east, which leads on many of the problems (they often don't get along any better than we do here
Well.. actually, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are South Asia, not the middle east.
And technically, the middle east isn't a correct label. It is West Asia.
Sorry Hagard, seems like i'm pickin on you today,huh?
Regarding the ethnic conflict, you are correct. It is predominant in the Muslim areas though. For example, in Pakistan, you have Sindhis, Punjabis, and Pasthuns (Pathans, mostly in AF, but a number in PK as well). That have conflict. the Punjabis are constantly criticized for being ethnocentric, and they run the military (Musharraf isn't one tho), govt, and finance. In AF the same situation occurs. Pashtuns fight Tajiks and Uzbeks constantly. I can't speak for Iran though, not that familiar on the place. Only in India do you have a situation where an EXTREMELY diverse group of people actually coexist peacefully for the most part (what happened in Gujurat during the riots is really small if you take into account the diversity and sheer population of India being over 1.2 Bn).
Iranians are for the most part Persian. Non-Persian tension is a reason for conflict, including Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, Assyrians, Jews and other minorities.
Iranian anti-american demonstrations are government organized. Government are good at bringing out the 5% of kooks and weirdos
Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: hagbard
Yes....there's a mix of ethnic groups throughout the middle east, which leads on many of the problems (they often don't get along any better than we do here
Well.. actually, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are South Asia, not the middle east.
And technically, the middle east isn't a correct label. It is West Asia.
Sorry Hagard, seems like i'm pickin on you today,huh?
Regarding the ethnic conflict, you are correct. It is predominant in the Muslim areas though. For example, in Pakistan, you have Sindhis, Punjabis, and Pasthuns (Pathans, mostly in AF, but a number in PK as well). That have conflict. the Punjabis are constantly criticized for being ethnocentric, and they run the military (Musharraf isn't one tho), govt, and finance. In AF the same situation occurs. Pashtuns fight Tajiks and Uzbeks constantly. I can't speak for Iran though, not that familiar on the place. Only in India do you have a situation where an EXTREMELY diverse group of people actually coexist peacefully for the most part (what happened in Gujurat during the riots is really small if you take into account the diversity and sheer population of India being over 1.2 Bn).
Iranians are for the most part Persian. Non-Persian tension is a reason for conflict, including Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, Assyrians, Jews and other minorities.
Well, in the case of Iran it probably has a lot to do with the religious differences as well. The people you named are Sunni Muslim (except Jews obviously), but Iranians tend to be Shiite. I know Shiites have been targeted in Pakistan, AFghanistan as well (mostly Pathans there or "pashtuns".) I think the Tajiks of AF are of persian descent though, like Masood was.
Found this article by searching Google.com, seems have been posted on frontpage of MSN.com a while ago.
MSN Article: How Saddam Happened
MSN Article: How Saddam Happened
tajiks speak persian, their origins are murky. some specialists say they predate the aryans who swept through the region many
moons ago.
the hazaras are shiite too. they were persecuted by the taliban. with regard to the shia in iran, they constitute a critical difference
with their brethren in iraq. the shia between these two countires are grouped into the usuli branch (iraq) and the akhbari (iran).
what this means, to make this relevant, is the usuli are more liberal and accomodating vis-a-vis institutional authorities whereas
the akhbari leave little to natural change and tend to be more worldly and pro-active. usulis, for example, acqiesced to saddam's
campaign against iran, even though their twelver brethren in iran had asked for some moral support. these same usuli shia
suffered from saddam's volte face and were killed in the hundreds post-persian gulf conflict.
moons ago.
the hazaras are shiite too. they were persecuted by the taliban. with regard to the shia in iran, they constitute a critical difference
with their brethren in iraq. the shia between these two countires are grouped into the usuli branch (iraq) and the akhbari (iran).
what this means, to make this relevant, is the usuli are more liberal and accomodating vis-a-vis institutional authorities whereas
the akhbari leave little to natural change and tend to be more worldly and pro-active. usulis, for example, acqiesced to saddam's
campaign against iran, even though their twelver brethren in iran had asked for some moral support. these same usuli shia
suffered from saddam's volte face and were killed in the hundreds post-persian gulf conflict.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter