BS: A couple of questions.

Subject: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Stanron
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:45 AM

Are there any Arab democracies? Hussein in Iraq and Gaddaffi in Lebanon were dictators. Under them there was an apparancy of comparable peace. Comparable, of course, to the utter chaos of civil war that followed their removal, and a result of a level of oppression that we in the UK would find unbearable. Am I right in assuming that the main cause of the civil wars that followed the dictator's removals is the conflict between different versions of Islam? Am I also right in believing that this Islamic schism goes back 1300 years?

Could it be that there will not be any peace for any Islamic country until the different sides of the Islamic divide devise a means of tolerating each other? Without that toleration, rule can only be achieved by one side oppressing the other, and if the divide of belief is anything other than heavily one sided there cannot be democracy.

It begs the questions of a; whether it's worth removing dictators if the result is going to be even more misery and b; how do the differnt varieties of Islam find a way to tolerate each other?.

Not, of course, to mention oil, Putin or Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:00 PM

Regarding your fourth question,

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine in First Principles of Government (1795)

I copied that down in the early 90s when someone posted it on line. Seems that the right wing had decided they want America to be less American, and are actively trying to eliminate tolerance and the willingness to compromise. In a democracy, those things persist only so long as people want them more than they want power.

Generosity, as opposed to selfishness. It's not valued much these days...anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Iains
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 01:30 PM

One man's attempt to answer your question. Some years old but probably still valid.

http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/article/why-are-there-no-arab-democracies

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 01:44 PM

Remember in Lawrence of Arabia where all Arabs were separated by tribes and religion? Most of these still exist including further divisions of several different religions.

There are democratic hybrids that include Jorden, Iran, Tunisia and others/ under a Democratic alliance monarchy. Iraq was one of these but has become a quasi colony of Iran since US interference failed.
Egypt tried a new improved democracy and failed. What is left are State religion tribal kingdoms / dictators.

This explanation is totally facile. The details are a complex shifting of family tribal religious coups, super power alliances, assassinations and takeovers. Who knew it was so complex. Then in the middle of all this Ethniclashistan, there is Israel.

There is hope. I heard that Trump not only has a secret plan to defeat Issus but, with Jared's help, has a plan to unify all Islam just as soon as they learn to pronounce all the factions. Trump's brilliant plan-Deal has been put on hold since tweeting "we will take all their oil".

I am no middle east expert but I have eyes that detect lies.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:06 PM

"... there will not be any peace...until the different sides of the Islamic divide devise a means of tolerating each other?"

Rather like the many sides of the "Christian"[sic] divide, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:56 PM

Rather like the many sides of the "Christian"[sic] divide, innit?

Errr.....not exactly, but keep throwing out dem faux equivalences and maybe one day you too can get a job at Faux News.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:17 PM

"... there will not be any peace...until the different sides of the Islamic divide devise a means of tolerating each other?"

Rather like the many sides of the "Christian"[sic] divide, innit?

Yes, actually. Different varieties of Christians may not always get on too well, but the days when we had wars of religion about such things, and had public executions have receded into the past.

There is nothing that Isis does which hasn't got parallels with things that our Christian ancestors used to do to each other a few centuries ago.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:29 PM

......a few centuries ago.

And there's the key, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Iains
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:33 PM

The Ottoman Empire kept a big chunk of the middle east on a tight leash until post WW1. Then mainly Britain and France drew straight lines on a map creating artificial countries. Subsequently population explosion, resource wars and despotic regimes have been thoroughly shaken by entities such as the CIA and stirred by religious rivalries to create the present human tragedy over vast swathes of the area.Sadly No easy answers and no easy solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:14 PM

"Then mainly Britain and France drew straight lines on a map creating artificial countries. Subsequently population explosion, resource wars and despotic regimes have been thoroughly shaken by entities such as the CIA and stirred by religious rivalries to create the present human tragedy over vast swathes of the area. Sadly No easy answers and no easy solutions."

They have had between almost 100 years to almost 70 years to sort it out among themselves and they have failed spectacularly to do so. Besides it was NOT just Britain and France who drew straight lines others were involved INCLUDING the USA. After such a time lapse the fault no longer rests with "The Big Bad West" high time the main actors took responsibility for the utterly corrupt hellholes that they themselves have created and for the millions who seek to flee to the west where instead of abandoning their old way of life they seek to reduce their saviour host nations to the exact same hellholes that they fled.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:46 PM

Not very literate, Teribus. Time of night I suppose. Are you feeling tired and emotional? That's two threads now...

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Iains
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 04:22 AM

They have had between almost 100 years to almost 70 years to sort it out among themselves and they have failed spectacularly to do so.

If the above statement were true you may have a point, but these countries have oil under the sand and their political systems for the most part have been created by the west, with the sole intent of keeping the oil flowing. It is the same story over many parts of Africa as well.
If not created, then tacitly ignored. So long as the oil keeps flowing.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Stu
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 04:56 AM

"After such a time lapse the fault no longer rests with "The Big Bad West" high time the main actors took responsibility for the utterly corrupt hellholes that they themselves have created and for the millions who seek to flee to the west where instead of abandoning their old way of life they seek to reduce their saviour host nations to the exact same hellholes that they fled."

A fantastically reductionist and xenophobic rant, exhibiting little more than the arrogance and ignorance of the poster and their inability to construct a coherent sentence.

Here's a hint: It's waaayyyyyy more complicated than you seem able to comprehend. Human suffering might not bother some folk, but it bothers plenty of others who see it as something to be avoided, not endured due to an accident of birth.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 05:39 AM

The warring kingdoms of England were united against a common enemy by Alfred in the ninth century. After absorbing Wales and Scotland and some of Ireland along the way, the United Kingdom became a proper democracy with the 1928 Representation of the People Act over a thousand years later. I think 70 to a 100 years might be pushing it a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 10:49 AM

...do to each other a few centuries ago.

Centuries? Well lets see-

*We have the protracted "troubles" of Northern Ireland------ but let that pass.

*We have Christians assassinating Christian abortion providers and bombing Christian Planned Parenthood facilities - but let that pass.

*We have Christians assaulting members of the Christian LGBT community in the Name of God- but let that pass.

*We have Christian Klan members attacking & killing Christians of color- but let that pass.


We have.......................

Oh, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 10:57 AM

'scuse me- - - England did NOT 'absorb' Scotland!!!

a) James VI of Scotland became heir to the English throne in (I think) 1604 so the two kingdoms became the 'United Kingdoms' and the Kinking became James I of the United Kingdoms of Scotland and England. However in Scotland we have always referred to him as 'Jamie Saxth and First'

b)Both countries retained their parliaments until 1707 when after some devious machinations the Scots lords (pre-democratic voting!) were 'persuaded' --- both parliaments were to be set aside and a new one formed for the United Kingdoms (tho' it would be based at Westminster.....)

For some reason a large proportion of the English population seem to think that Scotland is some sort of region or province of England, and that 'United Kingdoms' and 'England' are interchangeable.
Alas much of the wider world has also fallen for that myth -- -

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 11:04 AM

oops- omitted to mention that - thanks to the EU - - Scotland's Parliament was reinstated in the '90s, albeit not fully- certain elements of government were retained by Westminster (and the totally undemocratic House of Lords!!!)
However in the farce that is Brexit, our fervent hope is that the 62% of Scottish voters who opted to remain in the EU will have started the ripple that will cause a tidal wave in the next Independence Referendum -- - - Alba gu brath!
(NB there's a grave above the 'a' in brath!!)

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Stu
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 11:37 AM

"For some reason a large proportion of the English population seem to think that Scotland is some sort of region or province of England"

With all due respect, for many ordinary English folk that is utter bollocks. Don't confuse everyone who lives in England with the establishment (which is also full of - shock horror - Scots!).

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 12:22 PM

Apologies for giving offence Stu -- I am sure there are many people in England who feel as frustrated as we do with The Establishment -- but until something radically changes in the tone used by almost all of mainstream media and the braying donkeys on the conservative benches in parliament then the ordinary people will continue to be dragged down, used and abused.

From up here that is certainly feels like few down South appreciate our status - so please tell me how that can be changed?
We have a strong sense of injustice!

NB I Westminster parliament there is ONE solitary Scottish Conservative member! And he only got in by a narrow margin- -
We have one solitary Lib Dem representative ( a proven liar in a court of law) and a single Labour representative.
All the rest of the Scottish members of parliament are SNP (with two I think currently being independent) - and our voices are not heard, ignored.
Not acceptable!

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: ripov
Date: 09 Apr 17 - 08:38 PM

Don't knock the house of lords, We may need them to keep this unmentionable government in line once they are not moderated by Europe.
And how can anyone mention democracy and the UK in the same sentence. It's dictatorship by Bedlam. Public school kids who think its funny to get people to kill themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 03:18 AM

Errr.....not exactly, but keep throwing out dem faux equivalences and maybe one day you too can get a job at Faux News.

Here in the UK - it has not been that long since the IRA has ceased their bombings. And anyone who tells you that is not a religious issue has not understood the issues. The divide is along (so called) religious lines. And you only have to look to bloody football (soccer) to see that it hasn't entirely gone away. Liverpool and Manchester may have diluted their divide but 60 years ago it was evident. And Glasga is still unrepentant in its rivalry and division.

Throw in abject poverty and you have factions that have little to loose and a lot to gain. And that is what there is in some of these countries that are riven with conflict.

And oil only attracts the outside players, lack of a decent water supply is fueling many wars.

But the biggest problem is population. There is plenty of resource for everyone when humanity is sparsely spread. Not any more! Anyone with a solution to that? This side of Hitler?

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 03:46 AM

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Reports/2001/PopulationTrendsandChallengesintheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica.aspx
Mr Red.
Not just an exploding population but imbalanced age structure, many teens and young adults. Lack of jobs. This is apart from all the other stresses-both internal and external.
political instability is inherent in a society as challenged as many of those in the article. Saudi would be a prime example. Pampered princes, huge immigrant population to make the wheels go around, and largely idle youth/young adults. An accident just waiting to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 04:39 AM

Mr Red - "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland HAD nothing whatsoever to do with religion, coincidence that the political fault lines matched old historical religious ones just meant that religion could be used as an additional means of polarisation. The object behind the terror campaigns of the paramilitaries was not to wipe out any rival religion, the object from the republican side was to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and unite Ireland by terror and force of arms, the object from the loyalist side was to prevent that - F**k All to do with religion.

"The divide is along (so called) religious lines." - No it is not!! The majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland according to polls held in 2013, 2014, 2015 and Post Brexit want no part of a united Ireland. While a Poll held in the Republic of Ireland itself in 2015 related to a united Ireland came up with some very interesting results:

Poll Question:
"There are a number of possible options for the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. In the short to medium term, do you think Northern Ireland should…":

(1) Remain part of the UK, with direct rule from Westminster - 9%
(2) Remain part of the UK, with a devolved assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland (the current situation) - 35%
(3) Unify with the rest of Ireland - 36%
(4) Other - 1%
(5) None of these - 2%
(6) Don't know - 17%

Asked in the same poll if long term they wished to see a united Ireland in their lifetime then the vote went:
- YES 66%
- NO 14% NO
- Don't know.

When put to them that if such a unification would mean that they'd pay more in tax the above shifted to:

In favour of a united Ireland - 31%
Against a united Ireland - 44%
Don't know - 25%

Religion didn't enter into it

"After absorbing Wales and Scotland and some of Ireland along the way, the United Kingdom became a proper democracy with the 1928 Representation of the People Act over a thousand years later. I think 70 to a 100 years might be pushing it a bit." - The Snail

Gallus Moll is quite correct in objecting to the above in the strongest possible terms from the points of view of any Welshman, Scotsman or Northern Irishman.

King Edward I could "contain" the Welsh he never actually managed to conquer them so he made a peace with them bound by a treaty.

The Scots won their War of Independence and became recognised as a Sovereign Independent Kingdom, whose King succeeded to the English throne in 1603 and whose Parliaments through ACTS of Union voluntarily joined to create the United Kingdom in 1707

On the 6th December 1922 a 32 county Irish Free State was created as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Within 24 hours the Parliament of the six counties in the North that made up Northern Ireland exercised their right under the Anglo-Irish Treaty to withdraw from the Irish Free State and opt to remain as part of the United Kingdom - No absorption by England involved at all at any time in the process.

By the way what has constituted and been thought of as a "Proper Democracy" has changed markedly through the centuries and what modern day man considers it to be is totally irrelevant when applied to fault what passed for it in times gone by.

Transparency International Corruption Maps and Tables

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 06:28 AM

My apologies if my flippant attempt to precis 1000 years of history caused offence. I was merely trying to make it clear that the nation that finally acheived some sort of democracy in the early twentieth century was not the same as the England that came into being in the ninth century. The first version of Scotland appeared around the same time only later "absorbing" considerable portions of the Kingdoms of Strathclyde and Northumberland by conquest.
Unfotunately, this gave Teribus the opportunity of wriggling out of the point that he expects the arbitrary nations formed at the whim of lazy cartographers to achieve in 70 to 100 years what the UK only did (after a fashion) in a thousand years.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 08:54 AM

"From up here that is certainly feels like few down South appreciate our status - so please tell me how that can be changed?
We have a strong sense of injustice!"

I fully understand, I am unrepresented in parliament too, my MP having been parachuted into one of the safest tory seats in the country, and with the boundary changes it'll be unassailable.

I don't blame the Scots for wanting to leave, especially after Brexit. I'd be in favour of the English regions being devolved too, as I believe that regional identity in England is stronger than national identity and Westminster and the South East England media are unappreciative of the differences in life outside the capital and the wealthier home counties. i like the idea of a 'Council of the Isles', but I fear too many of us are steeped in our myopic views of each nation on the island as being some kind of enemy. More the pity for them.

But what really worries me about the rise of nationalism is the fact it divides the working people of our island, and this makes us weaker. The ordinary man and woman of Scotland, Wales and England are disillusioned with Westminster and the ever-diminishing sense of society that austerity has brought to the UK, which feels grim and unfriendly. This is why nationalist parties like the SNP and the Tories nationalist thrive at times like this; they need division to prosper. With the nightmare of Brexit about to take a huge dump on us all, our disunity and desire to give 'the man' a kicking has led to us becoming the slave of the US and at the mercy of corporate interests that wish to keep us divided. The Man is in charge now, more than ever and we let him "take back control".

I don't two what the answer is.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 08:57 AM

No wriggling on my part whatsoever Snail. The 70 to 100 year thing - wrt the middle-east and the Arabian Peninsula democracy doesn't enter into it Snail, that was just another of your incorrect assumptions. I take it Snail that you have never travelled to or worked in these countries Snail - I have.

Iains, whatever has happened in the middle-east has got nothing to do with "lazy cartographers" you incorrectly assumed to be "British and French". The utterly corrupt Ottoman Empire that had been in terminal decline and failing from the mid 1800s did not consist of countries that had been conquered by the Turks, neither were there any established boundaries formed by natural features. The League of Nations that Woodrow Wilson and the Americans had a great deal to do with the setting up of, yet did not become a member of, divided up what had been the Ottoman Empire and created the countries of the middle-east - NOT solely Britain and France - If you are going to refer to events of the past then you have a duty and responsibility to get them right.

The populations of the Arabian Peninsula had no countries, most were nomadic Bedouin. Heed was paid to the advice of Col T. E. Lawrence and they were pretty much left to form their own styles of Government that took into account inter-tribal dynamics, religious considerations and differences, and hierarchy. Two areas were exceptions Palestine and the Lebanon - both were set up to be sectarian areas that afforded non-Muslim minorities a safe-haven from religious intolerance and persecution. It is little wonder that the corrupt practices that the Arabs had always been accustomed to under Ottoman rule would simply be carried over by the new rulers who were based on tribal hierarchy and rivalries.

Stu the sentence is perfectly coherent to me, however, if you would you like me to simplify it for you? Maybe chop it up to make it easier for you to understand. Would that help? - you may think there is a place in the modern social life of the United Kingdom for Sharia Law, having women treated as second class citizens, FGM, forced arranged marriage, religious intolerance, loss of freedom of speech, censorship, capital and corporal punishment enshrined and revered by the followers of the "Religion of Peace" as demonstrated by ISIS - Then more fool you.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 09:34 AM

"you may think there is a place in the modern social life of the United Kingdom for Sharia Law, having women treated as second class citizens, FGM, forced arranged marriage, religious intolerance, loss of freedom of speech, censorship, capital and corporal punishment enshrined and revered by the followers of the "Religion of Peace" as demonstrated by ISIS "

Er, no. I don't think there is a place for any of those things. However, you didn't mention them in your post, you seemed to be inferring that because a ruling elite had made life hell for the citizens of any given nation, those citizens should stay there and endure the suffering visited upon them rather than come here, where the things you listed in your sentence above are, supposedly, protected.

The "the main actors" don't give a shit about those people but others do, and we offer them refuge from their persecutors. Luckily not everyone is like Farage or the tories.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 01:45 PM

Stu can I gently point out the The Scottish National Party is absolutely NOT a 'nationalist' party in the way Ukip etc are!
Perhaps if you have time to listen to the few occasions the SNP members of Westminster parliament are allowed to speak you might get a flavour of who they are, what their policies are.
They are a party of social justice. of inclusion, of respect for all. In the Holyrood parliament they have fought to minimise the dreadful effects of Tory austerity on the citizens of Scotland, to protect the Scottish NHS from the cuts being experienced elsewhere in the UK and many other measures, to support further education for all those who aspire to it - Nicola Sturgeon is First Minister for all of this country, not just those who voted SNP.
You won't see much / any of this reported on msm, particularly not BBC or most of the press - and I don't expect The National is available outwith Scotland (tho you can subscribe online.
There are some facebook sites that offer accurate information / discussions - the SNP's own pages, also Bella Caledonia and (usually!) Wings Over Scotland.
Catalonia and Scotland, tho having different political and constitutional backgrounds, are soulmates, empathise with one another.
If you have ever seen The Tartan Army abroad supporting the Scottish Football team (on the few occasions it makes it to matches outwith the country!) and contract them with the skinheads who 'support' - or used to - the English team - you will begin to get a sense of what the wider Independence-supporting population is like- happy, positive, enthusiastic, sharing. There were and are wonderful rallies and marches in Glasgow and all over the land, not in the least threatening but happy bands of people hopeful of achieving their liberation.
Come and join us, feel the joy, lots of humour - - it is wonderful! You might be able to find some samples on facebook or youtube - like when the 100 MPs (Labour?) came up on the train to walk from Glasgow Central rail station to The Buchanan Steps (which have become an iconic rallying point. A chap hired a rickshaw and driver, sat in the back with a loudspeaker and mike, sound system blasting out the theme from the Empire Strikes back, chap calling to the citizens of Glasgow to bow down before their imperial masters, your imperial masters are here -- he did this alongside the band of MPs all the way through the streets, they didn't know how to deal with it! Soooo funny.
The unionist parties have worked hard on Project Fear, but we won't be fooled by it again! (I sincerely hope----)

NB Teribus- - I know it was a précis BUT - the Scots were already a nation, a kingdom and had been for some considerable time before Edward came up here to try to take us over in 1314 (?) only to be sent scuttling away by Wallace and Bruce. So that war was not to win independence but to defend it!

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 02:33 PM

Gallup Moll: I understand fully the policies of the SNP and agree with a great many of them; would that we had any party with such a progressive agenda to choose from. Nicola Sturgeon is highly respected amongst many of us outside of Scotland and if we had her like down here I'd vote for them. It might be hard to believe for some folk north of the border, but we don't all walk around with our heads up our arses waving the butcher's apron and singing 'Rule Britannia', some of us actually take notice and the time to listen and find out.

However, nationalism is nationalism however you pitch it and by its nature is divisive. Now let's be clear, I don't blame the Scots from wanting to get away from this shower of wankers running the country and the worse than useless Islington Labour party supposedly opposing them but that doesn't change the nature of nationalism, 'civic' or otherwise. In fact, Scotland would be mad to stay, especially if they can return to the EU.


"Empire Strikes back, chap calling to the citizens of Glasgow to bow down before their imperial masters, your imperial masters are here"

Good prank, but with a poor grasp of history. YOUR (then OUR) ruling elite/military/capitalists are the imperial masters too, as they were willing partners in empire in the past! Dum-dum-de-dum! Denying that as a nation will come back to bite you in the arse in the future, believe me.


"Come and join us, feel the joy"

I'm not Scottish, I'm a morally inferior English dimwit.


"lots of humour"

I had a bad experience with a shopkeeper on the Royal Mile who upon hearing my accent when I asked him where something was in his shop start shouting at us that we were ConDems and proceeded to hit me over the head repeatedly with a very large blow-up hammer whilst going "Stupid, stupid, stupid" every time he landed a blow. At first I thought this was a joke and tried to banter with him, but he got rather loud and shouty and then hit my wife with the damn thing, and then charged me £4.50ish for a tin of curried haggis. Being the non-violent type, I paid him as I thought it would piss him off more if I stayed and put up with the abuse. The other folk in the shop looked horrified watching all this, and we left a bit shaken. Despite the fact this man was obviously a tosser of the highest calibre, I didn't leave Edinburgh with the impression all Scots were like that though.

The curried haggis was great though.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 02:49 PM

What a world.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 05:17 PM

Stu yon Royal Mile experience is no' acceptable (specially when he is selling touristy stuff!!!) - - tell me whit shoap an' ah'll ging ower therr an' malkie him!!

ceud mille apologies on behalf of my country -- please let Scottish mudcatters ken when you plan to return and we shall provide you with escorts / protection / translations etc!

- They should be necessary however it is possible that peoples' bluid is up if they have just been abused themselves by extreme yoons / rich wingers etc?

Next time in Royal Mile gang tae the Whisky Shop - - think there's a Cadenheads? their distillery is in Campbeltown and their whisky is jist gorgeous --

In the main I have found all the marches. gatherings etc to be very good natured and when we have come up against negative and dissident folks then humour has prevailed.
There are many English and other nationalities living here and supporting independence for Scotland and protesting against the injustice of the right wing / yoons.
xxx

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 17 - 05:51 PM

A tosser of the highest caber, surely?

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 07:02 AM

Gallus - I love Edinburgh LOTS, it didn't sully my experience too much ;-)

What's a 'yoon'?

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 11:32 AM

Are there any Arab democracies? Hussein in Iraq and Gaddaffi in Lebanon were dictators.

The Libyan regime was not a dictatorship of any sort. Nothing like Trump's America, anyway.

Under them there was an apparancy of comparable peace.

Also, for women, a great deal more freedom, welfare and opportunity than most other regimes in the area. But half the human race doesn't count for the Western propaganda machine.

Am I right in assuming that the main cause of the civil wars that followed the dictator's removals is the conflict between different versions of Islam?

No. The main cause has been the West's war against (1) Middle Eastern secularism and (2) Shia Islam, for the last generation. They don't have a problem with Sunni fundamentalists because Sunni fundies don't have a problem with neo-feudal oligarchy, which is what the US corporations like to deal with. Hence the current genocidal war in Yemen, where the Western and Saudi-backed Sunni government is starving most of its own (mostly Shia) population to hang on to power. This looks like being much more lethal than anything Assad has done, but any cruise missiles America fires are going to be aimed at the Shia majority.

I don't see Trump (or anybody in the liberal part of the American political establishment, either) having any problem with the Shia/Sufi majority facing indiscriminate massacre in Pakistan.

The divide between Shias and Sunnis does go back 1300 years, but it has only become an ideological rationale for all-out mass murder because of American business interests since the 1970s.

Subject: RE: BS: A couple of questions.
From: bobad
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 12:17 PM

The Libyan regime was not a dictatorship of any sort.

Lol!