QuoteISIS Behead Palmyra Archaeologist Khaled al-Assad And Hang His Body From Ancient Ruins
Islamic State (IS) militants have executed the archaeologist who looked after the ancient ruins of Palmyra and hung his body from them.
Khaled al-Assad's death was announced by Syrian state media and an activist group on Wednesday.
The 81-year-old was beheaded by the militant group, which has captured a third of both Syria and neighboring Iraq and declared a self-styled "caliphate" on the territory it controls.
Since IS overran Palmyra in May, there have been fears the extremists, who have destroyed famed archaeological sites in Iraq, would demolish the 2,000-year-old Roman-era city at the edge of the town - a UNESCO world heritage site and one of the Mideast's most spectacular archaeological sites.
The Sunni extremist group, which has imposed a violent interpretation of Islamic law, or Shariah, believes ancient relics promote idolatry.
IS militants claim they are destroying ancient artifacts and archaeological treasures as part of their purge of paganism.
The destruction IS has wreaked adds to the wider, extensive damage it has inflicted on ancient sites, including mosques and churches across Syria and Iraq.
According to Syrian state news agency SANA and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, al-Assad was beheaded on Tuesday in a square outside the town's museum.
The Observatory, which has a network of activists on the ground in Syria, said dozens of people gathered to witness the killing. Al-Asaad had been held by the IS for about a month, it added.
His body was then taken to Palmyra's archaeological site and hung from one of the Roman columns, Maamoun Abdulkarim, the head of the Antiquities and Museums Department in Damascus, told SANA.
Al-Asaad was "one of the most important pioneers in Syrian archaeology in the 20th century," Abdulkarim said. IS had tried to extract information from him about where some of the town's treasures had been hidden to save them from the militants, the antiquities chief also said.
SANA said al-Asaad had been in charge of Palmyra's archaeological site for four decades until 2003, when he retired. After retiring, al-Asaad worked as an expert with the Antiquities and Museums Department.
Al-Asaad, who held a diploma in history and education from the University of Damascus, wrote many books and scientific texts either individually or in cooperation with other Syrian or foreign archeologists, SANA said. Among his titles are "The Palmyra sculptures," and "Zenobia, the Queen of Palmyra and the Orient."
He also discovered several ancient cemeteries, caves and the Byzantine cemetery in the garden of the Museum of Palmyra, the agency added.
"Al-Asaad was a treasure for Syria and the world," Khalil Hariri from Palmyra's archaeological department told The Associated Press, speaking over the phone from the central Syrian city of Homs. "Why did they kill him?"
"Their systematic campaign seeks to take us back into pre-history," he added. "But they will not succeed."
Since falling to IS, Palmyra's ancient site has remained intact but the militants destroyed a lion statue in the town dating back to the 2nd century. The statue, discovered in 1975, had stood at the gates of the town museum, and had been placed inside a metal box to protect it from damage.
In early July, IS released a video showing the killing of some 20 captured government soldiers in Palmyra's amphitheater. They were shot dead by young IS members, armed with pistols. Hundreds of people were seen watching the killings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/19/isis-behead-syrian-archaeologist-palmyra-hang-body-ancient-ruins_n_8008058.html
Somehow, this crime seems to be among the most heinous ones they have perpetrated. I can't think of a worse crime than destroying memory. These are rabid dogs.
Sad. A local museum had a Palmyra exhibit a few years ago and it was pretty impressive.
It's funny how the Internet pays so much attention to Syrians being killed in one of the most destructive civil wars of the century, but doesn't give two shits about lions being killed in Africa. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Warspite on August 19, 2015, 08:29:30 AM
It's funny how the Internet pays so much attention to Syrians being killed in one of the most destructive civil wars of the century, but doesn't give two shits about lions being killed in Africa. :rolleyes:
:lol:
This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?
I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.
ISIS has gone beyond some kind of moral event horizon here. Once you commit mass murder and establish sex slavery it is hard to really shock anybody anymore.
Quote from: Warspite on August 19, 2015, 08:29:30 AM
It's funny how the Internet pays so much attention to Syrians being killed in one of the most destructive civil wars of the century, but doesn't give two shits about lions being killed in Africa. :rolleyes:
So true.... ;)
Quote from: Norgy on August 19, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?
I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.
I thought it is now well-established that air strikes alone aren't very effective?
Quote from: Monoriu on August 19, 2015, 08:58:43 AM
Quote from: Norgy on August 19, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?
I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.
I thought it is now well-established that air strikes alone aren't very effective?
That was Swiss cheese.
Quote from: Norgy on August 19, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?
I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.
If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 09:06:34 AM
Quote from: Norgy on August 19, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?
I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.
If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.
Apparently, most of the world is incompetent in solving world problems. I think the last time we were somehow on track was 1945.
It seems like the IS/ISIL/ISIS/FUCKNUTS hate being called DAESH, though. So we could start with that?
There is no moral fibre left in people selling 9 year old girls into slavery. These people are no different from Einsatz-gruppen.
I tend to shy away from the most unapologetic Islam-bashing here, but these people deserve to be called what they are. Pissflaps, cunts, shits, evil bastards.
A friend of mine recently said "If I weren't an old bastard and had two daughters, I'd volunteer for the Peshmerga. We need to kill these people."
And I agree. While I would gladly join the fighters, I doubt they would take overweight, alcoholic unfit idiots like me, though.
Try it and see if they take you. I'm sure you have skills they need even if you're not super fit.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 09:06:34 AM
If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.
It's not that, it's just that we lack the ruthlessness to truly solve it.
We need to give control of the Middle East back to the Turks. They'll take care of the problem.
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 09:51:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 09:06:34 AM
If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.
It's not that, it's just that we lack the ruthlessness to truly solve it.
We need to give control of the Middle East back to the Turks. They'll take care of the problem.
Well yeah what Norgy says has merit: the last time the West effectively got rid of militant extremist human scum was when they were willing to carpet-bomb and burn tens, or even hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent people with them.
No real stomach for that now.
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 09:51:37 AM
It's not that, it's just that we lack the ruthlessness to truly solve it.
We need to give control of the Middle East back to the Turks. They'll take care of the problem.
I'm assume you mean some historical version of the Turks that no longer exist. The current Turks would rather fight Assad and the Kurds than ISIS.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 08:42:09 AM
ISIS has gone beyond some kind of moral event horizon here. Once you commit mass murder and establish sex slavery it is hard to really shock anybody anymore.
Maybe my priorities are fucked up, but somehow this murder and subsequent defilement of the body of this 81 year old archeologist seems worse to me.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 09:06:34 AM
Quote from: Norgy on August 19, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?
I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.
If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.
How about a few
tactical nukes?
Quote from: Tamas on August 19, 2015, 09:53:51 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 09:51:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 09:06:34 AM
If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.
It's not that, it's just that we lack the ruthlessness to truly solve it.
We need to give control of the Middle East back to the Turks. They'll take care of the problem.
Well yeah what Norgy says has merit: the last time the West effectively got rid of militant extremist human scum was when they were willing to carpet-bomb and burn tens, or even hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent people with them.
No real stomach for that now.
Yup. This is what would be needed now. There were crowds lining up to see this poor Syrian guy being executed, so at least they fear ISIL more than they fear the ISIL's enemies. And that's considering the total number of ISIL militants is just few dozen thousands - which is really nothing compared to the local populace.
Go Hiroshima/Nagasaki on them. Drop nukes on two mid-size towns controlled by ISIL. Then say that more will come unless ISIL are gone from the lands they occupy within 30 days.
I did not know this professor was gay
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2015, 10:07:49 AM
How about a few tactical nukes?
I am certain that we will never be using nukes again unless somebody uses them on us first.
Quote from: frunk on August 19, 2015, 09:56:31 AM
I'm assume you mean some historical version of the Turks that no longer exist. The current Turks would rather fight Assad and the Kurds than ISIS.
When they are done solving those problems, maybe they'll solve the Islamic extremism problem too. They might not, but who knows? We DEFINITELY won't solve the problem.
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 10:34:44 AM
Quote from: frunk on August 19, 2015, 09:56:31 AM
I'm assume you mean some historical version of the Turks that no longer exist. The current Turks would rather fight Assad and the Kurds than ISIS.
When they are done solving those problems, maybe they'll solve the Islamic extremism problem too. They might not, but who knows? We DEFINITELY won't solve the problem.
On the other hand, the current Turkish leader was just recently very happy to torpedo the peace talks with the Kurds and have the Kurds restart their violent uprising and terror actions, just so he can have a running chance of winning the repeated elections.
Not exactly middle east solving statesman material
Quote from: frunk on August 19, 2015, 09:56:31 AM
I'm assume you mean some historical version of the Turks that no longer exist. The current Turks would rather fight Assad and the Kurds than ISIS.
Right.
Turkey is a NATO country- they could invoke the collective security clause against Daesh. 75,000 front line Turkish troops plus some NATO auxiliaries, plus NATO air support could wipe Daesh from the map in weeks.
But it ain't gonna happen.
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2015, 10:11:14 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 19, 2015, 09:53:51 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 09:51:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 09:06:34 AM
If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.
It's not that, it's just that we lack the ruthlessness to truly solve it.
We need to give control of the Middle East back to the Turks. They'll take care of the problem.
Well yeah what Norgy says has merit: the last time the West effectively got rid of militant extremist human scum was when they were willing to carpet-bomb and burn tens, or even hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent people with them.
No real stomach for that now.
Yup. This is what would be needed now. There were crowds lining up to see this poor Syrian guy being executed, so at least they fear ISIL more than they fear the ISIL's enemies. And that's considering the total number of ISIL militants is just few dozen thousands - which is really nothing compared to the local populace.
Go Hiroshima/Nagasaki on them. Drop nukes on two mid-size towns controlled by ISIL. Then say that more will come unless ISIL are gone from the lands they occupy within 30 days.
Maybe we should nuke one of our own cities, and tell them that if we're willing to do this to
ourselves, just imagine what we'd be willing to do
to them.
Quote from: Warspite on August 19, 2015, 10:54:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2015, 10:11:14 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 19, 2015, 09:53:51 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 09:51:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 09:06:34 AM
If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.
It's not that, it's just that we lack the ruthlessness to truly solve it.
We need to give control of the Middle East back to the Turks. They'll take care of the problem.
Well yeah what Norgy says has merit: the last time the West effectively got rid of militant extremist human scum was when they were willing to carpet-bomb and burn tens, or even hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent people with them.
No real stomach for that now.
Yup. This is what would be needed now. There were crowds lining up to see this poor Syrian guy being executed, so at least they fear ISIL more than they fear the ISIL's enemies. And that's considering the total number of ISIL militants is just few dozen thousands - which is really nothing compared to the local populace.
Go Hiroshima/Nagasaki on them. Drop nukes on two mid-size towns controlled by ISIL. Then say that more will come unless ISIL are gone from the lands they occupy within 30 days.
Maybe we should nuke one of our own cities, and tell them that if we're willing to do this to ourselves, just imagine what we'd be willing to do to them.
:D
Detroit would be a good option. They probably wouldn't even notice a difference
Quote from: HVC on August 19, 2015, 10:56:43 AM
Detroit would be a good option. They probably wouldn't even notice a difference
We could not nuke Detroit, show pictures of it, and claim we nuked it. I like this plan.
Quote from: Warspite on August 19, 2015, 10:54:31 AM
Maybe we should nuke one of our own cities, and tell them that if we're willing to do this to ourselves, just imagine what we'd be willing to do to them.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fak-hdl.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2014-02%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr07%2F19%2F22%2Fanigif_enhanced-2911-1392867232-9.gif&hash=c84b7a7c8b602b4145b9c3bf9e65010795dc347e)
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 10:57:52 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 19, 2015, 10:56:43 AM
Detroit would be a good option. They probably wouldn't even notice a difference
We could not nuke Detroit, show pictures of it, and claim we nuked it. I like this plan.
:lmfao:
Well, whatever the world is doing now, doesn't help. I say we unleash our new "friends" in Iran on them.
You may be joking but I seriously think we should pursue detente with Iran and try to ally with the Iranians. Iran is powerful and Iranians are cool and the chicks are hot.
no amount of IS-killing will matter unless you destroy the problem at it's roots. And those roots are at the very least Wahabism, and at the most of what Mo-mo did after he got kicked out of Mecca for being the ass-tard he was (the stories of how Medina became Medina are illuminating to say the least, and not in a pro-islam/pro-mohammed fashion).
But destroying Wahabism might be enough to do the trick given that there are a number of groups (big and small) that seem to have managed to get rid of the crazy that's in the religion.
But it's not going to happen, so I guess we'll see the results in a few decades and after a few dozen million dead. :glare: What a waste.
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 02:27:00 PM
You may be joking but I seriously think we should pursue detente with Iran and try to ally with the Iranians. Iran is powerful and Iranians are cool and the chicks are hot.
I am not joking. Not about this.
The only reason to be worried about the Iranians is the whole 'nuke Israel off the map' thing. If they just want to push Israel around a bit alright but lets not go crazy.
Also I have this vision of how this will go down if we back Iran and they go after ISIS. We will start hearing stories about how 15 ISIS militants destroyed five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Divisions and now have all their stuff. That is normally how this tends to go for us.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 02:48:21 PM
The only reason to be worried about the Iranians is the whole 'nuke Israel off the map' thing. If they just want to push Israel around a bit alright but lets not go crazy.
That's just rhetoric. Iran is never gonna do that.
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 02:27:00 PM
You may be joking but I seriously think we should pursue detente with Iran and try to ally with the Iranians. Iran is powerful and Iranians are cool and the chicks are hot.
Do you want to pursue detente with Iran and make kissy faces with the Ayatollahs, or do you want to push for regime change? The attempted Green Revolution wasn't that long ago...
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 02:50:21 PM
Also I have this vision of how this will go down if we back Iran and they go after ISIS. We will start hearing stories about how 15 ISIS militants destroyed five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Divisions and now have all their stuff. That is normally how this tends to go for us.
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2015, 02:50:44 PM
Do you want to pursue detente with Iran and make kissy faces with the Ayatollahs, or do you want to push for regime change? The attempted Green Revolution wasn't that long ago...
I've stated before when it comes to this stuff that I am a complete pragmatist. As long as a foreign regime is helping us, I don't care what they do to their own people. I know that is in some ways an abhorrent moral stance, but I think it's the job of a country to protect its own best interests at all times even if you are forsaking the rights of others. Obviously I would like Iran to be a functional Western-style democracy, but the fact that it's not doesn't have any bearing on how I think we should deal with the Iranian state.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 02:50:21 PM
Also I have this vision of how this will go down if we back Iran and they go after ISIS. We will start hearing stories about how 15 ISIS militants destroyed five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Divisions and now have all their stuff. That is normally how this tends to go for us.
:hmm: Maybe we should ally with Russia.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
no amount of IS-killing will matter unless you destroy the problem at it's roots. And those roots are at the very least Wahabism, and at the most of what Mo-mo did after he got kicked out of Mecca for being the ass-tard he was (the stories of how Medina became Medina are illuminating to say the least, and not in a pro-islam/pro-mohammed fashion).
But destroying Wahabism might be enough to do the trick given that there are a number of groups (big and small) that seem to have managed to get rid of the crazy that's in the religion.
But it's not going to happen, so I guess we'll see the results in a few decades and after a few dozen million dead. :glare: What a waste.
So your idea is eradicate Islam?
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 02:55:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2015, 02:50:44 PM
Do you want to pursue detente with Iran and make kissy faces with the Ayatollahs, or do you want to push for regime change? The attempted Green Revolution wasn't that long ago...
I've stated before when it comes to this stuff that I am a complete pragmatist. As long as a foreign regime is helping us, I don't care what they do to their own people. I know that is in some ways an abhorrent moral stance, but I think it's the job of a country to protect its own best interests at all times even if you are forsaking the rights of others. Obviously I would like Iran to be a functional Western-style democracy, but the fact that it's not doesn't have any bearing on how I think we should deal with the Iranian state.
But Iran is deeply fucked up. Its government is profoundly anti western and conservative. The funding of quasi terrorist groups across the region is an issue.
The pragmatic solution is to back Saudi Arabia and get as much as we can out of Egypt.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2015, 03:27:08 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2015, 02:55:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2015, 02:50:44 PM
Do you want to pursue detente with Iran and make kissy faces with the Ayatollahs, or do you want to push for regime change? The attempted Green Revolution wasn't that long ago...
I've stated before when it comes to this stuff that I am a complete pragmatist. As long as a foreign regime is helping us, I don't care what they do to their own people. I know that is in some ways an abhorrent moral stance, but I think it's the job of a country to protect its own best interests at all times even if you are forsaking the rights of others. Obviously I would like Iran to be a functional Western-style democracy, but the fact that it's not doesn't have any bearing on how I think we should deal with the Iranian state.
But Iran is deeply fucked up. Its government is profoundly anti western and conservative. The funding of quasi terrorist groups across the region is an issue.
The pragmatic solution is to back Saudi Arabia and get as much as we can out of Egypt.
At the end of this, it's likely to end up an Iranian client state anyway. Why not have them pay for it?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2015, 03:20:34 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
no amount of IS-killing will matter unless you destroy the problem at it's roots. And those roots are at the very least Wahabism, and at the most of what Mo-mo did after he got kicked out of Mecca for being the ass-tard he was (the stories of how Medina became Medina are illuminating to say the least, and not in a pro-islam/pro-mohammed fashion).
But destroying Wahabism might be enough to do the trick given that there are a number of groups (big and small) that seem to have managed to get rid of the crazy that's in the religion.
But it's not going to happen, so I guess we'll see the results in a few decades and after a few dozen million dead. :glare: What a waste.
So your idea is eradicate Islam?
so? Evangelise until it's gone. It might take a while but its a perfectly legitimate endgoal.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2015, 03:48:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2015, 03:20:34 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
no amount of IS-killing will matter unless you destroy the problem at it's roots. And those roots are at the very least Wahabism, and at the most of what Mo-mo did after he got kicked out of Mecca for being the ass-tard he was (the stories of how Medina became Medina are illuminating to say the least, and not in a pro-islam/pro-mohammed fashion).
But destroying Wahabism might be enough to do the trick given that there are a number of groups (big and small) that seem to have managed to get rid of the crazy that's in the religion.
But it's not going to happen, so I guess we'll see the results in a few decades and after a few dozen million dead. :glare: What a waste.
So your idea is eradicate Islam?
so? Evangelise until it's gone. It might take a while but its a perfectly legitimate endgoal.
This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me. :w00t:
As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty. :hmm:
Wahhabism has been around for quite a while. The Saudi regime is no human rights paradise but Daesh is orders of magnitude worse.
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2015, 03:52:16 PM
This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me. :w00t:
As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty. :hmm:
Obvious that it would make the problem worse/accelerate radicalism.
Also no civilized western government could carry it out constitutionally.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2015, 03:52:16 PM
This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me. :w00t:
As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty. :hmm:
Obvious that it would make the problem worse/accelerate radicalism.
Also no civilized western government could carry it out constitutionally.
Lots of countries used to follow that mission, and not all of them have gotten new constitutions since then. Of course the legal system may have shifted with political opinion, but in an imaginary world where political opinion shifts back there is no reason to believe the legal systems wouldn't as well.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2015, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2015, 03:52:16 PM
This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me. :w00t:
As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty. :hmm:
Obvious that it would make the problem worse/accelerate radicalism.
Also no civilized western government could carry it out constitutionally.
Lots of countries used to follow that mission, and not all of them have gotten new constitutions since then. Of course the legal system may have shifted with political opinion, but in an imaginary world where political opinion shifts back there is no reason to believe the legal systems wouldn't as well.
While the US clearly couldn't carry out a deliberate policy of Christian evangelism, I don't see the constitutional constraints on countries with official religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
Heck, looking at the list, perhaps we should rely on a policy of Tongan missionaries spreading Methodism around the globe. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2015, 04:14:07 PM
While the US clearly couldn't carry out a deliberate policy of Christian evangelism, I don't see the constitutional constraints on countries with official religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
Heck, looking at the list, perhaps we should rely on a policy of Tongan missionaries spreading Methodism around the globe. :cool:
The US has in the past. Even if informally.
ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies.
Sadly, neither the Realpolitik arguments nor, given our track record of fucking things up and the likelihood of needing to resort to significant brutality, the moral perspective seem persuasive in arguing for greater involvement at this point (but that could be subject to change).
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2015, 03:19:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 02:50:21 PM
Also I have this vision of how this will go down if we back Iran and they go after ISIS. We will start hearing stories about how 15 ISIS militants destroyed five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Divisions and now have all their stuff. That is normally how this tends to go for us.
:hmm: Maybe we should ally with Russia.
Why do you want ISIS getting nukes? :huh:
Quote from: Monoriu on August 19, 2015, 08:58:43 AM
Quote from: Norgy on August 19, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?
I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.
I thought it is now well-established that air strikes alone aren't very effective?
They can be if you have spotters on the ground, especially if they have laser designators.
Quote from: Camerus on August 19, 2015, 06:27:52 PM
ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies.
I'm beginning to wonder if destroying ISIS and military occupation might be the least disruptive choice available. Considerably easy than assimilating 10, 20, a hundred million refugees in the West.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2015, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: Camerus on August 19, 2015, 06:27:52 PM
ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies.
I'm beginning to wonder if destroying ISIS and military occupation might be the least disruptive choice available. Considerably easy than assimilating 10, 20, a hundred million refugees in the West.
It isn't as though occupied Iraq and Afghanistan have been stable places. Maybe not as bad as ISIS, but ISIS is filling a power vacuum that will almost inevitably be created once the US leaves.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2015, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: Camerus on August 19, 2015, 06:27:52 PM
ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies.
I'm beginning to wonder if destroying ISIS and military occupation might be the least disruptive choice available. Considerably easy than assimilating 10, 20, a hundred million refugees in the West.
Well, perhaps. But I suppose:
1. I'm not sure an invasion and military occupation (which would in reality likely be an endless counter-guerrilla war) would really be a feasible option for a huge number of reasons.
2. Would such a war and occupation (counter-guerrilla war) result in significantly fewer refugees?
3. Your figures seem rather dire.
4. But even so, the West is under no compulsion to absorb anywhere near that number of refugees anyway, and probably lacks the will of existing populations (which needs to be taken into account both ethically and for democratic reasons) or even the material resources.
Quote from: Norgy on August 19, 2015, 09:17:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 09:06:34 AM
Quote from: Norgy on August 19, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
This is an actual outrage.
How hard could it be to bomb the ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they want to be called out of existence?
I remember us debating the Iraq invasion a LOT, in fact, it's why we ended up here. After some persuasion about how neo-conservatism would work and the Middle East would become a beacon of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!1111 I succumbed to supporting the war. Which was terribly, terribly wrong.
We made this. It's up to us to clean it up. Kill them all, if need be.
If the problem was created by us launching military action against Iraq I have my doubts more military action is the solution. It just reconfirms my bias that we are too stupid and incompetent to solve the world's problems.
Apparently, most of the world is incompetent in solving world problems. I think the last time we were somehow on track was 1945.
It seems like the IS/ISIL/ISIS/FUCKNUTS hate being called DAESH, though. So we could start with that?
There is no moral fibre left in people selling 9 year old girls into slavery. These people are no different from Einsatz-gruppen.
I tend to shy away from the most unapologetic Islam-bashing here, but these people deserve to be called what they are. Pissflaps, cunts, shits, evil bastards.
A friend of mine recently said "If I weren't an old bastard and had two daughters, I'd volunteer for the Peshmerga. We need to kill these people."
And I agree. While I would gladly join the fighters, I doubt they would take overweight, alcoholic unfit idiots like me, though.
You don't have to go back as far as 1945. In the early 90s it seemed like the world was entering a golden age of peace and prosperity. We sure dropped the ball.
Quote from: Camerus on August 19, 2015, 07:18:49 PM
1. I'm not sure an invasion and military occupation (which would in reality likely be an endless counter-guerrilla war) would really be a feasible option for a huge number of reasons.
2. Would such a war and occupation (counter-guerrilla war) result in significantly fewer refugees?
3. Your figures seem rather dire.
4. But even so, the West is under no compulsion to absorb anywhere near that number of refugees anyway, and probably lacks the will of existing populations (which needs to be taken into account both ethically and for democratic reasons) or even the material resources.
1. Perhaps not. But it's more feasible than throwing open the borders for mass migrations of entire populations of ethnic or religious minorities.
2. There's a lot more now than there were ten years ago.
3. There's a lot of vulnerable regimes in the region. I don't think ISIS will be confined to Syria and Iraq without western intervention. It'll be nice if I'm wrong about that.
4. This is probably true, but many posters on the forum have expressed great dismay at the idea of turning refugees away.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2015, 03:52:16 PM
This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me. :w00t:
As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty. :hmm:
Obvious that it would make the problem worse/accelerate radicalism.
Also no civilized western government could carry it out constitutionally.
It's also fucking insane.
Quote from: Norgy on August 19, 2015, 02:19:51 PM
Well, whatever the world is doing now, doesn't help. I say we unleash our new "friends" in Iran on them.
You don't actually think that suddenly people start to care about problems that aren't on their door step and don't affect them except for making it a bit harder to have your TV dinner when watching the evening news?
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2015, 03:52:16 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2015, 03:48:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2015, 03:20:34 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
no amount of IS-killing will matter unless you destroy the problem at it's roots. And those roots are at the very least Wahabism, and at the most of what Mo-mo did after he got kicked out of Mecca for being the ass-tard he was (the stories of how Medina became Medina are illuminating to say the least, and not in a pro-islam/pro-mohammed fashion).
But destroying Wahabism might be enough to do the trick given that there are a number of groups (big and small) that seem to have managed to get rid of the crazy that's in the religion.
But it's not going to happen, so I guess we'll see the results in a few decades and after a few dozen million dead. :glare: What a waste.
So your idea is eradicate Islam?
so? Evangelise until it's gone. It might take a while but its a perfectly legitimate endgoal.
This does appeal to the inner Evangelical Christian in me. :w00t:
As a foreign policy objective it does seem fraught with difficulty. :hmm:
It worked for the Teutonic Order, though - hardly any pagans left in Northern Poland, Belarus or the Baltics these days. :contract:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 19, 2015, 07:05:42 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2015, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: Camerus on August 19, 2015, 06:27:52 PM
ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies.
I'm beginning to wonder if destroying ISIS and military occupation might be the least disruptive choice available. Considerably easy than assimilating 10, 20, a hundred million refugees in the West.
It isn't as though occupied Iraq and Afghanistan have been stable places. Maybe not as bad as ISIS, but ISIS is filling a power vacuum that will almost inevitably be created once the US leaves.
There haven't been millions of Iraqi refugees in Europe in the aftermath of the occupation, so your point is invalid.
This is an interesting paper on Iraqi refugees in Europe post-invasion:
http://www.unhcr.org/470c9be92.pdf (http://www.unhcr.org/470c9be92.pdf)
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2015, 01:16:24 AM
It worked for the Teutonic Order, though - hardly any pagans left in Northern Poland, Belarus or the Baltics these days. :contract:
Then let's start with converting Europe. They aren't nearly as well armed. Once we burn Dawkinite atheists, we can move on to ridding other cultures with problematic religious ideas.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2015, 02:50:21 PM
Also I have this vision of how this will go down if we back Iran and they go after ISIS. We will start hearing stories about how 15 ISIS militants destroyed five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Divisions and now have all their stuff. That is normally how this tends to go for us.
:lol:
It's funny because it's true.
"The ISIS is now in Tehran".
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/world/middleeast/the-islamic-state-is-forcing-women-to-be-sex-slaves.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2015%2F08%2F13%2Fworld%2Fmiddleeast%2F20150813-ISISSLAVE-slide-MUDG%2F20150813-ISISSLAVE-slide-MUDG-articleLarge.jpg&hash=e691c1d279a4c6e49c2102a516fad8de56363fa3)
QuoteA 25-year-old Yazidi woman showed a "Certificate of Emancipation" given to her by a Libyan who had enslaved her. He explained that he had finished his training as a suicide bomber and was planning to blow himself up, and was therefore setting her free.
Oh, that's so sweet.
But wait - there's more!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-worlds-hot-spot.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
QuoteThe World's Hot Spot
Here's my bet about the future of Sunni, Shiite, Arab, Turkish, Kurdish and Israeli relations: If they don't end their long-running conflicts, Mother Nature is going to destroy them all long before they destroy one another. Let me point out a few news items you may have missed while debating the Iran nuclear deal.
On July 31, USA Today reported that in Bandar Mahshahr, Iran, a city adjacent to the Persian Gulf, the heat index soared to 163 degrees "as a heat wave continued to bake the Middle East, already one of the hottest places on earth. 'That was one of the most incredible temperature observations I have ever seen, and it is one of the most extreme readings ever in the world,' AccuWeather meteorologist Anthony Sagliani said in a statement.
"While the temperature was 'only' 115 degrees, the dew point was an unfathomable 90 degrees. ... The combination of heat and humidity, measured by the dew point, is what makes the heat index — or what the temperature actually feels like outside."
Then we saw something we've not seen before: An Iraqi government was sacked over its failure to deliver air conditioning. Two weeks ago, the prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, abolished all three vice-presidential posts and the office of deputy prime minister and proposed sweeping anti-corruption reforms after weeks of street protests over the fact that the government could supply electricity for air-conditioning for only a few hours a day during weeks of 120-degree temperatures.
As The Times's Anne Barnard reported on Aug. 1, the heat issue in Iraq "has even eclipsed war with the Islamic State. The prime minister ... declared a four-day weekend to keep people out of the sun ... and ordered an end to one of the most coveted perks of government officials: round-the-clock power for their air-conditioners. ...
"Several thousand people — workers, artists and intellectuals — demonstrated Friday evening ... in the center of Baghdad, chanting and carrying signs about the lack of electricity and blaming corruption for it. ... Some men stripped to their shorts and lay down in the street to sleep, a strong statement in a modest society. ... The protest was unusual in that it did not appear to have been called for by any major political party."
On Feb. 19, 2014, The Associated Press reported from Iran: "The first cabinet decision made under Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, wasn't about how to resolve his country's nuclear dispute with world powers. It was about how to keep the nation's largest lake from disappearing. Lake Oroumieh, one of the biggest saltwater lakes on earth, has shrunk more than 80 percent to ... (nearly 400 square miles) in the past decade, mainly because of climate change, expanded irrigation for surrounding farms and the damming of rivers that feed the body of water, experts say.
" 'The lake is gone. My job is gone. My children are gone. Tourists, too,' said Mozafar Cheraghi, 58, as he stood on a dusty platform that was once his bustling teahouse."
Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell run the indispensable Center for Climate and Security in Washington that tracks these trends. They noted that the South Asia scholar Michael Kugelman recently observed "that in Pakistan more people have died from the heat wave than from terrorism this year. We would emphasize that there shouldn't be a competition between 'terrorism' and 'climate stress,' but that the resources spent on the former vastly outstrip the latter."
They added, "A 2011 study from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found strong evidence that winter precipitation decline in the Mediterranean littoral and the Middle East from 1971 to 2010 was likely due to climate change, with the region experiencing nearly all of its driest winters since 1902 in the past 20 years."
Finally they noted: "The social contract between governments and their publics is being stressed by these extreme events, and that matters are only likely to get worse, given climate projections for many of these places. ... Governments that are responsive to publics in the face of these stresses are likely to strengthen the social contract, while those who are unresponsive are likely to weaken it. And for the most part, we're seeing inadequate responses."
Indeed, see Syria: Its revolution was preceded by the worst four-year drought in the country's modern history, driving nearly a million farmers and herders off the land, into the cities where the government of Bashar al-Assad completely failed to help them, fueling the revolution.
All the people in this region are playing with fire. While they're fighting over who is caliph, who is the rightful heir to the Prophet Muhammad from the seventh century — Sunnis or Shiites — and to whom God really gave the holy land, Mother Nature is not sitting idle. She doesn't do politics — only physics, biology and chemistry. And if they add up the wrong way, she will take them all down.
The only "ism" that will save them is not Shiism or Islamism but "environmentalism" — understanding that there is no Shiite air or Sunni water, there is just "the commons," their shared ecosystems, and unless they cooperate to manage and preserve them (and we all address climate change), vast eco-devastation awaits them all.
The heat wave was insane. Due to the increased AC usage, we had a first threat of a blackout this year (fortunately, it did not actually take place) since the communist era. Fortunately, it ended two days ago.
This is where I question the practicality of a cultural value that women have to cover themselves in black cloth.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2015, 08:10:13 AM
This is where I question the practicality of a cultural value that women have to cover themselves in black cloth.
It keeps men from lusting after them and therefore debasing themselves. But I guess heatstroke can do that as well.
Just read an article about a town in Libya where IS terror reigns and the only opposition is al-Qaeda. You know it's pretty bad when al-Qaeda are the good guys.
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2015, 11:15:16 AM
Just read an article about a town in Libya where IS terror reigns and the only opposition is al-Qaeda. You know it's pretty bad when al-Qaeda are the good guys.
Or perhaps we should stop trying to find out which side is the "good guys" - as all sides are bad and willing to murder gays or rape victims the moment we turn our backs to fight another "bad guys", and just decide what we want to do.
It seems to me we have three options:
- nuke them back to stone age
- invade them, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity (aka Ann Coulter option)
- ignore them and let them continue killing each other
Funnily enough, it is starting to seem to me the Ann Coulter option is the most humane one. The question is whether we care enough.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2015, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: Camerus on August 19, 2015, 06:27:52 PM
ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies.
I'm beginning to wonder if destroying ISIS and military occupation might be the least disruptive choice available. Considerably easy than assimilating 10, 20, a hundred million refugees in the West.
It's immigration and the acceptance of refugees that results in this kind of madness. The forces of civilization become so weak that they can't defend themselves. Immigration might have buoyed our low-skill workforces, but it has devastated the third world.
Quote from: Neil on August 20, 2015, 06:28:57 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2015, 06:55:21 PM
Quote from: Camerus on August 19, 2015, 06:27:52 PM
ISIS may be vicious scum, but let's leave the Muslim states to sort this one out this time, beyond perhaps our offering of air support or a highly limited support of proxies.
I'm beginning to wonder if destroying ISIS and military occupation might be the least disruptive choice available. Considerably easy than assimilating 10, 20, a hundred million refugees in the West.
It's immigration and the acceptance of refugees that results in this kind of madness. The forces of civilization become so weak that they can't defend themselves. Immigration might have buoyed our low-skill workforces, but it has devastated the third world.
This is bollocks. Mass migrations are a constant feature throughout history. Actually trying to prevent it is a relatively new phenomenon.
All it takes for evil to triumph, is that good men do nothing...or flee to the West?
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2015, 01:26:22 AM
This is bollocks. Mass migrations are a constant feature throughout history. Actually trying to prevent it is a relatively new phenomenon.
I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a historical mass migration that was not contested militarily. Typically it has been synonymous with invasion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2015, 01:48:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2015, 01:26:22 AM
This is bollocks. Mass migrations are a constant feature throughout history. Actually trying to prevent it is a relatively new phenomenon.
I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a historical mass migration that was not contested militarily. Typically it has been synonymous with invasion.
You got it backwards - the reason why these migrations were contested militarily was because they were military invasions - not vice versa.
Anyway, the German burgher migration to Poland in the 12th century is an example of a non-military mass migration. History knows countless of examples of settlement like this - the reason why you can't think of any is exactly because when they were not military invasions they were treated like pretty much a normal occurrence.
Not sure I see how that's me getting it backwards. You said preventing them is new, I said the contrary.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2015, 02:16:15 AM
Not sure I see how that's me getting it backwards. You said preventing them is new, I said the contrary.
I said preventing migrations is new.
You said the contrary, by arguing that migrations were treated as military invasions and prevented with a military force.
My point is that you are confusing actual invasions with (peaceful) migrations - and I give you example of a peaceful migration to support my view that peaceful migrations were not prevented.
What else is there to understand, beyond the usualy Yi artful dodging?
Clearly, if a horde of Mexicans or Syrians was storming the US or EU border, respectively, burning and looting as they go, it would be quite normal to prevent this militarily.
"Peaceful" migrations typically carried their arms with them and could turn into violent invasions if opposed. The Germans entering Roman territory could usually be bought off if given a bit of land to farm.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2015, 02:30:31 AM
I said preventing migrations is new.
You said the contrary, by arguing that migrations were treated as military invasions and prevented with a military force.
My point is that you are confusing actual invasions with (peaceful) migrations - and I give you example of a peaceful migration to support my view that peaceful migrations were not prevented.
What else is there to understand, beyond the usualy Yi artful dodging?
Clearly, if a horde of Mexicans or Syrians was storming the US or EU border, respectively, burning and looting as they go, it would be quite normal to prevent this militarily.
What there is to understand is what I got it backwards. You said preventing migrations is new. It is clearly not new. History is replete with examples of migrations which were opposed.
If you're changing your thesis now to there are at least a few examples of non-opposed migrations, that's fine, but that doesn't mean I got anything backwards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2015, 01:48:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2015, 01:26:22 AM
This is bollocks. Mass migrations are a constant feature throughout history. Actually trying to prevent it is a relatively new phenomenon.
I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a historical mass migration that was not contested militarily. Typically it has been synonymous with invasion.
The colonisation of Iceland. The Faeroes, the Hebrides, Shetland. They all happened relatively peacefully. Migration also happened peacefully in much of Scandinavia between the 5th and 7th century due to increased numbers of people. They basically moved into empty lands. Although the area where I live has been populated for 5000 years, population density has varied a lot.
On most counts, though, I'd say you are right. The Great Migrations were contested militarily. Only the Greek Empire really managed to survive. And others carved out states in Europe. Later on, they carved out states in the Americas.
The Mongols created the biggest entity ever. And if they weren't contested militarily, they certainly took that as an affront.
Migration out of Africa is in human history the norm rather than the exception. I honestly believe we should take them in. They are friends in need.
I guess my point is that Neil is wrong by saying that empires fall because they cannot oppose migrations into their territories. Rather that migrations happen because the empire is successful and so it attracts people wanting to move there. It's not like there are many successful isolationist countries in history either. Empires fall but migrations are not a cause but a symptom.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2015, 02:00:56 AM
Anyway, the German burgher migration to Poland in the 12th century is an example of a non-military mass migration. History knows countless of examples of settlement like this - the reason why you can't think of any is exactly because when they were not military invasions they were treated like pretty much a normal occurrence.
Yeah that went well for Poland. Ah well they got Silesia back 800 years later.
QuoteIt's not like there are many successful isolationist countries in history either.
Well yeah once you are successful people don't let you be isolationist anymore.
Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2015, 11:15:16 AM
Just read an article about a town in Libya where IS terror reigns and the only opposition is al-Qaeda. You know it's pretty bad when al-Qaeda are the good guys.
Going from the Iraq War experience the good guys are usually five idealistic twenty year olds in a basement calling themselves the 'Democratic Liberal Happy Hippy Party of Arabia' that nobody takes seriously. There are no good guys only less bad guys which is why we always lose even when we win.
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2015, 06:20:07 AM
I guess my point is that Neil is wrong by saying that empires fall because they cannot oppose migrations into their territories. Rather that migrations happen because the empire is successful and so it attracts people wanting to move there. It's not like there are many successful isolationist countries in history either. Empires fall but migrations are not a cause but a symptom.
Much as I hate to agree with you, I do. There are many examples of non-military migrations that were, by and large, welcomed by the receiving country; the Huguenots, the Greeks after 1452, the Irish, the Nepalese. Some were simply not opposed, though not officially welcomed: the Chinese and Indians, the Circassians, and the like. I can't think of a peaceful diaspora that was actively opposed by the receiving country's government until fairly modern times (19th C +). There probably were a few, but I don't know of them.
Quote from: grumbler on August 21, 2015, 01:21:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2015, 06:20:07 AM
I guess my point is that Neil is wrong by saying that empires fall because they cannot oppose migrations into their territories. Rather that migrations happen because the empire is successful and so it attracts people wanting to move there. It's not like there are many successful isolationist countries in history either. Empires fall but migrations are not a cause but a symptom.
Much as I hate to agree with you, I do. There are many examples of non-military migrations that were, by and large, welcomed by the receiving country; the Huguenots, the Greeks after 1452, the Irish, the Nepalese. Some were simply not opposed, though not officially welcomed: the Chinese and Indians, the Circassians, and the like. I can't think of a peaceful diaspora that was actively opposed by the receiving country's government until fairly modern times (19th C +). There probably were a few, but I don't know of them.
There were quite a few opposed to the Jews I believe. Even as far as throwing them out.
Quote from: PJL on August 21, 2015, 01:23:31 PM
There were quite a few opposed to the Jews I believe. Even as far as throwing them out.
Which Jewish diaspora was opposed by force, or even discouraged?
Quote from: grumbler on August 21, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: PJL on August 21, 2015, 01:23:31 PM
There were quite a few opposed to the Jews I believe. Even as far as throwing them out.
Which Jewish diaspora was opposed by force, or even discouraged?
The Norwegian 1814 constitution stated that "Jews and Jesuits are not welcome". It was changed in the 1830s after public pressure.
They decided Jesuits were ok eh?
Quote from: Norgy on August 21, 2015, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 21, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: PJL on August 21, 2015, 01:23:31 PM
There were quite a few opposed to the Jews I believe. Even as far as throwing them out.
Which Jewish diaspora was opposed by force, or even discouraged?
The Norwegian 1814 constitution stated that "Jews and Jesuits are not welcome". It was changed in the 1830s after public pressure.
Okay. That's modern, by my definition. Not that there
was a Jewish diaspora to Norway in the early 19th Century to be opposed or discouraged.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2015, 01:48:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2015, 01:26:22 AM
This is bollocks. Mass migrations are a constant feature throughout history. Actually trying to prevent it is a relatively new phenomenon.
I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a historical mass migration that was not contested militarily. Typically it has been synonymous with invasion.
It's debated how much of the Slavic migrations were contested. In a lot of areas they weren't. They were famous for relatively rapid integration of "native" populations, and in Central Europe most of the Germans had already left.
So what? Central Europe was just sitting there unoccupied?
Did the Huns murder everybody there? Was it the plague of Justinian? That must have been a weird era.
It wasn't populated densely enough to maintain complex social organizations and the Slavs had a history of relationship with and integrating Germanic and other peoples. There's substantial material evidence that this included Celts, Sarmatians, a lot of Oghur Turkic types and various Balkan peoples of various degrees of Romanization. The modern day Czech Republic is the homeland of the Celtic peoples, and modern SW Ukraine has some very Veltic placenames, including Halych-Galicia.
Maybe. It is just hard to imagine Europe as this sparsely populated wilderness where there be dragons.
We're not talking about a long-term thing. The areas would have been relatively sparsely populated for a short period of time, and the Slavs weren't, like, totally unfamiliar with Germans, nor the Germans with the Slavs. The frontiers were broken, Germans had for hundreds of years heard and seen a Roman Empire that was vastly wealthier and nicer than their native lands and they could be Kings or Thanes in Carthage or Catalonia rather than eating gruel in a hall in modern Silesia or Bohemia. Not much of a choice.
So instead the Slavs got to eat gruel. Always getting the short end of the stick.
Thanks Spellus that was interesting.
Depopulation is a real thing. One of the reasons the god-damn Arabs managed to conquer the Sassanid and most of the Byzantine Empire was the Justinian Plague and the fact that the Sassands and the Byzantines had just finished what was effectively the first world war, as it was fought on three continents. The Arabs were already employed as caravan masters and mercs by all sides so they already had knowledge of all the relevant terrain, and frequently some Arab clans had already moved in to the Sassanid or Byzantine realms. This is the exact same period, too, not a coincidence.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2015, 02:28:23 PM
Depopulation is a real thing. One of the reasons the god-damn Arabs managed to conquer the Sassanid and most of the Byzantine Empire was the Justinian Plague and the fact that the Sassands and the Byzantines had just finished what was effectively the first world war, as it was fought on three continents. The Arabs were already employed as caravan masters and mercs by all sides so they already had knowledge of all the relevant terrain, and frequently some Arab clans had already moved in to the Sassanid or Byzantine realms. This is the exact same period, too, not a coincidence.
Yeah I know. The Slavs broke the Danube border at the same time because God was never finished tormenting the poor Byzantines.
*Until I finish my time machine and give Basil I gunpowder and the printing press and I am rewarded with becoming Captain of Sicily.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 21, 2015, 02:31:02 PM
*Until I finish my time machine and give Basil I gunpowder and the printing press and I am rewarded with becoming Captain of Sicily.
Isn't going to happen I'm afraid or you'd have done so already. Hope you're not too disappointed.
You don't understand. There is an alternative universe out there where the Byzantines reign supreme and the Spellus dynasty rules for a 1000 years from a golden palace in Palermo.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2015, 03:30:35 PM
You don't understand. There is an alternative universe out there where the Byzantines reign supreme and the Spellus dynasty rules for a 1000 years from a golden palace in Palermo.
I took the alternate universe into account, but as it doesn't help us much though it irrelevant. Future science might change that of course, or not.
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2015, 03:30:35 PM
You don't understand. There is an alternative universe out there where the Byzantines reign supreme and the Spellus dynasty rules for a 1000 years from a golden palace in Palermo.
:yes:
Panormos is mine.
god damn a-rabs.