1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bombing IS?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Zou, Sep 24, 2014.

  1. mikehit

    mikehit Well-Known Member

    I understand all that.
    And if you want to draw those distinctions between German Empire and German Republic it begs the questions as to whether Germany as a country has only really existed since reunification in 1990. Which shows what a mess it all becomes when you go back far enough.
    But all of this only supports my comments that at some point you have to accept the borders are what they are and live with it, until there is a common consent to change it (like the Czech-Slovak split).
  2. KeithLeslie

    KeithLeslie Well-Known Member

    You said:" each one creating intra-cultural or cross-cultural boundaries.

    Will the 'real' Germany please stand up...." I don't understand how you (indeed, the recent drift of the thread) are relating that to Bombing of IS.

    Germany's boundaries pre 1914 (for which read post 1871) didn't cross cultural boundaries; only religious ones. From the Treaty of Versailles on, Germany has had its borders forcibly shrunk by other powers, not by choice of its citizens. That also raises the issue of what forms a nation, its land area, or its people? Incidentally, what some of us call the "German Empire" should "German realm" - Reich means realm, not empire.

    The 1919 change didn't impact dramatically on the German people in the way that the 1945 changes did. The 'cultural' differences '45-'89 were also imposed - do you not remember the "Wir sind ein Volk" campaign? (If campaign is the right word)

    What Bismarck did up to 1871 made total sense demographically; what has happened from 1919 on arguably does not. The Weimar Republic was - as it is today - a federal republic; so Germany is not a country in the sense that the UK has been for the last 300 years. But we seem to be trying to head in the same direction via devolution.

    Ooops! In my previous post I said "
    But they cut heads off in Bavaria..." Should have been "they don't....."
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  3. mikehit

    mikehit Well-Known Member

    I would consider 'religious' to be aprt of the 'cultural' so stand by my comments there.

    But if you go back through the thread a short bit, the question of borders (with Germany merely as an example) came about because sympathy was expressed to the Kurds who want to break current borders (created an imposed by Western powers) to create a Kurdish homeland. And I was merely illustrating that if you consider the Turkish-Syrian border irrelevant because it was created by an outside power then there are plenty of examples closer to home that can be considered irrelevant.

    And given that this thread started with ISIS I posited that if you sympathise with the Kurds creating a cross-border homeland then does that offer some sort of sympathy for ISIS fighting to re-create a historical Caliphate.

    Geopolitics. What a mess.
  4. KeithLeslie

    KeithLeslie Well-Known Member

    Germany can't change its borders by common consent, unless it does what Hitler did in 1939 - invade Poland and, today, Russia. There were before 1945/6 quite large German enclaves throughout Eastern Europe, all of which were expelled by force during '45-6; as I recall, some 16 million Germans forced to walk back to mostly West Germany.

    And as I said in my post above, Germany is not a country, but is a federal republic. Imposed by external powers.
  5. mikehit

    mikehit Well-Known Member

    Somewhat pedantic

    Which was my whole point.
  6. KeithLeslie

    KeithLeslie Well-Known Member

    Kurds are in a strange position. They were a fairly cohesive grouping before we and France decided to play God and split up that area. (And - look how well we did with Germany too in 1919!) The Turkey-Syria border was created as much by Turkey as by us and France. There was a large number of Armenians in Turkey; what happened to them? Many massacred by firstly the Ottomans then by Mustafa Kemal's state.

    Westerners also think of the Ottomans as "Turks"; they weren't. They had a mixed origin - including, bizarrely - Kurdish. Ethnic Turks have more in common with Hungarians and Bulgars than with Arabs; yet Turks and Kurds both came from the steppes of Central Asia. The complexity of ethnicities in that area is astounding. Galatian "Turks" were culturally Celts. There was no written Turkish language until Mustafa Kemal imposed a unified language based on some Arabic, some French, German, English and even Hebrew. He decided on using the Roman alphabet because he thought that the Arabic alphabet would be backward-looking. Even the Turkish language is a bastardised one!
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  7. KeithLeslie

    KeithLeslie Well-Known Member

    Sorry, no, not pedantic - Germany is a federation of states, much like the USA.
  8. KeithLeslie

    KeithLeslie Well-Known Member

    Not how it read...well, to me.
  9. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    Getting back to things relating to IS and ISIS, I encountered a BBC article about the history of Caliphates and how these have evolved over the centuries, and that these very early on, are to some extent, the reason why you have Shia and Sunni versions of the Islamic/Muslim faith and why they are continually at loggerheads with each other.


    One of the biggest changes which has impacted on this system of having living religious 'Figureheads' whom followers of the Islamic faith could look up to, (A bit like the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury) happened in 1924 when The Ottoman Empire's Sunni caliph was expelled from Istanbul by Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey.

    He believed that the abolition of this institution was essential to his campaign to turn what was left of the Ottoman empire into a 20th Century secular nation state. The last Ottoman Caliph was expelled from Istanbul to live out the rest of his life in Paris. The thing which doesn't come across in the above 'bland' description of events, is that this Caliph,
    Abdülmecid II, was also the religious 'head' of the gradually disintegrating, but originally huge, Ottoman empire which encompassed an absolutely huge area.

    The link below, comprehensively shows how the Ottoman empire evolved from 1300 until 1923, the year before Ataturk 'kicked out' the empire's Caliph.


    Abdülmecid II died in 1944, he did not nominate a successor, and at the time, no-one was asked to 'step up to the plate' and replace/succeed him.


    As a result, it looks like the Sunni version of the Islamic faith, became 'headless'. Nasser had tried developing an 'alternative', also imprisoning in the process someone who might well have offered an alternative solution, but his view of things wasn't the same as Nasser. Earlier this year, the
    Islamic State (IS) declared itself a Caliphate in June this year, and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi is claiming the title of Caliph ...

    As I see things, unless someone far more highly regarded by the rest of the Islamic world, comes forward and is accepted, this horrendous mess is going to be continuing for a long time.
  10. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    I believe that everyone should be free to practice any religion, just so long as they do it in private and wash their hands afterwards.
  11. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    Are we winning yet?
  12. PhilW

    PhilW Well-Known Member

    Not really. what we now call England used to include large parts of what we now call France. And could if various wars had gone diffene t ways currently exist as part of France (or even Germany post WW2). It has condensed down to our islands, but not all of them (Eire)

    This is back to the other thread (UKIP) - As I said there countries are notional and transient. Hence some Nationalist movements harking back more than 200 years as the basis for their desire to secede.
  13. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    Quite right. How about home rule for Arbroath?

  14. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    They can have it. ;)

    Just asking, if Israel keeps pushing to be recognised as a Jewish state, how do they differ from ISIS? Violent, murderous, no respect for borders or those of other ethnicity.

    Sorry, whilst writing that I remember the difference. Israel runs an apartheid state, whereas ISIS don't.
  15. mikehit

    mikehit Well-Known Member

    I guess the difference is that Israel was set up by international mandate (you can't blame Israel for that), ISIS is not.
    ISIS are being the aggressor in their actions, Israel claims it is for self-defence.

    The first is somewhat justified the second far from it.

    You mean apart from the genocide of Yazidis and Kurds? The taking of all women who are of another faith into slavery and massacring the men?
  16. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    They are fundamentally different. Israel is a democracy; ISIS clearly won't be doing with any of that infidel nonsense. Israel obeys (most of) the universal declaration of human rights; ISIS wouldn't bother to to read the declaration, except to snigger at the soft headed westerners. Israel is a state formed following the UN General Assembly's resolution of 1947 and with a legal system recognised by most other countries; ISIS is an area of general lawlessness where the biggest bullies have their way by killing, raping and stealing everything in sight.

    Apart from that, I can see how easy it would be to confuse the two.
  17. KeithLeslie

    KeithLeslie Well-Known Member

    And not just that - Israel, for all its faults, doesn't behead those it disagrees with and post videos of the beheading online. And a fundamental difference, too: Israel IS a state; ISIS is an organised rabble of brigands.

Share This Page