What are you talking about?
Ottoman wasn’t in the Arabic alphabet?
Turkey is reaping what they sowed. They, along with the Saudis and Qataris, are largely responsible for propping up the rebels when they have no real support from native Syrians.
Isn’t that the plan, though? To get UN approval first? Isn’t that what we did with Libya?
Also, wouldn’t it be just as illegal to give a bunch of rifles and grenades to the Syrian rebels?
What’s the difference, really?
It was primarily a bombing campaign so once again we leaned heavily on the nation that has all the cool toys for doing that.
But among countries that provided planes are Italy, the UK, France, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.
No, of course not – just so long as it wasn’t Catholicism! :eek:
Yep.
When 100,000 people marched in Daraa, they were actually american spies disguised as syrians. Meanwhile Qataris who had infiltrated the Syrian security forces opened fire on the crowds.
:dubious: Yes, of course it was, that was why I said “other than”.
How could the rebellion have persisted for the past two years, as it has, if it did not have the support of native Syrians?
I repeat. Which side do you want to win this war?
Jesus Christ. Can’t a man get some sleep?
Personally, I’d like to see some non-Al-Qaeda rebel group win the war; or perhaps a palace coup by a senior Assad officer who then makes efforts to forge peace between the factions and set the ground for democracy.
… or democracies.
The intention is to create a country where people can be any religion and not feel victimized by the law, or other people. Where no group is in power oppressing another. Where laws are based on secular values rather than “God said…”.
Regarding the UK and Israel, both are products of history. I think most people in the UK could agree that, if we were setting the country up again, we wouldn’t bother with an official religion. But we’re approaching 400 years of this system, and it works in practice because C of E Christianity is heavily diluted and the majority of people see a clear distinction between religion and politics, so few see a reason to change it.
I don’t see what Iraq has to do with it. Is it difficult, in your opinion, to reconcile the views that a particular country is being torn apart by religious and sectarian violence, and that countries should keep religion and sectarianism out of official business?
Really? Israel wants Hamas to be running Gaza? 
If he did he would have removed himself from the Constitutional Line of Succession and his eldest son would be next in line. Or if King, like the whole Edward/Wallis thing, he’d abdicate.
I’m sure the newspapers would have a field day and people would have all kinds of stongly held opinions but politically it would be of no practical significance.
In the UK we might tick a religious box of some sort on the census forms but by and large we don’t take religious stuff as seriously as the USA does.
It was primarily a peacekeeping exercise.
IFOR/KFOR was a European (with Canadian contribution) NATO peacekeeping exercise conducted without US ground forces - preceded by a US-led bombing campaign.
Bombing the fuck out of shit was the easier part.
I agree. I was responding to the point of why the US had to get involved.
No, Ottoman script didn’t use the Arabic alphabet anymore than modern Russians use the Roman alphabet.
Have you ever seen Ottoman script?
You certainly don’t have to be a “secular” country for that to be true.
Lots of countries that aren’t “secular” and have no separation of Church and State would fit your definition.
So basically, then you’d have no problem with countries in the Middle East becoming Muslim democracies the way many countries in Europe are Christian democracies.
Correct?
Er… you’re the one who foolishly claimed that the violence between “the Sunnis and the Shiites” in “Iraq” was “over theology.”
That is as moronic as insisting that the hatred between Russians and Poles, Serbs and Croats, Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics is “over theology.”
Actually, on second thought it even stupider, because the idea that there’s this massive hatred between “Sunnis and Shiites” in Iraq is a perfect example of how little most westerners understand about this country they invaded and spent over a decade trying to break to their will.
There is a huge amount of violence between Shia Arabs and Sunni Arabs, but very little violence or hatred between Shia Arabs and the Kurds(who are almost to the man Sunnis) while the Sunni Kurds and Sunni Arabs hate each other.
What it’s about is we’re seeing the aftermath of an dictatorship’s collapse and the people who were seen as being favored by the dictator(the Sunni Arabs) are fighting the people oppressed by said dictators(the Sunni Kurds and the Shia Arabs).*
It’s very much like the hatred between the Tutsis and the Hutus where the people who viewed themselves as the victims of European colonialists attempted to slaughter those they saw as the toadies of colonialism.
*. This is a very simplified version of the current situation.
Agreed.
The point is non-secular government does not equal theocracy.
Forgive my ignorance, but which countries are Muslim democracies?
Iran recently had an election, but the candidates were carefully selected by the ruling religious folks.