Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Iain, I am unaware of any Kurdish action that was not more directly intended to generate a Kurdistan, but I guess I haven't followed every detail. I am unaware of any significant action against ISIS by the Syrian "moderates". The Syrian army certainly did a lot of work, but they were supported mainly by Russia and Iran. I am unaware of any direct help by the US for the regular Syrian army, and I am aware that the US bombed the regular Syrians more than once, the last time near Deir ez Zohr, which had the lamentable effect of saving fleeing ISIS troops.

P.K., You may be right in that a response is required, but Iran has flagged that the response will mean war. You are most likely wrong that bombing and degrading their cities will lead to revolution or surrender; in history bombing merely generates more hatred and steels the defence and the desire for revenge. It did not work in Japan - that was the nukes that did it. It did not work in Germany - Germany merely ran out of land and Germans. It did not work against ISIS - again it was boots that took back all the land. I do not think the Iranians believe the US will not strike, but rather they think they will.

I think that naval base will be taken out easily enough, but that won't keep the straits open. We have no idea what the Iranians will do, but that is the danger. As I see it, if the US refuses to put boots on the ground, it has no way of realising any real objective, other than bombing and killing. I doubt that will do any good at all and will merely light a conflagration. With a religious war, NOTHING is off the table for the true believers on each side.

Ian wrote: "P.K., You may be right in that a response is required, but Iran has flagged that the response will mean war. You are most likely wrong that bombing and degrading their cities will lead to revolutio..."

I agree with a lot of that, Ian, but you are not allowing for the Arab psyche, and the Persians are no different. They are very good at bargaining; it is a test of their manhood and if they get something for nothing that is a victory. At the moment the Iranians are getting quite a lot for nothing. Hitting their oil facilities, quid pro quo, is a minimilist reaction. It will not seriously endanger lives as there won't be anyone working there at present, but it will send a message direct to Khomenei; not only are the economic sanctions stopping you paying your troops in Syria and Hetzbellah and inflating your currency by doubling up every week, but when you come to your senses you will have to repair your oil refineries before you start earning money again, and as you import all your steel that won't be as easy as it was for the Saudis. Remember, we are dealing with three quantities; the religious Iran, the Revolutionary Guard Iran and the reasonable government Iran. The game has to be to teach the other two that letting the RGI do what they like is going to destroy the country.
But, you are also right about the believers. That is why the strikes must come from an International quorum, not from the Saudis

P.K., I agree completely about the "bargaining issue", but the trouble is the Iranians have been at the wrong end of that stick. They gave up their nuclear strategy that had cost a lot of money for a deal to end sanctions, they did their part according to international inspectors, then Trump decided to renegotiate. That hurt them. Further, the Shia in Yemen are being bombed into a potential state of genocide and the US sells more weapons to keep it going. The religious lot cannot simply bow down to Trump after that, and that will be commonly felt. The international quorum may be hard to find because I suspect too many people in other countries don't like the news clips coming from Yemen of wrecked buildings and skeletal children.

If the US does bomb the oil facilities of Iran, then the Iranians will have trouble rebuilding, and China will have its oil supplies from there cut. That will hurt the US trade imbalance more, and depending on what Trump does next, the world economies will switch a lot because the Chinese people will hate the US even more. (You may be surprised at how much the average Chinese citizen dislikes Americans and Trump in particular.)

Except that Iran is an important link in its Belt and Road program. China does buy Iranian oil still, but it is true that Russia would happily make up any deficit due to bombing. Trump could be helping Putin! That would please the Dems.

I doubt that China would try for Taiwan, but HK is playing with fire, especially if Iran offered a distraction.

Ian wrote: "P.K., I agree completely about the "bargaining issue", but the trouble is the Iranians have been at the wrong end of that stick. They gave up their nuclear strategy that had cost a lot of money for..."

I do see why Iran is so ....ed with the US pulling out of the Pact but it does nothing to mitigate that. It has continued its proactive support around the region by keeping the wars in Syria and Yemen blazing and providing missiles for the Palestinians and the Houtis; Saudi reported that over 2000 missiles had been fired into their country from Yemen in the past two weeks and it is a regular occurence into Israel. Which all points to, for once, Trump being right in saying the Pact was a dumb deal and that Iran needs to start behaving itself before there can be any pact. The mood in Europe is now beginning to align with that view. Johnson has said he still supports the nuclear pact but also admits that it was inadequate and our Foreign Sec. in the Commons yesterday made a very strongly worded report about Iran - and even Macron is now beginning to support a joint action in the area. The facts are undeniable that Iran is a combustible element in the region and seems not to understand the risks it is taking by inflaming the situation. Sanctions, Trump's chosen route, only seem to drive them further away from negotiations and something more has to jolt them into reality. It would help if the EU join the US/UK joint naval force because, as it is, they are still hopeful of widening the US/EU split
I don't think China, or Russia, would get involved because, as Iain says, they have nothing to lose by a conflict and something to gain. Regardless of a joint Iran/Chinese/ Russian naval and air exercise in region this weekend. That is where Iran is playing but, like N.Korea, they will find that neither of the big two will do more than play games with them. And finally, we all find the Yemen conflict horrendous as it begins to look like another Syria, but even in our disgust, we have to acknowledge that a hostile state on its southern border as well as one in the north is not an acceptable situation for the Saudis.

I do not see why Iran has to mitigate Trump's withdrawal; the point about pulling out of the pact is that the US has this habit of negotiating, and then when it gets what it wants, it wants more and moves the posts. It will never accept "enough" from Iran than total compliance with Washington's wants, at least that is what the Iran leaders can reasonably conclude.

Iran, in my mind, was the good guy in Syria. Just because the US wanted Assad out and was busy supplying arms to the al Qaeda terrorists that were trying to get rid of him, and hence supplying through the "moderates" or the Saudis arms to ISIS they were directly or indirectly supporting terrorists. Sure, Assad was not a good guy but you need a clear objective and feeding ISIS, in my mind, is not acceptable. Similarly in Yemen, the Saudi bombing is intended to remove Shia leadership and has nothing to do with protecting boundaries. Something approaching 100,000 Yemenis are dying of starvation. There are two options: Iran offers the Houthis some chance of inflicting countervailing damage, OR they can be elimnated, because as you have seen from Wahhabi extremists in ISIS, other religions are simply exterminated. You follow the true faith or die if caught.

Iran is not shining with Palestine, but then neither is anyone else. Israel appears to be on an irreversible path to absorbing the West Bank and then running an apartheid type society. Either you approve of that or you do not. If you do not, now what? Sit back and close eyes? Iran has decided not to close eyes, but what it is doing is also counterproductive.

Don't agree with a lot of that, Ian, you seem to be getting sucked in to anti-US lit. Forget Trump, there is still an active CIA/Pentagon axis in place with good intel, which Trump mostly ignores. Iran's malevolent influence in the region is not hearsay, it's real and continuing. Syria would have been an internal civil war until Syria got involved and then persuaded Russia that the US would dominate the area unless they went to Assad's aid, (Richard Holbrook journals)
The Houthis were not active until Iran invited a delegation to Teheran and soon after they suddenly had arms and started their insurgency for their own state. The Iranian revolution did not stop in their country. The IRG is dedicated to destroying Israel by raising a Shi'ite revolution through Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. The army coup in Egypt happened because Sisi saw the influence the Muslim Brotherhood was having on Mubarak with a Shi'ite takeover. I know Sisi and his army cohorts are not nice people, but then the alternatives never are in the Middle East. And I don't agree about the strategic impotence of Yemen to Saudi Arabia; if Yemen went and the Red Sea was a war zone that border would open up the country like a tin-can. Iran is as rogue as N. Korea - with a hell of a lot more influence. I wouldn't like to fight them on the ground, Saddam found that to his cost, but ignoring them is, as I said before, no solution.

P.K., in my opinion, I have not been "sucked in". The US has been interfering in the Middle East for its own commercial interests ever since it organised the overthrow of Mossadeq. It has a history of doing the same to a number of other countries, e.g. the Congo. I also don't know what to make of "Syria would have been an internal civil war until Syria got involved". You say Sisi is not nice, but nobody there is; exactly, but the same applies to Assad. Definitely not a nice guy, but Syria was secular. Both he and Saddam knew that religion was a tinderbox there, and the US, under Bush et al had to blow up Iraq for no better reason than Saddam had insulted elder Bush. If weapons of mass destruction is a fine example of the US intelligence capabilities, then it is trash. Assad did not approach Russia because he feared the US would dominate - he feared that ISIS, supplied with US weapons, would dominate, and it very nearly did. The Iran-backed fighters and Russian air power is the ONLY reason Assad is there now. Incoedentally I have heard my views expressed more or less as I would say them from the Presidential candidate Tilsi Gabbard. Now Gabbard has one big advantage over both of us: she did two tours of duty there, had spoken to Assad, and KNEW what she was talking about.

Of course Iran is helping the Houthis. This is religion at stake, and let us not feel to warm and fuzzy about the Saudis. They have a more or less medieval approach to governance. The Shia in Yemen merely want to be not under the thumbs of neo Wahhabi Sunnis. I would not want to be either.

Ian wrote: "P.K., in my opinion, I have not been "sucked in". The US has been interfering in the Middle East for its own commercial interests ever since it organised the overthrow of Mossadeq. It has a history..."

I meant to say, 'Syria would have been an internal civil war until Iran got involved.' I don't know why you say the US supplied weapons to Isis. They, and Britain and France, supported an anti-Assad coalition and at that time Isis was not recognised to be involved in Syria. But Iran realised that a coalition might defeat Assad and put money and influence into the situation and persuaded Russia that their Med. base would not be safe if Syria became another Libya. And, much as I dislike Bush and thought the Iraq war was a big mistake, I think the fact that the US was looking for a scapegoat to appease their anger at 9/11 was more instrumental than any insult from Saddam.
Whatever you think of US influence in the region, and elsewhere, the reality must be obvious that since Trump's election and trashing of years of US foreign policy, the world is rapidly getting to be a scarier place. As China is about to display its massive arms capability and Russia does what it likes and the EU dithers about the slightest decisions the vacuum left by Trump's intransigence feels like the calm before the mightiest storm. I am just reading Hilary Clinton's 'Hard Choices' and I shiver to know that all that hard work of building alliances and influence is being flushed down a drain. We need a strong US more than ever and we don't need a strong Iran.

The reason I say the US supplied the weapons is that I have seen photos of recovered dumps with various missiles carrying the Raytheon name on them. It may very well be that these came via Saudis, but I also know that when the "moderates" were supplied with arms, the intelligence community warned the politicians that supplying the moderates was actually supplying al Nusra, al Qaeda in its various regenerations, and ISIS because the stronger takes from the weaker.

I agree completely that the basic problem with Iran now is Trump's trashing of anything achieved by Obama, which was done without analysis and for no good reason other than it was Obama who did it, and Trump wanted to show himself as a better negotiator. That has turned to custard. Had he built on Obama's deal, even if it were thought to be a poor one, he could possibly have negotiated a lot more, but just trashing what was already achieved was just plain irresponsible. Even worse, he had not plan at all for dealing with an adverse response. Irritating China and Russia is not really achieving much either.

Ian wrote: "The reason I say the US supplied the weapons is that I have seen photos of recovered dumps with various missiles carrying the Raytheon name on them. It may very well be that these came via Saudis, ..."

Then I think we can agree on that, Ian. Going forward I hope there is a good concensus at the UN for pointing the finger at Iran for the oil strike on Saudi. It won't amount to anything proactive because the Russians and Chinese will veto any proposal but at least it might build an international force for the Gulf and deter Iran trying anything military again.

Iran says it foiled ‘Israel-Arab’ plot to assassinate top military commander - The Times of Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-sa...

An interesting place to find the announcement. It may well be true.

James wrote: "Iran says it foiled ‘Israel-Arab’ plot to assassinate top military commander - The Times of Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-sa......"

I'm sure they are all in Mossad's sights. I often wonder how a regime of assassination of top leaders would pan out. Who would you start with? anyone

I would suspect that if you started assassinating top leaders of one country, they would promptly try to return the favour. That leads to a sort of equilibrium - top leaders refuse to order hits in another country for their own self-preservation. Israel seems to think Iran can't return the favour anyway and the political fallout is not as bad as if they did that to the Palestinians.

Yes, that's why they don't. We send people to war to kill each other but we don't go there ourselves. If we had to do it ourselves it would never happen. But your analysis would make a good subject for a novel; knowing that would happen a 'sick of all politicians' agency kills one and leaves evidence of pointing at someone else, so a chain reaction...

Something to make your discussion even spicier: https://www.debka.com/irans-guards-de...

If Yuzik is Jewish and innocent, it was not a very smart move to go the Tehran

Nik wrote: "Something to make your discussion even spicier: https://www.debka.com/irans-guards-de..."

It was reported here over the weekend that the Russians had been assured that the detention was 'merely a procedural matter and Yuzik would soon be released'. Which is diplomat speech for, 'Sorry, we didn't mean to upset our Russian friends. But Ian has a point; I am always amazed at the naivetee of people going to places like Iran and N. Korea and treating it like a trip to a normal country.

CHINA 'WELCOMES' RUSSIA'S CALL FOR PERSIAN GULF COALITION AS U.S. AND IRAN BACK RIVAL PLANS https://www.newsweek.com/china-welcom...

China has reacted positively to Russia's call for a regional coalition to ensure security in the Persian Gulf as the United States and Iran have pursued their own rival agendas there.

Moscow first introduced "the concept of providing collective security in the Persian Gulf area" in July as tensions between Washington and Tehran neared an all-out crisis. Russian President Vladimir Putin officially proposed Thursday that "a security and cooperation organization be created in the region almost from scratch." He suggested that "Russia, China, the U.S., the EU, India and other interested countries could join as observers."

Asked about this idea, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang declined to "offer a principled response before checking for more information" at a press conference Tuesday, but said Beijing was open to such considerations.

"China has been closely following the complex and sensitive situation in the Gulf region," Geng added. "Safeguarding peace and stability in the region is in the shared interests of the international community. China welcomes all proposals and diplomatic efforts conducive to deescalating the situation in the Gulf region. We would also like to stay in communication with all relevant parties."

I have to accept my old employer's report is accurate but I'm surprised a Russian initiative was not reported elsewhere in July and even now I have not seen anything about it. I would have thought a disruption of oild supply from the gulf would have benefited Russia and even a war there would not do them any harm. So I can only think they want to front-up with China as a warning to the US.

Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "I have to accept my old employer's report is accurate but I'm surprised a Russian initiative was not reported elsewhere in July and even now I have not seen anything about it. I would ..."

Even then I don't see why Russia would be concerned. And if a conflict got that far north we would all be concerned with Cyprus very much on alert at its RAF bases. It can only be Russia choosing the side that might be giving the US and Nato concern.

Iranian oil tanker damaged in explosion off Saudi Arabian coast https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-e...
Dubai: An explosion damaged an Iranian oil tanker travelling through the Red Sea near Saudi Arabia on Friday, Iranian media reported. There was no immediate word from Saudi Arabia on the blast.

Iranian state television said the explosion damaged two storerooms aboard the unnamed oil tanker and caused an oil leak into the Red Sea. It did not elaborate.

James wrote: "Iranian oil tanker damaged in explosion off Saudi Arabian coast https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-e...
Dubai: ..."

If true, and if due to Saudi action, my guess is this area will heat up.

Also, if a true report, then it's funny how the terrorist-style act is not so publicized when it's done by the West's allies or the "Good Guys"... You ever notice that?

Many times. The Western news media are terribly biased at times, but in this case, I would like to see confirmation from some other source before I get too accepting of it.

Ian wrote: "Many times. The Western news media are terribly biased at times, but in this case, I would like to see confirmation from some other source before I get too accepting of it."

Yeah, we certainly have to watch propaganda from all sides.

Okay so according to this Bloomberg report, the missiles that hit the Iranian oil tanker were not Saudi missiles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk2Nt...

So if they were not Saudi, then who would be doing this?

A hidden hand playing all sides to engineer yet another war???

Could it be one of the emirates? We still don't know much about this missile attack, even from which direction the missile came

Exclusive: U.S. carried out secret cyber strike on Iran in wake of Saudi oil attack: officials https://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States carried out a secret cyber operation against Iran in the wake of the Sept. 14 attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities, which Washington and Riyadh blame on Tehran, two U.S. officials have told Reuters.

I think the US, like the UK, are now committed to reciprocating cyber warfare in many theatres. It's the new cold-war.

All this was predicted in the 60's and 70's during the crack and methamphetamine drug wars on the streets. This was just the next stage of it. No secret. People just don't believe, despite relying restlessly and effortlessly on "intuition". They won't believe a people could be so cruel.

Which means that once again the US lashes out on suspicion rather than on proof. If you have another country you don't like, except Israel, a good false flag will get results from the US

So the age of cyber warfare has begun?

Maybe in future, Iain, the US could use Saudi Arabia's new high tech smart city to do cyber attacks on our "enemies" like Iran and Yemen?

makes you wonder if you want 5G doesn't it?

Interestingly, I had in one of my futuristic ebooks a scene where driverless cars were driven into coordinated crashes. People commented "That's impossible", which I most certainly don't believe.

Every outcome I can foresee is one I wouldn't want to live in, Iain

Wow! I'm enlightened just reading these posts

A downward spiral???

I don't this war to happen or any war for that matter. The only thing wars ever achieve are destruction of mankind, the collapse of flora and fauna and annihilation of civilisation. Peace has never sprung from the fountain of violence. It is a cliche to say, I know, but I just think such cliched world peace should be spoken about from time to time.

Ricky wrote: "I don't this war to happen or any war for that matter. The only thing wars ever achieve are destruction of mankind, the collapse of flora and fauna and annihilation of civilisation. Peace has never..."

"Peace has never sprung from the fountain of violence."

That's a worthy and noble sentiment Ricky, but I'm not sure it's historically accurate...

I can think of many nations the world over that are peaceful today, but which developed and even thrived after being embroiled in war(s) - most of Europe included. (I don't include the USA in that list because its foreign policy track record might suggest it ain't exactly peaceful).

Not saying war is a prerequisite for peace, just saying peace can be, and sometimes is, a byproduct of war.

Lance wrote: "Ricky wrote: "I don't this war to happen or any war for that matter. The only thing wars ever achieve are destruction of mankind, the collapse of flora and fauna and annihilation of civilisation. P..."

I thought of Europe and its wars, but I don't think the peace Europe achieved could not have been achieved without war.

I also think that violence comes much naturally to humans in context of civilisation. The human history is quite bloody, and peaceful times have been more like oasis in a vast desert. In spite of it, the idea of peaceful future is worth striving for, that materialisation could only be made possible through democratic fronts. Democracy and non-violence are related, the more I think about it. Violence is authoritarian, it depends on exploitation and subjugation, and its equation to subjects is like a hierarchical pyramid.

Ricky wrote: "Lance wrote: "Ricky wrote: "I don't this war to happen or any war for that matter. The only thing wars ever achieve are destruction of mankind, the collapse of flora and fauna and annihilation of c..."

You make some good points Ricky. I especially resonate with your comment "I also think that violence comes much naturally to humans..." - and therein lies the problem.

Note how Mankind has advanced so much in so many areas incl. science, AI, VR, medicine etc. etc. but not emotionally, morally or spiritually.

I think no matter how much we advance on the physical level, it's always in us (Man) to fight. It's part of our DNA I suspect. And so there will always be wars.

Or is that too pessimistic? Either way, I hope I'm wrong.

Iain wrote: "Ricky wrote: "Lance wrote: "Ricky wrote: "I don't this war to happen or any war for that matter. The only thing wars ever achieve are destruction of mankind, the collapse of flora and fauna and ann..."

Wow! We have moved from technology through geopolitics and human psychosis back to Brexit, and all on one page. congratulations everyone.
There were three elements of interest relating to cyber warfare highlighted here recently; the Government announced its intention to put a substantial amount of money into creating a group of experts to co-ordinate cyber-related intelligence for the use of police and security forces; an ex- Chief of Defence Staff general told a literary festival audience of the need to create a corp to specialise in cyber counter-infiltration and an ex MI6 chief told a similar audience that cyber-warfare is the new cold-war. So, I think cyber problems are here to stay for the next fifty years unless we all start writing letters again.
I think Ricky is right about peaceful times being like oasis in a desert but, like Lance, I am not optimistic that humans can change and he is wrong to think that peace in Europe could ever have been achieved without conflict. He degrades his argument by admitting that violence comes naturally to humans; that is the point. The basic human condition is programmed to promote the will of the individual and, unfortunately, the will of one individual is often, almost always, contrary to the will of another individual. It is part of the survival mechanism in all of the animal world. Believing one is right and others are wrong if they disagree is a base default in all of us. It is not so important over a choice of t ea or coffee but when the choice is of who owns what, which God is right, the colour of skin, territorial boundaries and economic advantage the preferences become divisions that are irreconcileable because of who we are. Individually such divisions frequently in everyone's life lead to violence to a varying degree but when individual preferences attract similar preferences and such a body is opposed by another body the individual divisions are multiplied accordingly and lead to group conflict. The larger the groups the worse is the conflict. And I don't agree with Ricky that democracy and non-violence are related; democracy only gives the individual the right to express their prejudices - which brings me nicely onto Iain's succinct analysis and onto Brexit.
He is right to record the beginnings of the EU was an attempt to reconcile the divisions in Europe by economic co-operation in the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community and he is right to identify how a successful economic co-operative became a political super-state and by the necessity of bureaurocratic managment has relegated historical national societies to subservient departments of an unelected executive. This has had the beneficial effect of keeping peace between European states but more and more it is only acting as a lid over fermenting resentments. In its essence it is attempting to make everyone the same and, as above, I don't believe, and 17.5 million Brits do not believe, that is desirable or even possible. Vive la difference. That is my contribution to European hegemony.

P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Ricky wrote: "Lance wrote: "Ricky wrote: "I don't this war to happen or any war for that matter. The only thing wars ever achieve are destruction of mankind, the collapse of flora and ..."
Thanks for your response.

European wars happened because it dealt with the problems of the past in the most flimsiest of way, like a badly stitched garment falling apart at the seam. The displaced of the 19th century became the revolutionaries of the 20th and in many ways, one could argue the displaced of 20th are becoming the fighters of the 21st. So perhaps, we can say that it has been a long running war through centuries with only intervening moments of ceasefire.

There are many examples one can point out where non-violence has not only led to decentralisation of power but has proven itself to be a better mechanism in a fight for a just society. Gandhi's salt march proved much more effective in fighting off the British imperialism in India than Bhagat Singh's act of violence. The effectiveness of democracy lies in non-violence and decentralisation. Of course, non-violence alone, in itself doesn't bring democracy. In case of Israel-Palestine issue, the government of Israel is more scared of non-violent BDS more than anything else.

I agree remaining optimistic is much harder. After all many of us, human beings, suffer from chronic depression but none of us suffer chronic happiness. May be it just shows, we are more prone to pessimism.

Nonetheless, I think optimism is important and the only way. Sometimes we survive the cruelty of life with only the last dregs of hope. It is difficult but for many people, in big intense moment, it is the only thing to count on when all else has turned its back. I suppose, that's why idea of an all benevolent, just god holds such a power in eyes of many people. To know, an almighty, the righteous is watching, and one day perhaps, will correct the course of karmic life to its deserving path. I am not religious, nor I am trying to proselytise anyone, just in case.

Race-issues continue to haunt to this day as does homophobia,the indignities of economic warfare suffered by those at the bottom of the totem pole, all of these issues have remained unresolved even if we have bettered ourselves but has it led to the acceptance that racism is alright? that homophobia is alright? That being elitist is virtuous? We still believe in the worthiness of the effort to strive for justice. And as long as we aspire for that place, the optimism has to stay alive, as long as the ember glows, even if the fire has long died.

Lance wrote: "Ricky wrote: "Lance wrote: "Ricky wrote: "I don't this war to happen or any war for that matter. The only thing wars ever achieve are destruction of mankind, the collapse of flora and fauna and ann..."

Hi Lance, I don't think I have the answer to these question. Although...

I think all of these problems especially of societal violence comes from a collective expression on the question of the "right idea for society". Sometimes I wonder if human evolution was a curse? None of the other species have divided themselves in tribalistic notion of nation states

Vulnerability inspires a realisation of identity and identity gives us language but identity also divides us; nationally, ethnically, racially etc. It is like a dog chasing its own tail.

I would hazard a guess and say the problem is that of sustenance. In many ways, we are better off today even if our issues more or less have stayed unresolved. Just one hundred years ago, women were fighting for the right to vote, the marital laws entitled men to own women, inter-racial marriages were not allowed, homosexual acts resulted in persecution. All those things are better today. For the first time in history, in more countries today, it is legal to be gay. Women can not only vote but holds the highest of office, men help around in domestic chores. Women no longer have to adopt their husband's last name and are equally entitled to receive inheritance. It is not a completely pretty, stainless picture but it is infinitely better than the one we had a century ago. This evolution will exact a cost if it hasn't already,we know that, but what will it be? We have arrived but can we sustain it? And for how long?

Ricky wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Ricky wrote: "Lance wrote: "Ricky wrote: "I don't this war to happen or any war for that matter. The only thing wars ever achieve are destruction of mankind, the collapse ..."

A lot of philosophy there, Ricky. There is not enough space or time to disect your polemics individually but I would attempt to bring them together under the one umbrella of human behaviour. There are also one or two arguments you make that deserve correction;
You say Ghandi's non-violent opposition to British rule was more effective than other violence. Yes, in the long run you are right but non-violent demonstrattons, including Ghandi's, begot violence. A contemporary example is what is now happening in Hong Kong where the persistence of resistance is proving too challenging to the efforts of restraint and will lead to more violence.
In answer to Lance you say that no other species has divided themselves in tribalistic notion of nation states. Literally you are right but only because we are the only species to use labels like 'nation states'. Almost all species that exist in familial patterns use violence to protect their territories or even to hunt other species. That is no different from what humans are doing in Syria, or Israel or almost any other goddam place. Don't be afraid of acknowledging the power and importance of religion; it was out of the cruelty of life that religion was created; there had to be a better way, some final absolution to the futility of life. Christ tried to react to the violence, 'Turn the other cheek,' 'Forgive them for they know not what they do' etc. and, remarkably, started a resistance to violence that still pertains today.
But to precis all of your points under one collective umbrella it has to be the understanding of human psyche; education in the way of knowledge and experience; understanding by way of history. Or just to look into a mirror and get honest.

So it all comes back to this, doesn't it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgonB...

P.K. wrote: "Ricky wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Ricky wrote: "Lance wrote: "Ricky wrote: "I don't this war to happen or any war for that matter. The only thing wars ever achieve are destruction of mankind,..."

Look at birds and their migration, never stopped by any borders as does a great number of species who move from territory to territory in search of food and water and come together in plain. Oysters, fishes, crocs, all share the same water. Sure, crocs eat and hunt other being, like human eat meat and fish. I don't agree that wars in Syria and other places is akin to other species hunting for food because:
A) The very nature of human war is catastrophic to environment; the flora and fauna. Animals killing each other are maintaining checks and balances of ecological cycle.

B) These wars are hegemonic, not for self-protection or keeping one's space in the world (even though if they are sold as one).

C) Humans have always migrated. Our DNA shows our mixtures.

I also understand Gandhi has its own capacity to be brutal such as his insistence about the necessity of caste system and his well documented expressions in Africa. My example was solely about his response to British colonialism when all other freedom fighters failed like Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt.