Awol

Having never been there I have no idea if extremist groups are planning attacks to mark his passing or not, but I know plenty of people who believe it to be likely and the fact that the rumours are out there is indisputable - as a quick Google shows: Fear of mayhem after Mandela’s death

Lots of South Africans I know maintain that more extreme black groups have promised to attack random white people when Mandela passes.

I 'liked' that post because it was (imo) eloquently argued, but fails to take account of some key realities, namely: Assad thinks he can win this militarily and is not going to stop fighting as long as that is the case. His Russian and Iranian backers would in any case forbid it. The idea of a genuine peace conference is fantasy. There are zero non-western countries with either the will or military capability to intervene against Assad, and as above he will not attempt to make peace until military defeat is a possibility. The UN... Having served on a UN peace keeping operation and both seen and heard about their activities in Africa, my opinion of that organisation is lower than a snake's belly - and has nothing to do with the Americans. A more corrupt, amoral and frequently criminal mob it would be harder to find... But again, unless the forces involved were western under blue berets any kind of intervention is utterly impossible and would in any case be vetoed at the UNSC by Russia and China. Whether the west decides to arm the rebels or not (and it is clear the US have already begun moving real weapons to them already) most of the region is involved anyway. Qatar and Saudi are buying arms for the rebels, Morsi in Egypt is calling for a western implemented no fly zone, Iran are sending troops and weapons to Assad overland facilitated by the the Shia Maliki Gov in Baghdad, and the Lebanese contribution of 8-10,000 Hezbollah fighters in Syria is widely publicised. They are all fighting the broader sectarian Sunni/Shi'ite war and will stay involved regardless of what the west, EU, UN or Russians do. Forget de-escalation, one side will win and the other will lose because both are playing for keeps. Syria does not have "many years" for a peace process to develop and is mired in full scale war (comparisons to SA or NI are very wide of the mark), so in reality there are only three genuine choices: Back Assad; back the rebels; sit it out. I don't know which one of those is the right answer, but faced with the bizarre situation of Hezbollah on one side slugging it out with AQ affiliates on the other (grossly over simplified but you get the point) perhaps you are right and it really is in the best interests of the west in general to sit back and let the slaughter continue? EDIT: There is a actually a fourth scenario if Assad can be fought to a halt and that is the partion / balkanisation of Syria, splitting broadly into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions - much like the eventual outcome is likely to be in Iraq.

No. I'm starting by recognising, as a matter of simple fact, that the west has for many decades been interfering in middle eastern affairs, playing ethnic groups and religious sects and nations off against each other, redrawing the boundaries of other countries, supporting regional warlords, imposing rulers (often dictators) and maintaining them in power with plentiful supplies of arms, all in order to extract from the region a vast amount of mineral wealth. Playing off Iraq, Iran and the Kurds against each other. Installing puppet leaders like the Shah of Iran. Supporting the rulers of Saudi, Bahrein and other places. I suppose you do recognise that this is not a matter of opinion, but one of historical fact? My bold: Indeed what you've written above is indisputable, although clearly the "west" haven't been the only meddlers. However by tagging that last line on I gave you an out to avoid confronting the points raised in rest of my post, and outlining whether you think the people of Syria are best left to the tender mercies of Assad/HZ/Iran and Russia, or whether the west should "do" something? I'm interested as to your view on that issue, i.e. the point at hand, rather than what the west may or may not have done in the region over the last 100 years - which viewed from a cellar in Aleppo probably isn't of much practical concern at the moment.

Yes, of course. In large part, at least. The immediate thing is the receiving countries saying they can't take the strain any longer. If the option exists of letting refugees moulder in camps for 40 years like the Palestinians have, out of sight and out of mind, that will be accepted. If the likelihood is borders being closed and people starving in no-man's land on prime time tv, then some humanitarian aid will be provided. But the motive is to do the minimum to prevent worse things, as in worse for the West. And a further influx of refugees to western countries would not be welcomed. It's really not driven by beneficent concern for the welfare of people living there. If it was, we'd get the **** out and never come back. Fact is we are not obliged by any law to do anything for refugees from a civil war in which Uk has no historical or moral stake. That we are nevertheless providing aid is a sign of our humanity, not our cynicism. I'd also be interested to know how on earth penniless refugees in Lebanon and Jordan are physically going to get themselves to Europe across the territory they have just fled in order to claim asylum? Swim from Lebanon? Hop on a magic carpet from Jordan? Think it through, it isn't possible. More to the point the people currently in refugee camps fled to save their lives, not move to Belgium. Why then would you assume that post conflict they wouldn't simply want to go home? Syria and Palestine are completely different situations, it's not a case of ethnic cleansing by a conquering army (yet), it's a civil war and the two are not comparable at all. As for getting out and never coming back, perhaps you could tell me where in the region we have troops? Or if you meant 'get out' as in stop interfering then of course we (the west) could do that. Leave Assad, Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Russians to simply mop up the opposition, execute a few 10's or 100's of thousands of people afterwards and halas, no more problem. Refugees go home again (through the filter of the Shu'bat al-Mukhabarat who can weed out and murder any undesirables with suspect loyalties), HZ can go back to Lebanon and purge any anti Assad elements and we have a nice stable dictatorship that hopefully heads off the region being engulfed by a broader a sectarian conflict. By "getting out" that is effectively what we are talking about, although it won't be quick because the petro-monarchies (acting out of their own sectarian interests and not on western instructions) will increase their efforts to supply advanced weapons to the opposition, or at least the nasty jihadi elements that they are backing. If the west has washed its hands of the situation then they will feel no obligation to show any restraint in supplying thoroughly modern weapons to people we really wouldn't want to have them in case they are ever used against us.. In Cameron's shoes I'd be tempted to do just that because it is definitely the easiest option for the UK, whether it's the "right" thing to do is a matter of opinion. Given your stance would you approve? The national interests of western countries in this situation are only about money, or rather resources in a broader sense - mineral wealth, strategic command of areas which will give better access to controlling the extraction of wealth. That's not correct. the west is no more trying to take control of Syria than it is trying to build a base on Mars. The west is however rightly terrified about Assad's massive stock of chemical weapons and what happens to them - even if you reject the point of view that 100,000's of innocent people being killed is actually a matter of conscience that can't be ignored. I'm including the murderous elites of the countries involved. They're not as numerous or as wealthy (mostly) as the global elite, but they're aiming to get there. I don't at all mean to absolve local players of responsibility. As for the ballot or the bullet, well the ballot is often rigged and the bullet is a little violent. Couldn't we have a third way, like, oh I don't know, the ballet? Not really following your line of thought now. It is quite obvious that the revolutions taking place in the Arab world are not simply about some shadowy global or local elite, for the people involved it is about freedom and dignity. Although powerful interests may be trying to steer the outcomes my point is that it will not be their choice to make and they'd have more luck herding cats. The ballet is a nice idea though, sounds like the happy clappy twunts from DfID who went into Afghan villages and tried to "educate" the elders about women's rights - through the medium of dance. I think part of the problem with your analysis is the belief that the west is inherently evil and behind everything and anything that is wrong with the world. When you are starting from that viewpoint it makes objective analysis impossible.

Beautiful. Nishtun Port Empty Quarter South East Coast The cities are a bit hairy at the moment though so bang it on the 'to-do later' list.

Plus Bennett has shown that he has a quality cross on him & is good higher up the pitch. Who knows as another poster suggested in another thread Bennett could also be used on the Left Hand side of midfield too. Bale Mk 2?

Should it read "will share on request all intelligence reports" rather than "(implied meaning, routinely) share all intelligence reports"? Or that we supinely offer up everything demanded of us, but get in return only what they see fit to give us? My money's on the second option. Neither, plenty of stuff generated on both sides of the Atlantic is either UK or US eyes only. The broader system of cooperation is known as "five eyes" and consists of US, UK, AUZ, NZ and Canada which has been around since the end of the war. That's not to say that there isn't a 'special relationship' between the UK and US Int' community because there is, although the term has been broadly misused by mainly UK politicians to imply something else. Given the sheer volume of resources the US can throw at intelligence gathering it is a vital relationship for the UK, but that doesn't (imho) justify the blanket surveillance of our domestic data. For those like Drat who imply that monitoring the volume of data generated is physically impossible (and to be fair IBM are way behind the curve on this), I know of an in memory system that can process 540 billion records per second, and that system can be daisy chained to others, generating real time sentiment analysis of things like multiple social networking sites. Combine that with all of the other tools Mr Snowden was describing. Now imagine what can be done by classified systems that plebs like me have no knowledge of.... Exactly!

The UK does have laws in place to curtail the level of surveillance that the security services are allowed to direct against the population, without first obtaining a court order. The question is whether GCHQ have used their US counterparts to circumvent these laws by sub-contracting and getting the Americans to spy on Brit's for them? Hague et al will deny this and say they are not breaking our laws, he won't comment on whether they are simply going around them - "because we don't comment on intelligence matters"..

Seeing as the idea of choice is just an illusion supported by party politics, it's hardly surprising that members from different political parties behave in the same immoral corrupt way, Next we'll be having someone say we have a democratic representative government, when in fact we have an elected, non representative dictatorship in all but name No argument from me, I think most people with an interest came to that conclusion a very long time ago.

Two Labour Peers suspended for being money grabbing dodgy bastards? They must be closet Tories I suppose, or Ajax et al will be along shortly to condemn Labour for being just as bad as their hated, money grabbing Tories.... No? Well, that's a shock!!

Secular push back against the creeping Islamisation being introduced by Erdogan and his mates. It's a good thing. EDIT: Meanwhile.. Ali al-Manasfi from West London has become the first confirmed British Jihadi killed by regime troops in Syria. Another good thing. Link ...Absolute nuts. Yep. If HMG insist on getting involved then I'd be more inclined to arm Assad to be honest. If he falls - which he will, eventually - the Salafists will take control of most of the country, and with the regional dynamics set up as they are the whole region will melt down. As UK obviously can't arm a man who has just killed 80,000 of his own people we are 100% better off staying out of this thing completely. Neither HMG nor the British media have really understood the significance of a full meltdown in Syria yet.

Secular push back against the creeping Islamisation being introduced by Erdogan and his mates. It's a good thing. EDIT: Meanwhile.. Ali al-Manasfi from West London has become the first confirmed British Jihadi killed by regime troops in Syria. Another good thing. Link

Again, no disrespect meant, but this is so far divorced from reality as to be unanswerable in a sensible fashion. So I'll leave it...

If they get there.... Neither Israel nor the west can allow Assad (and whoever follows him) to acquire S300 SAMs because they could reach every acre of Israeli, Turkish and Cypriot airspace (think RAF Akrotiri), not to mention the missiles can also be fitted with different warheads - which is handy seeing as Syria has massive stocks of seriously nasty chemical weapons. As MV says above, the most powerful rebel factions are serious Jihadis (on youtube eating the hearts of their enemies) so the thought of them taking control is equally grim, and of course there is the small matter of a Russian naval base at Tartus to consider. There are no 'good guys', only varying degrees of bad men and if this ends without a broader conflict it will be miraculous. It is in no respect a matter for Israel to decide unilaterally whether Syria may purchase arms, any more than it is for Saudi Arabia or Chad to decide if Israel may purchase arms. Of course the international community as a whole should be stopping all of them buying arms, and enforcing UN resolutions, but I suppose the first step in doing that would be to disarm the World's Policeman, the USA, which doesn't seem like it's going to happen quickly. Yes, there are no good guys. And bottom of the list of prospective good guys come the US and Israel, the most insanely aggressive, dangerous and pathological states to be involved in any of this. Mate, change the record, tu quoque is getting a little repetitive. 1) The situation in Syria is not the fault of the USA. 2) It is the Russians (and the Iranians), not the USA which is feeding high capability weapons into the Syrian theatre. 3) It is the Russians and the Chinese not the USA who are vetoing all multilateral attempts through the UNSC to calm the situation in Syria. 4) Any remotely responsible Israeli government cannot allow weapons that can threaten the country so directly to be supplied to a regime next door that could either: implode and leave those weapons to whoever takes control, or use them against Israeli planes that are trying to prevent the transfer of all sorts of nasties from Assad to Hezbollah in Lebanon - where there sole purpose is to further threaten Israel. All nation states reserve the right to defend themselves and whatever their other crimes may be Israel is no different in that respect. Israel hasn't been launching raids in Syrian territory just for the hell of it. 5) Those missiles could also cover the airfields in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey that would be used to implement any no fly zone that may eventually be imposed by the international community (or parts thereof) to try and limit the slaughter currently taking place. Obviously that's not something the west can or should accept from the perspective of their own security. I'm not going to get into a big argument with you because no amount of discussion will dissuade you that the Americans/Zionists aren't always in the wrong, but in this case they really are not.

If they get there.... Neither Israel nor the west can allow Assad (and whoever follows him) to acquire S300 SAMs because they could reach every acre of Israeli, Turkish and Cypriot airspace (think RAF Akrotiri), not to mention the missiles can also be fitted with different warheads - which is handy seeing as Syria has massive stocks of seriously nasty chemical weapons. As MV says above, the most powerful rebel factions are serious Jihadis (on youtube eating the hearts of their enemies) so the thought of them taking control is equally grim, and of course there is the small matter of a Russian naval base at Tartus to consider. There are no 'good guys', only varying degrees of bad men and if this ends without a broader conflict it will be miraculous.

Not entirely, if you asked an Omani whether I - or any foreigner - was part of their society, you'd receive an emphatic "no". That is the same all over the Middle East. As for substantial foreign populations, over a third of the people in this country are expatriates so you're wrong on that too and discrimination against foreigners is active government policy. Anyway, time for some other people's definitions...

What about those people within that defined geographical area who don't see their nationality (or the nationality of others) as the basis for being part of a 'distinct group' or, indeed, other nationals in that area? Having spent the last 3 plus years living overseas I'm conscious that although I live in a society I am certainly not of it, Why? Because of your nationality? That and having cultural beliefs (values) that are essential alien to the society in which I live.

In retrospect perhaps shared culture and values should also be added to nationality as components of what a society means. Should individuals transgress the laws that govern a society they are in effect putting themselves beyond society, hence their physical removal and separation from it through incarceration.

I didn't ask you what other people thought; I asked you about your definition, especially about those whom it excluded. Does the part of my post you didn't quote not explain my view sufficiently?

What about those people within that defined geographical area who don't see their nationality (or the nationality of others) as the basis for being part of a 'distinct group' or, indeed, other nationals in that area? I'm sure those people have their own views of what constitutes "society", so you'd have to ask them I suppose. Maybe the one's who liked your reply but didn't comment might be a good place to start? Having spent the last 3 plus years living overseas I'm conscious that although I live in a society I am certainly not off it, and that has probably shaped my view somewhat regarding the practical over the conceptual of what a society is. So, what is your definition of the various areas the OP was asking about, or are you just intending to question others on their views?

What about those people within that defined geographical area who don't see their nationality (or the nationality of others) as the basis for being part of a 'distinct group' or, indeed, other nationals in that area? What about your opinion?

Haha, oh dear. May as well close this site now then.

In a UK context - and from the hip: Society - all people within a defined geographical area who mutually identify with each other by nationality as a distinct group. Law - the rules arrived at by consent which govern the behaviour of the society Sovereignty - the ability of a society to exclusively make and strike down the laws by which it is governed Government - the elected structures (assuming that the Civil Service serves the Government and is not an intrinsic part of it) by which laws are made and removed Courts - the vehicle through which laws are applied Politics - any and all discourse relating to the business of Government