Wednesday, October 7, 2015

what is your move ?

"-its your turn now..."

while some play chess, other die.

this geopolitical warfare makes me sick; these institutions have no power to lead
a true citizen protection. Anyone who assists TV news, can be easily puzzled,
either on trying to understand motivations as for the results.

Regarding Syria, I don't know nothing of religion, but it has nothing to do
with it... at the end is just power..... Iran treat it as if it were a Shiite colony ,while
taking the President an "hostage"; Syrian President wants to get reed of its opposition,
i.e Sunnis, Alawites (which for Iran is a plus); Putin is taking its opportunity to justify
and show that is a problem solver (though taking part on Assad while selling both sides weapons), and how he could be seen in Crimea, and that he is a belligerent with means (power show),
and for it he would want for instance a step-down in west sanctions

Is West playing?
yes... but Obama is a Nobel prize.... so is war refrained. EU as an whole doenst take bold and fast decisions,  UN and OTAN ... hostages of its own members.

I must confess that the price and results of not having
strategic preventive peaceful war (if such exists) can result in
deadly dangerous wars in the mean - long term.

"next move"


Max Coutinho said...

Ciao G,

Correction: al-Assad doesn't want to get rid of the Alawites. The Alawites are his tribe and along with the Christians (plus other minorities, like the Druze) they support their President.

For al-Assad, it's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of power. But for Iran and Saudi Arabia: you bet it's about religion.
Religion plays a significant role in the Middle East, as it's part of their collective identity. Failing to understand that, removes any legitimacy from any politician, or analyst, to actually deal or comment on ME affairs. Not to mention that it's an utter expression of disrespect for their history, culture and religion (all intertwined).

Russia never lied about its position on world affairs. They don't even try to hide it (that's more an European and American stance). So far, Russia's being successful in Syrian ops; what we have to do is to see how they can be used to western advantage.

According to scholars, there's a peaceful war: it's called negotiation "war by peaceful means".


Gallardo Santini said...

Hi Max thx for crossing by.

Regarding Syria, last year in Damascus, Latakia and Jabla, increasing numbers of hosseiniehs, Shiite religious teaching centers, had opened, and whats the aim? conversion to shiite. If this is not to get reed...

Sorry to disagree but nowadays, at the end, its all about power management (in any shape it takes in the developing process). Oh.... the full pack is in it (money, greed, pride, etc)

War that causes suffering, destruction and death is an antithesis of Peaceful "something" otherwise are just semantic affairs :) .

all the best.

Max Coutinho said...


Alawites were recognised as Shiites by Musa al-Sadr, in 1973, as part of a political deal. So, the increase of Shiite centres is not directed at the Alawites but most probably at Sunnis, Christians and Ismailis (who also inhabit the regions you mentioned).

I'm not saying power doesn't play a vital role in affairs but I'm saying religion, in the ME, indubitably plays an even more important part.

Hey, take it to the scholars (write an article about it). Dr Paul Meerts, for instance, said it "negotiation is war by peaceful means" and he's teaching it in a European Uni. :)

Now, it's naive to make such a peremptory statement like "war causes suffering, destruction and death" cause many things cause suffering, destruction and death (jealousy, stalking, domestic violence, diseases, paedophilia, rape and so forth so forth) - would you call those sub-wars? In that case, there will never be peace on earth.


Gallardo Santini said...

Hi Max
power is "all" in a country management.

negotiation as many metaphor, negotiation is a game, a pain, mountain climbing etc...
according to Brian Orend Standford, "War" at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict" and "War is a violent way for determining who gets to say what goes on in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, whose ideals prevail, who is a member and who is not, which laws get made, what gets taught in schools, where the border rests, how much tax is levied, and so on." - which fits in my opinion and concept. In opposition of peace of pacifism which according to Jenny Teichman's definition of pacifism as “anti-war-ism.” Literally and straightforwardly, a pacifist rejects war in favor of peace"

There's a true division in what is war and peace; joining the two, are semantic or conceptual notes, which I also can also use, but metaphorically.

Many things cause other things but surely not at the same time to potentially a large group of persons or countries. Besides, never heard of a stalking that killed at once thousands of persons, inflicted by a country to another....though it is used metaphorically the expression "war on" or "fight against" in all those you've lastly mention, and is true.... ( unfortunately ) there hardly will be peace on earth, all in all we are just human.

Max Coutinho said...


I bow to your explanation *bowing*.

Have a blessed weekend :D