Morocco # English board

[www.mapsofwar.com]

Thanks Riffman. It puts things in perspective.

good map riffman, thank you

I'm adding this to your post Riffman, It's a re-drawing of the Middle East as those mad men in the US and UK would like to see, there's a map and a very instructive article :

[www.globalresearch.ca]

Chelhman

Why do you consider that map the work of "mad men"?

Are you against Kurds having their own country? Or the Balochis and Pashtoons of Pakistan?

Iraq is divided between the Shiites and the Sunnis. If it is the wish of the majority of the Iraqis why should it be "mad"?

I also see that the two Azerbaijans are united.

On the other hand I must admit that the carving up of Saudi Arabia and the new borders of Lebanon, Jordan and Iran are rather far-fetched.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2006 11:13 by Cyril.

Mad. Since early times we had empires... and the idea apart from conquest was to integrate the land to the conqueror, this is history. Now things changed, the conquerors try to determine the fate of other nations far away. Now Cyril... according to your thinking... How about the Republik of ErRif, or Chelh Republik and Souss Republik? Not a bad Idea! morocco divided in 3 or 4 parts, that would be easy to manage, woudn't it?

Hi Cyril,

Because like in the case of Iraq, it's done with no vision whatsoever. They assume that just by setting a region on fire, somehow things will fall into place once the dust settles.
I'd rather see pressure on the governements of the region to implement equality among their citizenry than carving up territories based on ethnicities.
The idea of a nation with equal citizens regardless of race, ethnic background or religion would be good for the West but not for the rest of the world ?
The whole thinking process is, in my view, condescendent. To think that the Middle East/Central Asia is a tribal area is a patronizing and colonial approach. These countries should have a shot at the idea of a "nation" just as the West had.

Take us for instance, we are a nation, we've done ok so far in that regard, we are berbers, jews, arabs and now with mixt marriages thriving among MREs/europeans, we'll even have another wave, ethnically speaking. But none of that matters, we are Moroccans, we share a set of values, a culture that binds us together regardless of ethnicity.
A "nation" is a recent concept in human history, it worked fine in Europe, it's working for us, it could work elsewhere.

One Last thing, when you read the article, you notice that all of this carving up planned is linked to business interests and has very little to do with the welfare of Kurds or Pashtuns...etc.
More reasons to be suspicious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2006 11:45 by chelhman.

Quote
riffman
Now Cyril... according to your thinking... How about the Republik of ErRif, or Chelh Republik and Souss Republik? Not a bad Idea! morocco divided in 3 or 4 parts, that would be easy to manage, woudn't it?

As usual on Muslim forums people jump from one extreme to the other. Why do you give me the example of a historically well-defined entity as Morocco? Did I agree to the carving up of Saudi Arabia or the lost of the Syrian coastline to Lebanon?

I would prefer that you discuss my opinion on the reunification of Azerbaijan, the birth of a united Kurdistan or an independant Balochistan.

What does this have to do with Muslim? and extremes? (by the way morocco is a land of extremes, and they work fine).
My point is why does anyone Europe or USA, try to define what is best for one nation and draw borders, they've done this in Africa, south america, asia and we are seeing the results.
Historically well defined entity? morocco... since the independence you mean.
Simple, because the republic of ErRif did exist and was extinguished because it was seen as a menace to Europe.

Chelhman


It is too easy to decide for other peoples from a distance. Let's consider that "new" map from the peoples' point of view. For Iraq for example I said OK for the partition "if it is the wish of the majority of the Iraqis". I didn't say that it had to be imposed on them.

The same with the reunification of Azerbaijan or Kurdistan. I don't know the opinion of Azeris but I do know that Kurds always longed for a united country. Notice that the oilfields around Kirkuk are in Kurdistan.

You mention tribes, but that map has nothing to do with tribes but with peoples sharing the same culture and language. It is the peoples that are divided into tribes, sometimes speaking different dialects of the same language.

I agree with you that some countries are "suspiciously" carved up. The case of Saudi Arabia jumps to the eyes as we say in French, and that of Pakistan looks like Globalresearch is funded by the Indian intelligence.
Anything can be suspicious. A united Iraq in today's borders can be suspicious to Iranians or to Kurds.
As most oilfields are more or less under the control of the West, one could say that today's borders are very "suspicious".



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2006 12:23 by Cyril.

Cyril,

You're right, if the peoples of that area wish it and express it through a series of referenda, I don't see why any country can oppose a reunification. In the case of Iraq, the ship has already sailed, it's likely now that in the next 10 years, Iraq will split up unless they can come up with some sort of federal structure but the question of oil revenues redistribution is going to poison the debates.
The silly thing here is that oil is not going to be around for very long and the country is going to be drawn up for centuries maybe, following a commodity that'll be available only for a few more decades.

As for the tribal part, I'm refering to the way, the thinkers, if we can call that "thinking", are still conceptualizing their plans with an old model of reasoning.
If you read some editorials on european or, worse, US newspapers, their rethoric is straight from "Lawrence of Arabia", it's pathetic on more than one level.
But like I said, maybe I'm a dreamer but the concept of a nation is a more healthy system than one based on ethnicity or religion.
It's easier later on to coalesce nations into a political entity, such as the EU, than to coalesce ethnies or religions.

Quote
chelhman
Iraq will split up unless they can come up with some sort of federal structure but the question of oil revenues redistribution is going to poison the debates.
The silly thing here is that oil is not going to be around for very long and the country is going to be drawn up for centuries maybe, following a commodity that'll be available only for a few more decades.

Most Arab countries of the Middle-East are artificial creations made by Westerners (except those of the Arabic peninsula). Do you know how old modern Iraq is? It was created in 1919 and is independant since 1932.

salam alaykum

wow how our people are so interested and supporting the slicing of the cake.

having Iraq divided into 3 peaces would be good a Xmas gift sorry i mean Hanukah gift for israel.

Quote

Cyril
Most Arab countries of the Middle-East are artificial creations made by Westerners (except those of the Arabic peninsula). Do you know how old modern Iraq is? It was created in 1919 and is independant since 1932.

I knew that Cyril, but there was an iraqi nationalism regardless of Saddam's brutality to keep everyone in line, so the idea of "Iraq" existed. It doesn't take long to instill the idea of a nation just as it doesn't take long to wreck it if you dig up old rivalries, which the US did.

Take Germany for instance, the term "Ossies" (east-german) is disappearing slowly, the Berlin Wall only fell 15 years ago, yet a former east German feels German. The youngest generation barely remembers the wall.

not really, a divided irak is bad news for israel because it means a stronger iran...

Quote
sarah70
salam alaykum
?
?wow how our people are so interested and supporting the slicing of the cake.
?
?having Iraq divided into 3 peaces would be good a Xmas gift sorry i mean Hanukah gift for israel.

Ladies and Gents,

I was late in watching this clip. It is very interesting. But I noticed that most of the conquests that occured were conducted by enthnic groups except the one conducted by Europe. It is inaccurate for the creator of the clip to group Europe as one entity. Not all of Europe engaged in colonialism. Or it would have been more accurate to group all the other conquerors as middle easterners since most of them were natives of what we call the middle east. So in essence, they conquered other groups in the region. In reference to the creation of modern nation-states in the middle east,the idea of the nation-state is a relatively new phenonenon. Very few countries reflect the exact model of this idea. The ones that I can think of are Germany, Japan, Somalia, Korea (north and South) and I think Swaziland. All other countries are heterogenious in terms of ethnic background.

I believe that the most important factor that contributed to the fragmantation and subsequent colonialization of the Islamic Empire was its numerous ethnic compositon. People generally assume that the Islamic Empire was a monolithic ethnic structure and that everyone living in it was happy. This was not the case. Many ethnic groups in the Islamic Empire embraced Isam but rejected Arabs as rulers. The numerous reconquest of Spain and parts of Morocco was based on ethnic lines. Ethnic diversity, language difference coupled with a perceived "domination" by Arabs make the concept of divide and conquer much easier.

PS* Forgive me for all the misspelled words. I was in a rush.

Quote
zaki7
not really, a divided irak is bad news for israel because it means a stronger iran...

True, but it is also very bad news for the Arab buffer states between Iran and Israel, the future battlefield of Iranian and Israeli (nuclear)firepower.
Israel is not going to wait for the Iranian forces to set up camp on its borders.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2007 01:54 by Cyril.