NationStates Jolt Archive

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.
Do you manage to dress yourself in the mornings?

Then you'll have to call Israelis Arabs too.

:D

I think this would fall under a racist thread.

Sure, I guess it's the same as calling everybody in NorthAmerica Canadians.

Sure, I guess it's the same as calling everybody in NorthAmerica Canadians.
No, apparently everyone in North and South America should be called "Americans."

Canadian? No, American.
Cuban? No, American.
Mexican? No, American.
Brazilian? No, American.

:D Haha Canadians! ;)

I think this would fall under a racist thread.

I'm not racist, I just don't understand why you have whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, but when some calls someone else an arab, they need to come out with some seperate race.

Sure, I guess it's the same as calling everybody in NorthAmerica Canadians.

That's different. That's nationality. I'm talking about race.

That's different. That's nationality. I'm talking about race.
Then you mean Semitic, not Arab. Arab is, more properly, a culture. And it's not like that of Persians, Egyptians, Israelis, or Turkish, although it has some similar traits to all of them.

Can't we just classify everyone in the Middle East as arab?

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.

*sigh - shakes head at K-P*

Middle Eastern people are not all Arabs. There's Turks, Persians, Kurds, and so on.

Why don't you discuss it with your socials studies teacher. :rolleyes:

Then you mean Semitic, not Arab. Arab is, more properly, a culture. And it's not like that of Persians, Egyptians, Israelis, or Turkish, although it has some similar traits to all of them.

Oh, whatever. Just put them under one label, ok? It's really getting on my nerves.

*sigh - shakes head at K-P*

Middle Eastern people are not all Arabs. There's Turks, Persians, Kurds, and so on.

Why don't you discuss it with your socials studies teacher. :rolleyes:

Well shit then, don't call me white. I'm Germano-Ukrainian. Don't put me in the same group as them French, or those English, or those Americans, or those Germans or Ukranians! :rolleyes:

Oh, whatever. Just put them under one label, ok? It's really getting on my nerves.
Just to get on your nerves until you learn to appreciate the world a little more, no.

Just to get on your nerves until you learn to appreciate the world a little more, no.

Did that statement mean anything? Appreciate what now?

I'm not racist, I just don't understand why you have whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, but when some calls someone else an arab, they need to come out with some seperate race.
Those are gross oversimplifications invented by the census office of the US to determine how many people each state got, then they just liked having boxes to classify people. It's a pretty stupid system, actually.

There are no hispanics, there are Mexicans, Venezuelans, etc. each a bit different. And they come in white, black, red, and combinations.

Whites are not simply white. An English is white, but doesn't have that much in common with someone from Central Russia, who is also white.

And Asians, well, that could be an Iranian, an Hindu, or a Japanese.

It's, never gonna be that easy. If your born in a certain place, that is what you are.

Brazilian-born in brazil
English-born in england
Turkish-born in turkey
Russian-born in russia

and thats how it goes, we can't just say if a group of people live in the same place, look the same, and are born in different places, you can't make them one group.

No, apparently everyone in North and South America should be called "Americans."

Canadian? No, American.
Cuban? No, American.
Mexican? No, American.
Brazilian? No, American.

:D Haha Canadians! ;)

Remember, CANADIANS ARE LIKE AMERICANS!!!(shit, can't find the article)

I'm your long lost brother Colodia. :D

It's, never gonna be that easy. If your born in a certain place, that is what you are.

Brazilian-born in brazil
English-born in england
Turkish-born in turkey
Russian-born in russia

and thats how it goes, we can't just say if a group of people live in the same place, look the same, and are born in different places, you can't make them one group.

For the last time, we're not talking about nationality.

I think this would fall under a racist thread.

K-P is a racist, he keeps generalizing shit.

Example: "All muslims are arabs", "all muslims are bad" (or something along the line), "Europe rich and christian / muslim country poor and dirty".

:rolleyes:

I think this would fall under a racist thread.
no, not racist... just ignorant :p

Oh, whatever. Just put them under one label, ok? It's really getting on my nerves.Should I label you a "racist" or an "uneducated person"?

Should I call Afghans "Arabs"? Well, not.

For the last time, we're not talking about nationality.

i know, but im thinking from the beginning of time. people that were originally from africa, us, asia, anywhere were the first, because now, a person born in america is 99% of the time a mix of different nationalities. im american, but i am really german, irish, italian, polish, and native american (so im technically a little american). so we cant really say people from all different backgrounds are the same race, because there are so many different mixtures now.

K-P is a racist, he keeps generalizing shit.

Example: "All muslims are arabs", "all muslims are bad" (or something along the line), "Europe rich and christian / muslim country poor and dirty".

:rolleyes:

Well, Europe is rich and Christian (at least on paper). And muslim countries are pretty poor.

Should I label you a "racist" or an "uneducated person"?

Neither. You can label me as "The guy who sees that their isn't really much difference between iraq and iran."

For the last time, we're not talking about nationality.
we both are and aren't... according to the (old, out-dated, and racially biased origins) "standard" set of races, there's caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid, and i think one other. granted, those terms were nearly arbitrarily set by a known racist who wanted to "prove" whites were superior to other colors...

trying to assing everyone from the middle eastern region to a single "race" would be like trying to assign all of the mediterannian into one "race"

Well, Europe is rich and Christian (at least on paper). And muslim countries are pretty poor.What? Serbia is rich and christian and Saudi Arabia is pretty poor?

Calling all middle-easterners Arabs has similar problems to calling all africans Negros. In addition to having racist overtones, it assumes that the people you are talking about are all from one area/ethnicity (arabic/nigerian, respectively). If you need a blanket term, why not just call them Middle-Easterners? Or Muslims?

What? Serbia is rich and christian and Saudi Arabia is pretty poor?

We'd all be rich if we were sitting on oil.

Neither. You can label me as "The guy who sees that their isn't really much difference between iraq and iran."
Tell you what--you tell an Iranian that you can't see the difference between him and an Iraqi, and see the reaction you get. Explosive would be one way of describing it, I'll wager.

Ask yourself the reason why you want to lump everyone from that part of the world together under one tag. Might it be because it's easier to classify them as something other than you, and therefore devalue them as human beings? I smell simple-minded racism in this thread.

i almost think it's time i look for the photobucket image of "please don't feed the troll"...

Can't we just classify everyone in the Middle East as arab?Because they are already classified as Semites.

Israel, Iraq, Saudis, Syria, etc are all racially Semites (except some small minorities)

Tell you what--you tell an Iranian that you can't see the difference between him and an Iraqi, and see the reaction you get. Explosive would be one way of describing it, I'll wager.

Ask yourself the reason why you want to lump everyone from that part of the world together under one tag. Might it be because it's easier to classify them as something other than you, and therefore devalue them as human beings? I smell simple-minded racism in this thread.

The reason is because people make it difficult for me to make a point. They always have to nitpick.

The reason is because people make it difficult for me to make a point. They always have to nitpick.

What are you talking about

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.

Im pretty sure that you have made you point. your just mad that we dont agree with your point, and getting pissed of becasue you dont want people to get you mad. honestly, did you think that you would have a lot of people agree with you.

The reason is because people make it difficult for me to make a point. They always have to nitpick.
lol... god forbid they want to have their own identity.

again, it'd be like residents of USA, cuba, mexico, hati, canada, etc., all only being allowed the title "North Americans"

lol... god forbid they want to have their own identity.

again, it'd be like residents of USA, cuba, mexico, hati, canada, etc., all only being allowed the title "North Americans"

That's regional, not race.

And the US and Canada are multiracial.

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.
Still with this racist crap? I thought they kicked you out.
Even for Fascist standards, you're uncultured: the very term Aryan refers to Iranians and their close relatives in ancient India (as I have specified before, I do not believe in race as a given, but this the official version). The language I am now writing in, as well as the language I speak at home, are related to Farsi. Turkish and Arabic are not (and they are not related to each other).
If it's "general aspect" you take into consideration, then by all means start calling every person with dark hair "an Arab".

That's regional, not race.

And the US and Canada are multiracial.
SO IS THE MIDDLE EAST!!!

that's the POINT!

The reason is because people make it difficult for me to make a point. They always have to nitpick.
Whatever, dude. Embrace your racism. If the universe rotated around your ass, you might have cause to bitch about the notion that brown people in another part of the world have the temerity to separate themselves into groups simply to get in the way of your making a point, but as it doesn't....

Can't we just classify everyone in Europe as German? After all the Franks were German. The Anglo-Saxons were German. The Goths and Visi-Goths were German. In some way all to western Europe is German. And who cares about East Europeans anyway.

Should I label you a "racist" or an "uneducated person"?

Should I call Afghans "Arabs"? Well, not.
I think the second one seems a bit more appropriate. He hasn't said anything about any races being superior to another, but he is falsely generalising things, so uneducated (or ignorant, take your pick) seems correct.

Can't we just classify everyone in Europe as German? After all the Franks were German. The Anglo-Saxons were German. The Goths and Visi-Goths were German. In some way all to western Europe is German. And who cares about East Europeans anyway.
careful good lifes... the OP might think you're agreeing with him, rather than being sarcastic...

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.

You're friggin' ignorant.

Persian peoples, Turkish peoples and Arab peoples all have very distinct and mostly unrelated histories. The fact that a large number of Persians and Turks are Muslims, as are most Arabs doesn't make them all the same.

Considering in many places there's some degree of tensions between these groups it's not very fair to lump them all together.

Can't we just classify everyone in Europe as German? After all the Franks were German. The Anglo-Saxons were German. The Goths and Visi-Goths were German. In some way all to western Europe is German. And who cares about East Europeans anyway.

No dude, we already classify everyone in Europe as "white".

Considering in many places there's some degree of tensions between these groups it's not very fair to lump them all together.

Welcome to Europe, enjoy your stay.

I feel like it getting to the point (at least in the US) where race can't even be classified anymore. If people stopped sticking to their own kind then all the races would blend and you'd never be able to put labels on people.

Welcome to Europe, enjoy your stay.
LOL... i take it you've never asked a British taxi driver about the French, or vice-versa? :D

well y'all, it's been an envigorating experience, but i'm off now to a party... luck and levels :)

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.
Actually when you fill out a US Government form they difine "White" as:

Any of the original peoples of Europe, The Middle-East, North Africa, and the Indian Sub-Continent.

Although I have heard that Indians have lobbied to be Asian. In any case, the Semites are legally considered by the US government to be "white".

LOL... i take it you've never asked a British taxi driver about the French, or vice-versa? :D

I'm implying that Europe, usually classified as "white", has just as much tension.

I feel like it getting to the point (at least in the US) where race can't even be classified anymore. If people stopped sticking to their own kind then all the races would blend and you'd never be able to put labels on people.
It's getting to that point anyway--go get a DNA test to find out where your ancestors came from and you'll likely be surprised. As the old saying goes "Mama's baby, Daddy's maybe." You never know who crawled into the family bush 10 generations ago.

It's getting to that point anyway--go get a DNA test to find out where your ancestors came from and you'll likely be surprised. As the old saying goes "Mama's baby, Daddy's maybe." You never know who crawled into the family bush 10 generations ago.
Did you see the special on PBS where the Black guy did DNA on a bunch of popular Black people? His own test showed that his direct fathers line and his direct mothers line were both European. He was 50-50 Black and White.

Did you see the special on PBS where the Black guy did DNA on a bunch of popular Black people? His own test showed that his direct fathers line and his direct mothers line were both European. He was 50-50 Black and White.
Seen the first half--my father in law tivoed it for me and I have to get over there to watch it. Fascinating stuff. I'd love to run some David Duke type asshole through it and see what came up.

Oh, whatever. Just put them under one label, ok? It's really getting on my nerves.

Okay, let's revitalize the world on what you want! [/sarcasm]

I'm implying that Europe, usually classified as "white", has just as much tension.
Actually in recorded history Europe has been the most warlike area of the world. And has spread more war around the world than any other area. The Mid-East has been one of the most peaceful. Remember that they had peace under the Byzantine Empire then peace under the Ottoman Empire. It wasn't till Europeans injected themselves into the region after WW1 did the region experience significant war. Then Europe decided to solve the "Jewish Problem" by exporting European Jews to the best of the former Ottoman lands. Before that the Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in peace. They married each other and socialized with each other. Interestingly, the original Jews have become the lower class in Israel.

Because they are already classified as Semites.

Israel, Iraq, Saudis, Syria, etc are all racially Semites (except some small minorities)

Whereas (cf. original post) Turks are not Semites--they are of Asiatic stock; and Iranians are not Semites but Indo-European.

I think the second one seems a bit more appropriate. He hasn't said anything about any races being superior to another, but he is falsely generalising things, so uneducated (or ignorant, take your pick) seems correct."Posts: 1"

Uh, how long have you been to this forum?

Oh, whatever. Just put them under one label, ok? It's really getting on my nerves.
This is actually a good idea. Let's call them 'human'.

We should absolutely make broad generalizations about people over a large geographic area. God forbid we should take the extra 5 minutes to learn the names of 6 or 7 ethnic groups instead of sticking to one that is offensive and ignorant to some but oh so slightly easier!:rolleyes:

This is actually a good idea. Let's call them 'human'.
Amen!

The reason is because people make it difficult for me to make a point. They always have to nitpick.

This is precious. Not only are you admitting you are ignorant but you take offense when people call on your ignorance and then you make a whining thread asking for people not to call on your ignorance because you cannot make a point.

We seriously need a ROFL icon.

We should absolutely make broad generalizations about people over a large geographic area. God forbid we should take the extra 5 minutes to learn the names of 6 or 7 ethnic groups instead of sticking to one that is offensive and ignorant to some but oh so slightly easier!:rolleyes:

But it's ok to call everyone else white, black or asian, hmm?

We seriously need a ROFL icon.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif

But it's ok to call everyone else whie, black or asian, hmm?
No, it isn't. And to my knowledge, anyone who makes sweeping generalizations based on those notions gets openly and deservedly mocked, just as you are being mocked in this thread.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif
Quality nice.

No, it isn't. And to my knowledge, anyone who makes sweeping generalizations based on those notions gets openly and deservedly mocked, just as you are being mocked in this thread.

Well, I'll punch the fuck out the next person who calls me white then.

Well, I'll punch the fuck out the next person who calls me white then.I'm quaking, and I'm sure everyone else is as well. :rolleyes:

Well, I'll punch the fuck out the next person who calls me white then.

You're going to punch somebody because people on an internet forum see you as foolish.

I hope this is just the violent fantasy of a person who needs to project strength because he feels powerless..

Well, I'll punch the fuck out the next person who calls me white then.I dare you kiddo. :rolleyes:

You're going to punch somebody because people on an internet forum see you as foolish.

I hope this is just the violent fantasy of a person who needs to project strength because he feels powerless..

Nah, I'll whack anybody who calls me white from now on.

Well, I'll punch the fuck out the next person who calls me white then.

just remeber who brought up the subject.

Newtons 3rd law: every action has an equal and opposite rwaction.

you gave your opinions, we give ours. you're gonna have to learn to accept OPINIONS, no matter if you think they are right or wrong.

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.
WTF, a christian with fair skin, blue eyes and red hair is indistinguishable from a dusky skinned, brown eyed, black haired Muslim?:confused:

Oh, whatever. Just put them under one label, ok? It's really getting on my nerves.
Oh, I see your problem, you are looking for a one size fits all label. I may be able to help you in your search for gross oversimplifications that distort one's world view to the point where they actually believe the many and varied peoples of the Middle Eastern region are homogenus.

Forgive me if this term is too radical or novel for your tastes, but might I suggest you go with 'Middle Eastern'. Hopefully this terminology is not too technical for your tastes...

Nah, I'll whack anybody who calls me white from now on.Ok *censored*, so how you're going to do that on an online forum? Impossible eh?

Ok *censored*, so how you're going to do that on an online forum?

I find it far more satisfying to hurt real people.

Nah, I'll whack anybody who calls me white from now on.

I find it more likely you'll be "whacking" yourself while envisioning yourself punching somebody.

I find it far more satisfying to hurt real people.

Seriously, violence doesn't help to get your point across.

I find it far more satisfying to hurt real people.

i'll say this for all of us, we're shaking in our boots, please don't hurt us.

I find it far more satisfying to hurt real people.
Say you go find your Ustaša buddy and do it to him.

I find it more likely you'll be "whacking" yourself while envisioning yourself punching somebody.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif

*felt like putting that smiley on*

I find it far more satisfying to hurt real people.

Based on your posturing here, I doubt you even make eye-contact with strangers in real life.

One day, you'll try to express your tough-guy fantasy in real life, and if you're lucky, you'll mostly just get laughter.

Based on your posturing here, I doubt you even make eye-contact with strangers in real life.

One day, you'll try to express your tough-guy fantasy in real life, and if you're lucky, you'll mostly just get laughter.

NS general is actually an extremely advanced RP forum.

Say you go find your Ustaša buddy and do it to him.

Why would I hurt my friend? I'd probably bring him along for the ride.

Based on your posturing here, I doubt you even make eye-contact with strangers in real life.

One day, you'll try to express your tough-guy fantasy in real life, and if you're lucky, you'll mostly just get laughter.

No, I've done it before. Beat down on people, I mean.

Maybe I was misled in my earlier years, but isn't an Arab technically one whose main language is...wait for it...Arabic?

NS general is actually an extremely advanced RP forum.

So "Kievan-Prussia" is just somebody's character?

Like a 5th-level Wannabe, able to cast 3rd level implausible threats as a rogue of the same level?

Does he get XP everytime he demonstrates that he suffers from an acutely underdeveloped sense of self-esteem?

No, I've done it before.

Oh, you've been laughed at already? Unsurprising.

I'd just like to point out that Iranians are Aryan. White. So, from now on, I'm going to call you an Arab, K-P, since it's all the same to you.

I'd just like to point out that Iranians are Aryan. White. So, from now on, I'm going to call you an Arab, K-P, since it's all the same to you.

Yeah, bullshit. You don't spend thousands of years surrounded by semetics without absorbing alot.

So "Kievan-Prussia" is just somebody's character?

Like a 5th-level Wannabe, able to cast 3rd level implausible threats as a rogue of the same level?

Does he get XP everytime he demonstrates that he suffers from an acutely underdeveloped sense of self-esteem?

Maybe. It's an extremely advanced form of role play, involving people who don't realize its RP. Sort of like performance art, where the audience is unaware of the piece, and thus becomes part of it.

It helps that some of the audience are non compos mentis too, of course.

I'm implying that Europe, usually classified as "white", has just as much tension.

And Persians, Semetics and Turks are as white as Europeans.

Yeah, bullshit. You don't spend thousands of years surrounded by semetics without absorbing alot.

...

And Persians, Semetics and Turks are as white as Europeans.

No, no, no they're not. Look at me, Germano-Ukrainian, commonly known as "white." Now look at someone from the ME.

Yeah, bullshit. You don't spend thousands of years surrounded by semetics without absorbing alot.

I don't need to prove anything to your ignorant Arab ass.

That's it, I'm outta here.

That's it, I'm outta here.

Good riddance. And for the record, I'm right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians).

That's it, I'm outta here.

we truly will miss you. PLEEEEEASE come back, i had fun.

That's it, I'm outta here.

...and Kievan-Prussia has left the building...

No, no, no they're not. Look at me, Germano-Ukrainian, commonly known as "white." Now look at someone from the ME.

I've got a friend from Turkey who could easily pass for what you want to call "white".

I know, you need things to be simpler.

...and Kievan-Prussia has left the building...

*turns up the music and hands out cookies*

Good riddance. And for the record, I'm right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians).

You know what that reminds me of? That show on E, "Love Is in the Heir", the "reality" show about Princess Anne Clair (formerly of Iranian Royalty" and her quest to find love and be a country star...

Terrible show, but she was kinda hot...

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.


Turks speak Turkish.
Clever Iranians or (Persians) speak - Persian (not Iranian)

Arabs speak Arabic

English Speak English

Americans speak .....

French Speak French

Russians Speak russian

Clearly the different cultures are well represented but pan nationalism and ethogeographics is so 1700...

bloody racist pathetic graspers at contrast and individuality, get with the times.. we are all IDIOTS on a dying planet WAKE UP!

You know what that reminds me of? That show on E, "Love Is in the Heir", the "reality" show about Princess Anne Clair (formerly of Iranian Royalty" and her quest to find love and be a country star...

Terrible show, but she was kinda hot...

I have no idea what you are talking about....

I'd just like to point out that Iranians are Aryan. White. So, from now on, I'm going to call you an Arab, K-P, since it's all the same to you.

There is no Aryan race. Iranians are caucasoid. There are many ethnicities within Iran itself - Persians, Arabs, Azeris etc.

Aryan is a sanskrit word for a person of noble characteristics which he acquired through learning. It is not a genetic trait as commonly thought in the west.

Call him an idiot, that's more like it. Don't insult Arabs by call him an Arab.

There is no Aryan race. Iranians are caucasoid. There are many ethnicities within Iran itself - Persians, Arabs, Azeris etc.

Aryan is a sanskrit word for a person of noble characteristics which he acquired through learning. It is not a genetic trait as commonly thought in the west.

Call him an idiot, that's more like it. Don't insult Arabs by call him an Arab.

Ah, but calling him an idiot would have just encouraged him to be louder and more obnoxious. Calling him an Arab made him leave the thread.

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.
Please tell me your kidding, this just screams ignorance.

Yeah, bullshit. You don't spend thousands of years surrounded by semetics without absorbing alot.
That has to be the stupidest statement I have ever seen in NS, and that my friend is saying a lot.

That's it, I'm outta here.That's not the first time I've heard that from you...

I guess that makes everybody in Europe a German. Everybody in Asia a Chinaman, and everybody in North America a Mexican. 'Cause hoestly, it's too difficult for some of us to differentiate...:rolleyes:

I guess that makes everybody in Europe a German. Everybody in Asia a Chinaman, and everybody in North America a Mexican. 'Cause hoestly, it's too difficult for some of us to differentiate...:rolleyes:

Well, typically the instantaneous rate of change of a German, expressed as ddeutchlander/dx, is usually equal to a Scandinavian. Asians are harder, since they frequently consist of discontinuous functions...

Just because they look similar to you doesnt mean they are; a mexican with a beard and a turban would probably be an arab to you.

Arabs are a semetic people (like the hebrews). They speak a semetic language, and "originate" in an area around what is considered the holy land.


Persians are lighter and are an indo-european people, like the greeks or the norse (the word IRAN comes from ARYAN). They appear like arabs because they have adopted much of their clothing, etc. This does not make them arab anymore than a white person becomes black by wearing fubu. They speak an indo-european language.

Turks migrated originnally from the caucasus region and the steppes to Turkey. Their bloodline is highly influenced by the Persians and the Greeks.

I guess that makes everybody in Europe a German. Everybody in Asia a Chinaman, and everybody in North America a Mexican. 'Cause hoestly, it's too difficult for some of us to differentiate...:rolleyes:

Well here in Britain when you apply for a job, many employers also attach an equal opportunies form at the bottom (which is either sent to a seperate office or removed before it goes through to the person who has to do the selection) where you have to put information such as sexuality and ethnicity. Though you don't have to say since there are always "Don't want to tell" boxes

On some of these forms it isn't unusual to see something like "Asian" for one box and "Chinese" for another. It is a bit wierd. Though on a recent application form, there was even a "Don't Know" box for both ethnicity and sexuality.

[QUOTE=Good Lifes] The Mid-East has been one of the most peaceful. [QUOTE]

What a fucking stupid generalization

Then you mean Semitic, not Arab. Arab is, more properly, a culture. And it's not like that of Persians, Egyptians, Israelis, or Turkish, although it has some similar traits to all of them.

lies, the arab race originated from the arabian peninsula, (saudi, oman etc) and spread west into north africa and east into mesapetania (iraq)
further east still in iran you have persians because guess what iran was the location of the ancient persian empire which spread over much of central asia.
There arn't any turks in the middle east really, there are however kurds in south east turkey and northern iraq who want to chop a bit out of each country and make their own kurdistan

Well congrats K-P, that kind of thinking makes life a whole lot easier for terrorist groups, "they are all the same so let's just kill any of them that we can get hold of, I mean, they ALL are responsible for what has happened"... Not to mention the inherent good guy/bad guy generalisation as well.... oh not to forget, making muslims feel part of the western world... but nevermind that?

To the original poster: I'm assuming you're American.

I'm from a country next to Russia. I am, however, not a Russian and don't speak Russian. It's pointless to try and speak Russian to me, because I won't understand it. If you call me a Russian, I will certainly not get upset, 'coz the Russians are cool people and all, but I will correct you, because you'd be factually incorrect.

However, call a certain type of Armenian a Turk, or a certain type of Kurd an Arab, and you just won't be factually wrong, but he also might feed you your liver. It pays to not have one's head up one's arse. :D

To the original poster: I'm assuming you're American.

I reside in Australia.

I'm from a country next to Russia. I am, however, not a Russian and don't speak Russian. It's pointless to try and speak Russian to me, because I won't understand it. If you call me a Russian, I will certainly not get upset, 'coz the Russians are cool people and all, but I will correct you, because you'd be factually incorrect.

Can I count out Ukraine? Because alot of Ukrainians really hate Russia.

I reside in Australia.

So you are Australian?

So you are Australian?

On paper.

On paper.

Ahh yes, I remember you creating a thread on this a while ago, where you claimed to be german.

Ahh yes, I remember you creating a thread on this a while ago, where you claimed to be german.

Blood and culture, I am.

We'd all be rich if we were sitting on oil.

The Rumanians have oil, but they don't seem particularly "rich" to me...

Blood and culture, I am.

Ahh, so you want us to be sensitive to your "culture and blood" but don't want to reciprocate in regards to inhabitants of the Middle East?

The Rumanians have oil, but they don't seem particularly "rich" to me...

Well, they musn't be swimming in it like the saudis are.

Ahh, so you want us to be sensitive to your "culture and blood" but don't want to reciprocate in regards to inhabitants of the Middle East?

I'll be sensitive to them when they climb the fuck on board to the 21st Century.

:mad:
Its actually funny to listen to (or in this case read of) americans, specificlly dumb americans demonstrate thier total lack of knowledge about the outside world.
The U.S. is not the whole world nor is it more important then the rest of the world.
Calling all Middle-easterners "muslims", "arabs" or whatever is exactlly like calling all north americans "mexicans", "cubans", "canadians" or whatever in the sense that its a growse oversimplification and a stereotype.
Just becuase two peoples are geographicly, culturally and geneticlly similar does not mean they are the same, this is a common mistake and a cuase of many stereotypes.
Another great example of americans lack of knowledge about the outside world is they are surprised when people spell things the way they are suposed to be spelled and not the typical american version, e.g.
american: color
proper english: colour
-end rant.

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.
So, all of the soldiers from the States are Arabs now because they're in the Middle East?

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.

Skin color isn't race. And neither is it ethnicity.

Reworked for accuracy, your OP might read:

I hate when people distinguish between ethnicities! Enough with ancient technicalities. We're all the same race - H. sapiens sapiens. End of story.

Since you appear to be a troll, a puppet, or worse, that's all the time and brain cells you deserve.

Blood and culture, I am.
Then you're actually Australian, right?

So K-P, being Australian, would you classify Samoans and Tongans as the same race as ATSI peoples? What about ATSI's and African Americans? Because, they have the same skin colour, so they must be the same race right?

:mad:
Its actually funny to listen to (or in this case read of) americans, specificlly dumb americans demonstrate thier total lack of knowledge about the outside world.

You know what's even funnier? I'm not American.

So K-P, being Australian, would you classify Samoans and Tongans as the same race as Aboriginals? What about Aboriginals and African Americans? Because, they have the same skin colour, so they must be the same race right?

Samoans and Tongans tend to be lighter than Aboriginals. Aborginals and and African Americans probably can be classified as the same race, or at least very similar, but they have been living in different places for far too long to be the same.

Then you're actually Australian, right?

On paper.

Turks migrated originnally from the caucasus region and the steppes to Turkey. Their bloodline is highly influenced by the Persians and the Greeks.

First people to write about the Turks were the Chinese, but other peoples were well assimilated into their bloodline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gokturks

On paper.
It would be hard to gain citizenship as a child through imagration, so I assume you were born in Australia or one of her territories, correct?

Please elaberate on how you claim German nationality then.

Samoans and Tongans tend to be lighter than Aboriginals. Aborginals and and African Americans probably can be classified as the same race, or at least very similar, but they have been living in different places for far too long to be the same.

A) Not the Samoans and Tongans I live near and am friends with.
B) I think most ATSI's and African-Americans would take exception to being classed as the same race.
C) You need to learn a lot about the world. It's ignorant racism like that which you display which gives the rest of us Australians a bad name.

It would be hard to gain citizenship as a child through imagration, so I assume you were born in Australia or one of her territories, correct?

Please elaberate on how you claim German nationality then.

I didn't. My nationality is Australia. But nationality is just paper, and paper is worthless.

I spent last year living in Syria, and got to know a fair few Syrians and Lebanese there. I've also spent quite a while travelling in Spain, Italy, and Greece. Most Spaniards, Italians, and Greeks that I met were at least as dark of skin and hair, if not more so, than my Arab Syrian and Lebanese friends. Can we therefore call these peoples Arab too?

Incidentally, the people I me while travelling in Iran were a good deal lighter of colour than my Southern European friends. Clearly they must be white.

:mad:
Its actually funny to listen to (or in this case read of) americans, specificlly dumb americans demonstrate thier total lack of knowledge about the outside world.
The U.S. is not the whole world nor is it more important then the rest of the world.
Calling all Middle-easterners "muslims", "arabs" or whatever is exactlly like calling all north americans "mexicans", "cubans", "canadians" or whatever in the sense that its a growse oversimplification and a stereotype.
Yeah. I can't stand it when Americans do that.
Good thing we're immune to that, eh? :rolleyes:

I didn't. My nationality is Australia. But nationality is just paper, and paper is worthless.
That is a rather... unique way of looking at the issue.

And all the more interesting as you wish to self select yourself but would demand that everyone in a certain geographic location be labled.

Interesting; very, very hypocritical, but interesting nonetheless.

I didn't. My nationality is Australia. But nationality is just paper, and paper is worthless.
:eek: NEVER underestimate the power of paper! (or it's value...)

I didn't. My nationality is Australia. But nationality is just paper, and paper is worthless.

That is complete and utter rubbish. You were born in Australia - thus you are an Australian. I was born in Britain, thus I am British. Your nationality is where you were born and cannot change just because you don't like it.

That is complete and utter rubbish. You were born in Australia - thus you are an Australian. I was born in Britain, thus I am British. Your nationality is where you were born and cannot change just because you don't like it.

Nationality is merely a set of government documents. If you can name any other way that I am Australian besides the papers that say so, please, do so.

I'll be sensitive to them when they climb the fuck on board to the 21st Century.

One should say the same to you.

Hypocrite.

Nationality is merely a set of government documents. If you can name any other way that I am Australian besides the papers that say so, please, do so.

Well, lets see. You were presumably born in Australia, raised in Australia, have lived there for much of your life. The whole being born there kinda makes you Australian though.

Nationality is merely a set of government documents. If you can name any other way that I am Australian besides the papers that say so, please, do so.

Well, Skinny already gave another one.

There is also naturalisation

One should say the same to you.

Hypocrite.

I'm generally a nice person. I just don't tolerate barbarians.

Well, lets see. You were presumably born in Australia, raised in Australia, have lived there for much of your life. The whole being born there kinda makes you Australian though.

On paper. All those things just make my nationality Australian. By blood, I'm European. Culturally, I've absorbed a little Australia, but can best be described as "Mixed European."

Well, Skinny already gave another one.

There is also naturalisation

That just makes my nationality Australia.

I'm generally a nice person. I just don't tolerate barbarians.

Though in other threads you have claimed to have acted in similarly barbaric ways and celebrated barbaric actions.

That just makes my nationality Australia.

Well we are talking about being identified with a particular nation state no?

Though in other threads you have claimed to have acted in similarly barbaric ways and celebrated barbaric actions.

Indeed. Muslims are going to take over Europe and destroy it - something along those lines. I also believe you boasted of attacking several Muslim youths in Australia itself, despite not knowing exactly who they were.

Indeed. Muslims are going to take over Europe and destroy it - something along those lines. I also believe you boasted of attacking several Muslim youths in Australia itself, despite not knowing exactly who they were.

Or even if they were Muslims IIRC.

Though in other threads you have claimed to have acted in similarly barbaric ways and celebrated barbaric actions.

I don't make a habit of it. I promote barbaric actions if they start it. And they always do.

I don't make a habit of it. I promote barbaric actions if they start it. And they always do.

Oh, so that's ok then, definataley the hallmark of civilised behaviour :rolleyes:

Oh, so that's ok then, definataley the hallmark of civilised behaviour :rolleyes:

Well of course. The 'He started it' and 'Two wrongs make a right' arguments are always right. I'm ashamed you didn't know that, AC...

Oh, so that's ok then, definataley the hallmark of civilised behaviour :rolleyes:

As opposed to the European philosophy of "If someone is violence towards you, smile and let them continue."

Well of course. The 'He started it' and 'Two wrongs make a right' arguments are always right. I'm ashamed you didn't know that, AC...

:(

As opposed to the European philosophy of "If someone is violence towards you, smile and let them continue."

Well the Christ's "Turn the other cheek" aside.


"Well he started it" generally isn't a valid escuse for somebody to use after the age of 5.

Well the Christ's "Turn the other cheek" aside.


"Well he started it" generally isn't a valid escuse for somebody to use after the age of 5.

An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind. But turn the other cheek and the whole world has a swollen face.

An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind. But turn the other cheek and the whole world has a swollen face.

It says a lot about your mentality if you would rather be blind then be slightly bruised.

However, the point was that you praise violence towards muslims and "arabs" and are ready and quick to turn to violence rather then other avenues of action.

It says a lot about your mentality if you would rather be blind then be slightly bruised.

However, the point was that you praise violence towards muslims and "arabs" and are ready and quick to turn to violence rather then other avenues of action.

I don't like "eye for an eye" either. But you gotta hit back at some point.

I don't like "eye for an eye" either. But you gotta hit back at some point.

Way to miss the point :rolleyes:

I don't like "eye for an eye" either. But you gotta hit back at some point.

Hey, how about - and I know this may be a novel concept to you - we ignore the tiny minority of fanatics and actually allow peace talks and the such, not try and inflame each others feelings and generally try and get on with each other, whilst ignoring and if needed suppressing the fanatics?

Hey, how about - and I know this may be a novel concept to you - we ignore the tiny minority of fanatics and actually allow peace talks and the such, not try and inflame each others feelings and generally try and get on with each other, whilst ignoring and if needed suppressing the fanatics?

Yeah, that'll be the day. Nations like iran would never allow peace like that.

As opposed to the European philosophy of "If someone is violence towards you, smile and let them continue."Really? Which European country had violence done to it? And which ones that did smiled and let the people continue?

Really? Which European country had violence done to it? And which ones that did smiled and let the people continue?

All of the ones who let their embassies burn.

All of the ones who let their embassies burn.Ah, but the United States aren't in Europe.

Ah, but the United States aren't in Europe.

I have no idea what the hell that post meant. Said embassies were burnt in the Middle East, and said embassies were also sovereign territory of their respective countries.

I have no idea what the hell that post meant. Said embassies were burnt in the Middle East, and said embassies were also sovereign territory of their respective countries.When Iran went revolutionary, they occupied the American embassy. I don't recall the US doing anything about it, ergo the US must be prone to that weak European logic you hate so much.
Maybe if you didn't overgeneralize so much, you wouldn't miss obvious counter examples.

When Iran went revolutionary, they occupied the American embassy. I don't recall the US doing anything about it, ergo the US must be prone to that weak European logic you hate so much.
Maybe if you didn't overgeneralize so much, you wouldn't miss obvious counter examples.

The US went commando on their ass. It failed, but at least the US TRIED TO DO SOMETHING.

The US went commando on their ass. It failed, but at least the US TRIED TO DO SOMETHING.Link it.

Link it.

He's talking about dimmy carter's failed delta force hostage rescue.

It's true.

He's talking about dimmy carter's failed delta force hostage rescue.

It's true.
Ah, I assume this was to rescue the people held hostage and not to take revenge on the Iranians though?
Why should Denmark waste money to send troops to Lebanon to prevent one of their embassies getting burned when they could save it and rebuild it later when things calm down?

Ah, I assume this was to rescue the people held hostage and not to take revenge on the Iranians though?
Why should Denmark waste money to send troops to Lebanon to prevent one of their embassies getting burned when they could save it and rebuild it later when things calm down?
And next time, when the protesters come back to burn it down again, and kill the embassy staff, that's OK because they're expendable?

All of the ones who let their embassies burn.
The ones who "let" their embassies burn? I don't know if you are aware of this, but the security of an embassy is the responsibility of the host nation, in this case Syria. Syria failed in their duty to protect the embassy, not the european countries.

I have no idea what the hell that post meant. Said embassies were burnt in the Middle East, and said embassies were also sovereign territory of their respective countries.
Incorrect. These places remain the sovereign territories of the host countries. However, under international law diplomatic missions such as embassies enjoy an extraterritorial status and are exempt from local law. They are in almost all respects treated as being part of the territory of the home country, but they are still a part of the host country's territory.
(See The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf), especially art. 21, art. 22 and art. 23)

Oh, and as for "turning the other cheek":
Denmark and Norway have condemned Syria for failing to stop Saturday's attacks in Damascus and urged their citizens to leave the country.

"The principle of diplomatic relations is that diplomats can work safely and the fact that this has been broken is extremely serious," Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere told a news conference in Oslo.

The US also criticised Syria's approach, saying it was "inexcusable" for such damage to be inflicted on diplomatic missions.
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682560.stm)

In adition, the EU and the UN has also condemned the attacks - a strong reaction in the diplomatic language - and Norway (and I believe Denmark also) demands economic compensation. But maybe you were expecting a military resonse instead of the diplomatic response?

The ones who "let" their embassies burn? I don't know if you are aware of this, but the security of an embassy is the responsibility of the host nation, in this case Syria. Syria failed in their duty to protect the embassy, not the european countries.

Oh, and as for "turning the other cheek":

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682560.stm)

In adition, the EU and the UN has also condemned the attacks - a strong reaction in the diplomatic language - and Norway (and I believe Denmark also) demands economic compensation. But maybe you were expecting a military resonse instead of the diplomatic response?

Ok, fair enough, but what's this UN "condemnation bullshit?" The European govts should really shout these countries the fuck down, and threat to use force to protect their embassies next time.

And next time, when the protesters come back to burn it down again, and kill the embassy staff, that's OK because they're expendable?
Did the Embassy staff get killed?

Ok, fair enough, but what's this UN "condemnation bullshit?" The European govts should really shout these countries the fuck down, and threat to use force to protect their embassies next time.We are. And next time we won't bother putting people in danger and just close down the facilities.

Did the Embassy staff get killed?
Not this time. But if you make a point of not defending the staff, it will happen next time.

Not this time. But if you make a point of not defending the staff, it will happen next time.Defending the staff is still the duty of the host country. If it's obvious that they can't (be bothered), build higher walls, reduce the amount of staff, and be prepared to pull out at a moments notice, if not abandoning the idea of having a consulate in the area in the first place. Just open shop in one of the other embassies around and pool resources.

Defending the staff is still the duty of the host country. If it's obvious that they can't (be bothered), build higher walls, reduce the amount of staff, and be prepared to pull out at a moments notice, if not abandoning the idea of having a consulate in the area in the first place. Just open shop in one of the other embassies around and pool resources.

I guess that is why every US Embassy has a host of US Marines.

I guess that is why every US Embassy has a host of US Marines.Yup, though the amount can vary. And the ones in Germany still use German security guards as the main deterrent. And that's after you get past the German policemen (though they've stopped using tanks in Germany).
But as far as I know, the US is represented in another country's embassy in Libya.

Ok, fair enough, but what's this UN "condemnation bullshit?" The European govts should really shout these countries the fuck down, and threat to use force to protect their embassies next time.

As Laerod said, the countries are doing the diplomatic equivalent of shouting - threatening to break diplomatic ties with Syria.

Yup, though the amount can vary. And the ones in Germany still use German security guards as the main deterrent. And that's after you get past the German policemen (though they've stopped using tanks in Germany).
But as far as I know, the US is represented in another country's embassy in Libya.
Two different philosophies - each is workable in its own way.

I believe the US Marines in an embassy are a "tripwire". Attack the embassy, and you can expect a violent reaction from the US. They do evacuate in advance when there's enough warning, or close the embassy and send dependents home, but there's a "last resort" that everyone is aware of.

Europeans tend to do without the "last resort", although the Germans do tend to take a dim view of having their nationals taken hostage, per the Mogadishu incident.

Do you manage to dress yourself in the mornings?
Rofl.

Nope, still laughing.
:D

I guess that is why every US Embassy has a host of US Marines.
I tried to look into this, but couldn't find too much. However, it seems that not every embassy has a host of Marine Security Guards. According to this site (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/msgbn.htm) Marines serve at 124 embassies and consulates around the world - less than even the number of member states in the UN. But I'm not surprised, I wouldn't expect there to be Marines at the US embassy on Iceland for example.
(Yes, this has been an episode of Nitpick, nitpick - Brought to you by DentalFlosss© ) :)

I tried to look into this, but couldn't find too much. However, it seems that not every embassy has a host of Marine Security Guards. According to this site (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/msgbn.htm) Marines serve at 124 embassies and consulates around the world - less than even the number of member states in the UN. But I'm not surprised, I wouldn't expect there to be Marines at the US embassy on Iceland for example.
(Yes, this has been an episode of Nitpick, nitpick - Brought to you by DentalFlosss© ) :)There will be marines in every embassy and consulate. There will not be embassies and consulates in every country in the world. Libya is one example.

calling all people in middle east arabs is like calling all europeans celtic or scandinavian ( celtic is probably better example )

ATTENTION EVERYONE!!

There is more difference between people of the same race then between races.

Ah, but the United States aren't in Europe.

You know, you're the only person, besides myself, that I've ever seen refer to the United States in plural. In English, that is.

There will be marines in every embassy and consulate. There will not be embassies and consulates in every country in the world. Libya is one example.
Are you sure about that? I'm trying to figure this out...

You see, as far as I can tell, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security is responsible for security, and they have operational control of the Marine Corps Security Guard Detachments stationed abroad. However, I've found no sources that say that every embassy or consulate have such detatchments.

And if they serve at 124 embassies and consulates around the world, that would mean that the US don not have either a consulate or an embassy in 67 countries that have membership in the UN. Except Libya, would you know which countries that would be? (I've found no credible source here either.)

And as I said, I would be surprised if there were stationed Marines at the embassy in Iceland.

And as I said, I would be surprised if there were stationed Marines at the embassy in Iceland.Technically there wouldn't be any need for them in the embassies and consulates in Germany. Yet they have them there.

Technically there wouldn't be any need for them in the embassies and consulates in Germany. Yet they have them there.

Maybe because Company A Headquarters is located in Frankfurt? (One of seven regional companies according to this site) (http://www.specialoperations.com/USMC/MSG/Default.html)
Hmm... I have to check some more... (Aren't details fun?) ;)

Perhaps this link could shed some light on the situation.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance20.html

I thought I had scared K-P away.

Perhaps this link could shed some light on the situation.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance20.html
It does appear to do so. Thank you very much. :)

I thought I had scared K-P away.
I guess you just drove him under a rock for a bit, but he crawled back out.

I guess you just drove him under a rock for a bit, but he crawled back out.
I'm honestly waiting for Iran to do its nuclear thing.
Then it won't matter how we classify anyone in the Middle East (yes, I know Iranians aren't Arabs).

When the US goes to Plan B, there won't even be cockroaches left in Iran.

I guess you just drove him under a rock for a bit, but he crawled back out.

He certainly didn't like what I had to say.

Good morning my fellow Mexicans. How's things in Nuevo York? It's mucho cold today in Tõrontõ. Und gut afternoon to all you Germans in Europe. I hope your schnitzels keep nice und warm in all zis cold veather.

I hear the Chinamen in India have found bird flu. Well, there go the sweet-and-sour chicken balls from the takeaway menu.

I'm honestly waiting for Iran to do its nuclear thing.
Then it won't matter how we classify anyone in the Middle East (yes, I know Iranians aren't Arabs).

When the US goes to Plan B, there won't even be cockroaches left in Iran.

Wasn't Plan B to launch submarine missiles at nuclear facilities, not Iran in general?

Good morning my fellow Mexicans. How's things in Nuevo York? It's mucho cold today in Tõrontõ. Und gut afternoon to all you Germans in Europe. I hope your schnitzels keep nice und warm in all zis cold veather.

I hear the Chinamen in India have found bird flu. Well, there go the sweet-and-sour chicken balls from the takeaway menu.

I'm sorry?

I'm sorry?
I assume it's got something to do with stereotypes?

Wasn't Plan B to launch submarine missiles at nuclear facilities, not Iran in general?
Judging by how well the US can aim..

Wasn't Plan B to launch submarine missiles at nuclear facilities, not Iran in general?

220 kilotons doesn't seem to distinguish between a nuclear facility and the area around it.

Also, if they manage to switch the warheads to something conventional, if they hit a nuclear powerplant that has been fueled and is operational, the people downwind are going to get that Chernobyl feeling...

Which might make the US just go ahead and use nukes, especially if Iran has already used one on Israel or threatened to use one on shipping in the Persian Gulf in order to get Europe to take back all the Jews (as per their insistent demand).

I'm sorry?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10446391&postcount=107

my original response was:

I guess that makes everybody in Europe a German. Everybody in Asia a Chinaman, and everybody in North America a Mexican. 'Cause hoestly, it's too difficult for some of us to differentiate...:rolleyes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10446391&postcount=107

my original response was:

Now I understand, thank you.:)

220 kilotons doesn't seem to distinguish between a nuclear facility and the area around it.

Also, if they manage to switch the warheads to something conventional, if they hit a nuclear powerplant that has been fueled and is operational, the people downwind are going to get that Chernobyl feeling...

Which might make the US just go ahead and use nukes, especially if Iran has already used one on Israel or threatened to use one on shipping in the Persian Gulf in order to get Europe to take back all the Jews (as per their insistent demand).

Unless Iran's used a nuclear weapon then I suspect that a nuclear attack from the US would prompt UN sanctions.

Oh, whatever. Just put them under one label, ok? It's really getting on my nerves.
I've only read three pages of this so this point is more than likely been made, but I'm going to guess could use a revisiting...

Um, isn't "Middle Eastern" already on label? You already have it, if you want to talk about the seperate cultures within, then you have to specify Arab, Persian, Turkish.

You can't call everyone who's Asian Japanese, and that goes beyond mere nationality.

Silly rabbit, you already have one term for the region that fits an established practice. Why all the bitchin'?

Unless Iran's used a nuclear weapon then I suspect that a nuclear attack from the US would prompt UN sanctions.
Yet another person who missed the Pentagon briefing on what the US plans to do in the event of an Iranian bomb, and the use of an Iranian bomb.

Unless Iran's used a nuclear weapon then I suspect that a nuclear attack from the US would prompt UN sanctions.On the US? Doubtful. For one, the only UN organ capable of imposing sanctions would be the SC...

Yet another person who missed the Pentagon briefing on what the US plans to do in the event of an Iranian bomb, and the use of an Iranian bomb.

Wasn't it just "If all else fails we'll nuke the barstards?"

On the US? Doubtful. For one, the only UN organ capable of imposing sanctions would be the SC...

I'm sure there'd be some kind of global reaction, nuking an entire country isn't a great way to win friends.

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.

Sorry... were you not the same person whining about how 'ethnic German' (or some other such thing) you were the other day?

Surely, there is no such thing? By your own 'logic'....

Wasn't it just "If all else fails we'll nuke the barstards?"
Not exactly.

The plan is that if the Iranians continue to develop bombs, the US will (probably with UN authority) use B-2 stealth bombers to fly in and drop conventional bombs to destroy their reactors and enrichment sites. Of course, to hit a running reactor or gas centrifuge means you're going to send a cloud of radioactive debris all over Iran.

If that fails to do the job, or Iran uses a nuke, the US will then use submarine launched ballistic missiles with conventional warheads to try again - but these won't be available until two years from now. We may use the nukes, especially if the Iranians have used a nuke.

A single Trident sub carries 24 missiles with up to 16 warheads each.

Don't act so surprised - so far, the US is going along with everyone else on the diplomatic route - it's entirely up to the Iranians to knock it off.

Not exactly.

The plan is that if the Iranians continue to develop bombs, the US will (probably with UN authority) use B-2 stealth bombers to fly in and drop conventional bombs to destroy their reactors and enrichment sites. Of course, to hit a running reactor or gas centrifuge means you're going to send a cloud of radioactive debris all over Iran.

If that fails to do the job, or Iran uses a nuke, the US will then use submarine launched ballistic missiles with conventional warheads to try again - but these won't be available until two years from now. We may use the nukes, especially if the Iranians have used a nuke.

A single Trident sub carries 24 missiles with up to 16 warheads each.

Don't act so surprised - so far, the US is going along with everyone else on the diplomatic route - it's entirely up to the Iranians to knock it off.

I apologise, I was under the impression that nuclear weapons might be used even if Iran didn't have a bomb.

I apologise, I was under the impression that nuclear weapons might be used even if Iran didn't have a bomb.
Nope.

As it is, even the French now are convinced that's what the Iranians are building. So it's no longer a matter of "well, the stupid Americans say so..."

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.

I hate when people make me think too. It's damned inconvinient. I'm a busy man and I have no time, energy or patience for things like cognition or reasoning!

people actually think the US would use nukes?!

didn't you ever see War Games? :p


seriously though... the thought of nukes being used kinda scares the sh** out of me. i mean, how many decades has it been since one was used, and how many times did the world get within minutes of midnight on the Doomsday Clock??

wait... or is it tic-tac-toe that we're not supposed to play...

Not exactly.

The plan is that if the Iranians continue to develop bombs, the US will (probably with UN authority) use B-2 stealth bombers to fly in and drop conventional bombs to destroy their reactors and enrichment sites. Of course, to hit a running reactor or gas centrifuge means you're going to send a cloud of radioactive debris all over Iran.

If that fails to do the job, or Iran uses a nuke, the US will then use submarine launched ballistic missiles with conventional warheads to try again - but these won't be available until two years from now. We may use the nukes, especially if the Iranians have used a nuke.

A single Trident sub carries 24 missiles with up to 16 warheads each.

Don't act so surprised - so far, the US is going along with everyone else on the diplomatic route - it's entirely up to the Iranians to knock it off.

I don't see a ballistic missile attack with concentional warheads. Not with the payload; and not with the cost. ($30 million a shot).

And I can't imagine any advantage over using bombers.

And I can't imagine any advantage over using bombers.
maybe that they're stealth bombers? :p

I hate when people say "They're not arab, they're Persian!" or "They're not arab, they're turkish!" Enough with ancient technicalities. Same skin colour, same race-thingy. End of story.I don't know if this has been said already, but in these 3 similar 'races/cultures' you there a three completely different languages. You think think something like English and French are different? Then you can't begin to understand the differences between Arabic, Farsi and the Turkic languages - they use completely different sets of grammar. Language is one of the biggest barriers between people, it colours our perceptions, deeply affecting the way we think. A fictional example would be that of Orwell's Newspeak.

Farsi is the most similar to the European languages, and many European words have their roots in Farsi.

Of the Turkic languages I know a little Uzbek. I can't begin to tell you the difficulties I had in the trying to learn that language. Ideas are expressed in a totally different way, and sentence and word construction is very different as well. For any given word their are an endless supply of prefixes and suffixes to change the meaning of the word.

I know very little of Arabic, but know that it is different again from Farsi and the Turkic languages.

"Posts: 1"

Uh, how long have you been to this forum?
Lurked for a while, decided to interject here, mainly because I despise people who generalise.

Why?

I hate when people make me think too. It's damned inconvinient. I'm a busy man and I have no time, energy or patience for things like cognition or reasoning!

Exactically!

And don't get me started on facts ....

I don't see a ballistic missile attack with concentional warheads. Not with the payload; and not with the cost. ($30 million a shot).

And I can't imagine any advantage over using bombers.

I don't either. But they've let a contract for someone to design and build them for the Trident.

I think it's stupid - even if you hit a nuclear reactor with a conventional bomb, if the reactor is fuelled and running, it is going to be a radioactive disaster.

Now this is ridiculous. People are fervently in favour of breaking down border-lines and bringing about a new multicultural world state. Yet, they as KP says, when you do say call someone an Arab, they will insist they are of a particular ethnicity and are not Arab. Fair enough. Yet, to those who want borderlines to be broken and identities to be amalgamated, don't you find this a bit dumb? Insisting that a person be associated with an ethnicity created by the existence of a nation opposes the idea of breaking down nationhood. How utterly idiotic.

Secondly, being a racist or not is completely unrelated to one's level of education. Some people are biased regardless of how educated and intelligent they are. It's a matter of psychological make up. Not intelligence.

Now this is ridiculous. People are fervently in favour of breaking down border-lines and bringing about a new multicultural world state. Yet, they as KP says, when you do say call someone an Arab, they will insist they are of a particular ethnicity and are not Arab. Fair enough. Yet, to those who want borderlines to be broken and identities to be amalgamated, don't you find this a bit dumb? Insisting that a person be associated with an ethnicity created by the existence of a nation opposes the idea of breaking down nationhood. How utterly idiotic..

Of course, K-P likes to beat up anyone that is Arab, so perhaps people feel a need to explain to him that they are not.

Secondly, being a racist or not is completely unrelated to one's level of education. Some people are biased regardless of how educated and intelligent they are. It's a matter of psychological make up. Not intelligence.

Education /= intelligence.

One can be intelligent, well-educated, and racist, but the three are less commonly associated.

Education /= intelligence.

One can be intelligent, well-educated, and racist, but the three are less commonly associated.
Exactly. They are not commonly associated, but the one hardly precludes the ability of the other to exist in a person.

Now this is ridiculous. People are fervently in favour of breaking down border-lines and bringing about a new multicultural world state. Yet, they as KP says, when you do say call someone an Arab, they will insist they are of a particular ethnicity and are not Arab. Fair enough. Yet, to those who want borderlines to be broken and identities to be amalgamated, don't you find this a bit dumb? Insisting that a person be associated with an ethnicity created by the existence of a nation opposes the idea of breaking down nationhood. How utterly idiotic.

Secondly, being a racist or not is completely unrelated to one's level of education. Some people are biased regardless of how educated and intelligent they are. It's a matter of psychological make up. Not intelligence.uh... Arabic isn't a type of nationality, nor is Persian. Turkish is, but Turkic isn't. There are cultural similarities, but there are also a lot a differences. And I've just mentioned language, which is much more than just a few different traditions. Arabs are more closely related to the Semitic Jews with their common linguistical ancestor - Aramaic.

edit: In fact, the cultural similarites between the Arabs, Turks, and Persians only really exist because of their respective empires which occupied much of the same area. So arguabably, a sense of nationality has done more to unite these people than divide them.

uh... Arabic isn't a type of nationality, nor is Persian. Turkish is, but Turkic isn't. There are cultural similarities, but there are also a lot a differences. And I've just mentioned language, which is much more than just a few different traditions. Arabs are more closely related to the Semitic Jews with their common linguistical ancestor - Aramaic.
This is what makes me wonder if multiculturalism is actually viable at all. People seemed to be so closely linked to that which distinguishes them that they refuse to let go of their identities. Persian was once a nationality, but that was a long time ago. Still, these cultural identities were born out of nationhood.

This is what makes me wonder if multiculturalism is actually viable at all. People seemed to be so closely linked to that which distinguishes them that they refuse to let go of their identities. Persian was once a nationality, but that was a long time ago. Still, these cultural identities were born out of nationhood.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Nation names have typically reflected the people who lived there. Persian Empire was so called because it was created by the Persians, similarly with the Aztecs and Inca (well, not the Inca, that was slightly different). France = Francs, England = Angle-land, Scotland - Land of the Scoti etc.

PS. I recall talking to you about Early Modern Europe, surely you know that the concept of nationhood is a fairly recent invention?

This is what makes me wonder if multiculturalism is actually viable at all. People seemed to be so closely linked to that which distinguishes them that they refuse to let go of their identities. Persian was once a nationality, but that was a long time ago. Still, these cultural identities were born out of nationhood.I think multiculturalism was dropped as buzz a fair few years ago. And I think you have mistaken multiculturalism for Monoculturalism. Multiculturalism accepts that there are different cultures and doesn't advocate that people give up their culture. But rather it is a policy of trying to get cultures to interact peacefully within one nation.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Nation names have typically reflected the people who lived there. Persian Empire was so called because it was created by the Persians, similarly with the Aztecs and Inca (well, not the Inca, that was slightly different). France = Francs, England = Angle-land, Scotland - Land of the Scoti etc.
Which would change the perspective to Romantic nationalism, ie that nations are born from the people residing within them. Not much of a difference. Still, with these distinctions in mind I wonder if people can ever truly put them aside.

PS. I recall talking to you about Early Modern Europe, surely you know that the concept of nationhood is a fairly recent invention?
Depends on how recent you mean. Nations have existed for centuries, just under differing names.

I think multiculturalism was dropped as buzz a fair few years ago. And I think you have mistaken multiculturalism for Monoculturalism. Multiculturalism accepts that there are different cultures and doesn't advocate that people give up their culture. But rather it is a policy of trying to get cultures to interact peacefully within one nation.
Yet multiculturalism aims to get them to put their differences aside, and perhaps be a little more detatched from their unique traits. Uniculturalism causes them to converge, I know. Neither works.

Yet multiculturalism aims to get them to put their differences aside, and perhaps be a little more detatched from their unique traits. Uniculturalism causes them to converge, I know. Neither works.
And no one has really been successful with genocide yet.

From personal experience, people of different cultures can mix, and can mix and work together very sucessfully. There are problems when the cultures, but these can be resolved reasonably if people stop themselves from getting to emotional. Differences in opinion of food can cause the biggest of problems as the food you eat and consider good is such an integeral part of who you are.

The biggest problems that occur when cultures mix is one members of one culture are forced to give up their culture or feel that they being forced to.

Which would change the perspective to Romantic nationalism, ie that nations are born from the people residing within them. Not much of a difference. Still, with these distinctions in mind I wonder if people can ever truly put them aside.

I think they can. But not immediately. And not quickly.

Depends on how recent you mean. Nations have existed for centuries, just under differing names.

I mean the concept of the Nation state which largely came about in the latter part of the 18th Century.

And no one has really been successful with genocide yet.

Tasmania.

Yet multiculturalism aims to get them to put their differences aside, and perhaps be a little more detatched from their unique traits. Uniculturalism causes them to converge, I know. Neither works.No. Multiculturalism does not require that someone detach themselves from their culture in the slightest. And any attempt to do so will only create problems. What it does require is respect for other people's differences and patience.

Tasmania.
I stand corrected.

No. Multiculturalism does not require that someone detach themselves from their culture in the slightest. And any attempt to do so will only create problems. What it does require is respect for other people's differences and patience.
And do you think people in one nation, who do not detach from their beliefs, will tolerate another cultural group rising to a majority in their nation?

And do you think people in one nation, who do not detach from their beliefs, will tolerate another cultural group rising to a majority in their nation?That is one loaded question. Someone could, and probably has, written a massive thesis on that question.

But in essence I would probably state that the problems would stem from human nature and dislike of change. You could also look at how, if any changes the new dominant culture bought about. The current relationship between the the two cultures would be important too. You could examine how quickly the the dominance shifted.

Uniculturalism causes them to converge, I know. Neither works.

I'm afraid social/cultural studies are well outside my field, so the precision of the terminology escapes me.

The generation of our family before mine came from overseas, and embraced the stereotypical "American" style with vigor, going so far as to buy a 65 Mustang because it was "very American", and so on. I wasn't permitted to learn the language of my father (although were I truly motivated, I suppose I could've learned on my own without practicing at home).

How common is it for immigrants to exhibit this kind of self-forced pursuit of what they see as "American" style?

That is one loaded question. Someone could, and probably has, written a massive thesis on that question.

But in essence I would probably state that the problems would stem from human nature and dislike of change. You could also look at how, if any changes the new dominant culture bought about. The current relationship between the the two cultures would be important too. You could examine how quickly the the dominance shifted.
It is indeed a loaded question that requires much consideration, and if answered negatively could be a huge blow to multiculturalism altogether. It could mean it only works when one (or more) of the foreign cultures are minorities.

I'm afraid social/cultural studies are well outside my field, so the precision of the terminology escapes me.

The generation of our family before mine came from overseas, and embraced the stereotypical "American" style with vigor, going so far as to buy a 65 Mustang because it was "very American", and so on. I wasn't permitted to learn the language of my father (although were I truly motivated, I suppose I could've learned on my own without practicing at home).

How common is it for immigrants to exhibit this kind of self-forced pursuit of what they see as "American" style?I'm not sure about america, but I'm pretty sure it's not that common in the UK, despite it happening on my mother's side of the family.

I'm afraid social/cultural studies are well outside my field, so the precision of the terminology escapes me.

The generation of our family before mine came from overseas, and embraced the stereotypical "American" style with vigor, going so far as to buy a 65 Mustang because it was "very American", and so on. I wasn't permitted to learn the language of my father (although were I truly motivated, I suppose I could've learned on my own without practicing at home).

How common is it for immigrants to exhibit this kind of self-forced pursuit of what they see as "American" style?
That involves surrendering the former culture and embracing the latter. The USA is forming it's own culture, even regional cultures. The case of your family seems a bit strange, and I assure you this would be a rare instance in Europe (or anywhere else in the world). In the USA, I am not sure, but given a growing consiousness of ethnicity resurging, it might not be the case in the future. It is a form of uniculturalism by the way.

Well, they musn't be swimming in it like the saudis are.

Or Canadians? ;)

I agree with the author. I will either call them Arabs or I will call them Those brown-skinned people from the desert. Which desert? Oh, the one where they wear those towel thingies on their heads. You know who I'm talking about. The ones who keep blowing things up.

They're arabs. Deal with it.

No, no, no they're not. Look at me, Germano-Ukrainian, commonly known as "white." Now look at someone from the ME.
I've looked at plenty of people from the the Middle East, you dont get much fairer skinned and "white" looking than caucasoid red heads.

Yet, to those who want borderlines to be broken and identities to be amalgamated, don't you find this a bit dumb? Insisting that a person be associated with an ethnicity created by the existence of a nation opposes the idea of breaking down nationhood.
I suppose that would be a bit dumb, but then I suppose wanting to homogenise the world into one amalgamated identity is a bit dumb even without making contrary assetions to boot. Aside from possibly McDonalds and Starbucks, who the heck are all these 'turn the world clone' people you refer to?
I can understand a disregard for national borders, but why would anyone want to amalgamate identities?:confused:

This is what makes me wonder if multiculturalism is actually viable at all. People seemed to be so closely linked to that which distinguishes them that they refuse to let go of their identities. Persian was once a nationality, but that was a long time ago. Still, these cultural identities were born out of nationhood.
Nationality is one possible aspect of a person's identity. I dont think a uni-sex world is impossible despite considering my sex/gender to be very important aspects of my identity. May I ask if you feel the need to live in a world where only one sex exists, or do you not associate yourself with your own sex/gender, or might you concede that feeling attached to one's own identity doesnt require that one destroy all others whose identity includes aspects (or an aspect) different to one's own?

I agree with the author. I will either call them Arabs or I will call them Those brown-skinned people from the desert. Which desert? Oh, the one where they wear those towel thingies on their heads. You know who I'm talking about. The ones who keep blowing things up.

They're arabs. Deal with it.

Okay, so while we're on that note let's call Asian "Yellow Skinned Rice Eyes," Polynesians "Those Brown Skinned People Who Serves Drinks and Dances For Us," and East Europeans "Commie Bastards." It'll make classification and isolation so much simpler.

:rolleyes: