Egypt & Syria - Three Thoughts

[August1991]

Having read through this thread, I still think that male sexual frustration will be a factor in what happens next in the Middle East.

And while the certainty of 4+7=11 is universal, our world is changing.

[Gawd, what did I just post... ]

Edited September 7, 2013 by August1991

[Argus]

Having read through this thread, I still think that male sexual frustration will be a factor in what happens next in the Middle East.

And while the certainty of 4+7=11 is universal, our world is changing.

[Gawd, what did I just post... ]

a caricature of yourself?

[bud]

i wonder if august ever brought masturbation into his equation.

perhaps august is right and it's all about how much ass these ragheads can get. the more ass they get, the more peace there would be in the middle east.

it's so simple. why didn't my brain come up with this?

all this time, i thought the anger and resentment was about the occupations, the bombings and the puppet regimes installed in their countries by the west.

[sharkman]

It's about their religion bud.

[bud]

It's about their religion bud.

what is about their religion, sharkman?

the occupation? the bombings? the puppet regimes? the fight over their oil?

[sharkman]

It.

[bud]

It.

it, what?

are you unable to form a clear thought and explanation?

can you only repeat simple, bigoted slogans?

[August1991]

a caricature of yourself?

Uh, no.

perhaps august is right and it's all about how much ass these ragheads can get.

I would not use such terms but Freud possibly would.

It's about their religion bud.

I suspect that religion is only part of the story.

In Saudi Arabia, McDonalds has separate rooms for "men", and "families".

----

In this post-modern world, it is common to mock Voltaire or Freud or even Newton but this western knowledge is sometimes accurate.

Edited September 14, 2013 by August1991

[Rue]

Uh, no.

I would not use such terms but Freud possibly would.

I suspect that religion is only part of the story.

In Saudi Arabia, McDonalds has separate rooms for "men", and "families".

----

In this post-modern world, it is common to mock Voltaire or Freud or even Newton but this western knowledge is sometimes accurate.

Psychological profiling of political figures is a crucial part of intelligence and political risk analysis August but I would not expect someone like "Bud" to comprehend that and that your tongue and cheek comment has a ring of truth to it.

Assad is a classic sociopath. Brought up in a dysfunctional home with a sociopathic distant father and weak mother,

he claims to have become an eye doctor because he hated the site of blood. To become an eye doctor would require

superior intelligence and a lack of emotion-to operate on the eye, requires a steady hand and extreme concentration. It is an extremely precise type of surgery that requires its practitioner to be in total control of their emotion and to notice the slightest of

details.

Unemotional, highly focused, highly detailed, precise-these are exactly the qualities of a ruthless sociopath and to have survived in Syria as long as he did meant he grew up being taught you kill or get killed. Killing and death are not things that cause emotional

reactions. They did not in his father and they clearly do not with him. This is someone who ordered the murder of 10,000 Sunni Muslims in a one night massacre.

This is a physician who has ordered over 15 chemical attacks by now and countless mass murders of his own people he has been directly linked to by his family, former military officers, eye witnesses and his own admissions.

His wife interestingly is a trophy wife, who as he ordered the countless killings and civil war raged, carried on as if nothing was wrong organizing tea parties and social events.

This is a man who compartmentalizes his life and leads a classic sociopath's double life killing one moment then sitting down to tea and biscuits the next.

He has obsessive compulsive traits and would be someone petrified of germs, standing in front of any window or being in a room he could not feel safe to exit. This is a man who would be on a constant hyper-vigilant state of guard that has caused heart disease,

borderline diabetes, digestion problems, impotence and insomnia. I doubt he sleeps more than 4 hours a night, and this is someone who never forgets a face or name.

As for Putin he is an even simpler study. To start with he is afraid of women because he feels insecure about his own sense of manhood. He was always the shortest and smallest one in his class and felt the need to compensate and proof his toughness-just like Bashir Assad would have done with his father. Putin was small and short, Assad a big string been. Both to get their father's approval had to over-achieve.

In Putin's case it was sports, then martial arts and then military. In Assad's case it was sciences.

Putin grew up in a brutal and competitive environment of institutionalized and repressed homosexual thoughts expressed through rage and where women were depicted as sex objects but to be segregated and only used for one purpose-to propagate.

Assad was brought up the same way with women.

As Putin grew up he learned to kill. Emotion was a weakness. Worrying what people thought of you was a weakness. Like Assad before they could get rejected by cold distant fathers, they rejected the fathers and for that matter anyone else.

They grew up in institutionalized environments devoid of physical affectionate contact. The only physical manifestations they would see were violence by one man against another, including torture, sodomy and cold blooded violent rage and murder.

They grew up with it and became accustomed to it as being the norm.

In Putin's case he fears emotion and sees emotions as a feminine quality and something to ridicule. Emotions would be what his mother had and what his father brutally mocked and put down with insults. Same for Assad.

Putin in any room must be the toughest macho man there. Likewise with Assad. Surrounded by people that would want to violently replace them, both learned to never let their guard down and consider anyone a potential assassin.

Putin's insecurity about his own power is manifested in his need to outlaw and ridicule gays, and arrest pubescent girls (punk rock musicians) who ridicule him. Any sign of weakness gets him aroused and overwhelmed with feeling people are laughing at him,

Assad as well, only in Assad's case-its immediate death, in Putin's case, he likes a slow death through radiation so he can watch at a distance as his object of hatred slowly dies. Thus Putin radiates his prey, Assad quickly kills them through others.

Putin loves the slow death, Assad being the precise physician wants it done quickly and without blood.

Both are probably impotent, nail biters, have skin rashes, digestive problems, heart disease and drink excessively but never let anyone see them drunk.

Putin is also of very high iq if not at the border line genius level. To rise and command the KGB he had to learn to kill with his own bare hands. It is not natural to kill with one's hands so he is even more of a classic sociopath than Assad who has it done indirectly.

Putin needs to see the eyes of his dead victim, Assad does not.

Putin is the kind of guy who wants part of the dead person delivered as a trophy, while Assad would be horrified of germs and dead bodies or rotting flesh touching him.

As for Obama. His need to be constantly approved and liked by Congress,the world and the press, and his deferring to his wife in public would all render him the very kind of man Assad and Putin were brought up to ridicule and avoid being at all costs.

The body language between Putin and Obama was very telling when they met. Obama being far taller would have made Putin feel humiliated about his shortness which he had to overcompensate with by standing in a fighter stance when shaking hands with him ad of course as firmly as possible.

Obama's need to be liked caused him to slouch to appear less threatening however Obama's face showed a clear disgust with Putin and vice versa.

The notion Obama would not like Putin, would cause a fragile Putin to believe Obama was disrespecting him and thus when all the nations met in one room, Putin moved as far away from Obama as he could even changing the seating formation.

When Obama likes someone, he stands tall, shows a deep smile and puts his hand on them while talking as seen with the German Chancellor or Stephen Harper and Stephen Harper is a socially awkward man who does not like to be touched but smiles back at

Obama everytime and allows the contact which is a form of genuine respect.

When British PM Cameron and Harper and Obama speak the body language of all three is very straight and tall but relaxed.

Once Putin was around even Cameron a very strong non verbal communicator in crowds turned his back on Putin as did Harper.

Interestingly Obama never turned his back but moved sideways with an eye at all times on Putin.

August studying the psychological and non verbal profiles of these guys is fascinating and beneath many of their decisions might be

deeply rooted anxieties from their childhood manifesting themselves in the behaviour they bring to their roles.

Lol. Tell that to Bud. My Freudian theory on him is obvious. I won't even tell you. Hah.

[jbg]

all this time, i thought the anger and resentment was about the occupations, the bombings and the puppet regimes installed in their countries by the west.

The West has to control the savage fringes to succeed.

The way that Canada and the U.S. and Australia became successful was through the death or subjugation of barbarians that skulked on the fringes. Granted, smallpox did 95% of the job for us, and the demoralized remainders were stuck with relatively ineffectual raids that brought catastrophic responses, much as happens now when the Arabs blow a pizza parlor or disco to high heavens.

A fascination has grown up about the nobility of savages and tribes. Granted, I believed this pap in 9th Grade Social Studies. The reality is that the savages did not just want to be left alone. They fight, and brutally. That is what Israel is dealing with regarding the neighboring "Palestinians."

It is time we acknowledge reality. Yesterday's First Nations (granted some tribes were better than others) and Australian Aboriginals are today's people controlled more indirectly, through "occupations" and "puppet regimes.".

[GostHacked]

jbg, I think you have sunk to a new low.

[Guest American Woman]

The West has to control the savage fringes to succeed.

The way that Canada and the U.S. and Australia became successful was through the death or subjugation of barbarians that skulked on the fringes. Granted, smallpox did 95% of the job for us, and the demoralized remainders were stuck with relatively ineffectual raids that brought catastrophic responses, much as happens now when the Arabs blow a pizza parlor or disco to high heavens.

A fascination has grown up about the nobility of savages and tribes. Granted, I believed this pap in 9th Grade Social Studies. The reality is that the savages did not just want to be left alone. They fight, and brutally. That is what Israel is dealing with regarding the neighboring "Palestinians."

It is time we acknowledge reality. Yesterday's First Nations (granted some tribes were better than others) and Australian Aboriginals are today's people controlled more indirectly, through "occupations" and "puppet regimes.".

Seriously??

[bleeding heart]

jbg, you make some alarming leaps of logic here. This causes you to indulge in some chauvinism which should be beneath you.

Let's see if we can't pluck a turd or two out of the sewer of your post to explain what you've got wrong.

First of all, the reason the word "savages" has fallen into disrepute is not, or not mostly, because of political correctness (a label that is wantonly overused in any case); it's because it is at bottom a racist designation.

That is, "savages" was not primarily used to convey actual behavior...it was used to convey "otherness"; that is, those whom the Europeans and their offshoots were killing and subjugating.

This is roughly the way you are using it now, jbg.

Look who you're talking about: Palestinians (placed in scare quotes in the typical formulation)...as well as First Nations people, and "barbarians" in general.

All "Savages."

In other words, anyone whom Europe and its political/cultural descendants CHOOSES to fight--for any reason, rightly or wrongly--are "savages"...uncivilized.

Bad Guys, in effect.

Edited September 29, 2013 by bleeding heart

[jbg]

jbg, I think you have sunk to a new low.

Seriously??

I am using appropriate nomenclature, and not sanitizing to bureaucrat-speak. Is there any word other than "savage" to describe poison gas attacks, and some of the mall atrocities in Kenya? Let's get a serious response.

jbg, you make some alarming leaps of logic here. This causes you to indulge in some chauvinism which should be beneath you.

If the poison gas attacks, and some of the mall atrocities in Kenya do not convince you that your culture is superior I don't know what will.

Let's see if we can't pluck a turd or two out of the sewer of your post to explain what you've got wrong.

First of all, the reason the word "savages" has fallen into disrepute is not, or not mostly, because of political correctness (a label that is wantonly overused in any case); it's because it is at bottom a racist designation.

I did not use it as a racial designation. I used it to describe people who use certain methods and tactics.

That is, "savages" was not primarily used to convey actual behavior...it was used to convey "otherness"; that is, those whom the Europeans and their offshoots were killing and subjugating.

This is roughly the way you are using it now, jbg.

I am using it to describe behavior, and to label the people engaging in the behavior.

Look who you're talking about: Palestinians (placed in scare quotes in the typical formulation)...as well as First Nations people, and "barbarians" in general.

All "Savages."

In other words, anyone whom Europe and its political/cultural descendants CHOOSES to fight--for any reason, rightly or wrongly--are "savages"...uncivilized.

Bad Guys, in effect.

As for the FN's I cannot predict what would have happened if they had by and large engaged in peaceful intercourse with the settlers rather than sporadically engaging in vicious (like that word???) attacks. As for the Palestinians, having lost wars in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 they now "fight" discos, pizza parlors and the like. Is it OK to call that behavior "savage"? Is the West limited to futile paper resolutions (such as the recent Security Counsel resolution against Syria) against those activities? I really don't think the average suicide bomber cares what some "diplomats" in New York City think of them.

[bleeding heart]

Your argument is confused. By your own formulation, the Europeans and their North American offshoots have behaved in profoundly "savage" ways.

Which begs the question: why reserve the loaded term only for others...never for your own culture?

And is it really your contention that the brutality visited upon the First Nations people is only a result of their "savage" attacks upon white settlers?

[Guest American Woman]

I am using appropriate nomenclature, and not sanitizing to bureaucrat-speak. Is there any word other than "savage" to describe poison gas attacks, and some of the mall atrocities in Kenya? Let's get a serious response.

It's your entire post that I'm taking issue with. Serious issue.

The way that Canada and the U.S. and Australia became successful was through the death or subjugation of barbarians that skulked on the fringes.

"Barbarians that skulked on the fringes??" It was their land. We went and took their land from them. We were the aggressors. Totally and completely. It's called "fighting back," just as we did when we were attacked. It's the reason NATO exists - to fight back when attacked. So how does that make them barbarians??

Granted, smallpox did 95% of the job for us

I find this absolutely deplorable. It's horribly ugly.

and the demoralized remainders were stuck with relatively ineffectual raids that brought catastrophic responses, much as happens now when the Arabs blow a pizza parlor or disco to high heavens.

Again. WE were the aggressors. WE shoved them off of their land. They didn't attack us. How would you like to be forced to march a "trail of tears" because Islamists took over our country, your land, your home, and shoved you off to Timbuktu? Calling you a savage for your resistance in the process?

A fascination has grown up about the nobility of savages and tribes. Granted, I believed this pap in 9th Grade Social Studies. The reality is that the savages did not just want to be left alone. They fight, and brutally.

If you're still talking about the Native Americans here, and the Aboriginals, why would they agree to be simply left alone? Meekly be shoved off of their land - and subjected to our laws, our way of life?? Fact is, even at that, they weren't left alone. They were constantly being shoved off their land, to land we chose, land we didn't want. Of course they fought. Just as we would have.

That is what Israel is dealing with regarding the neighboring "Palestinians."

Not really. The Arabs were the aggressors when the state of Israel was created. They started the war, lost, and then wanted their land back - and have been in conflict ever since. The Palestinians have a right to their state - something the Native Americans and Aboriginals never got - but Israel also has the right to exist as a Jewish state.

If Israel wanted to do to Palestinians what we did to the Native Americans, "control" and "wipe them out" the way you refer to the smallpox epidemic, I would not be supporting Israel; however, I think most Israelis and Jews would find your post as deplorable as I do.

It is time we acknowledge reality. Yesterday's First Nations (granted some tribes were better than others) and Australian Aboriginals are today's people controlled more indirectly, through "occupations" and "puppet regimes.".

Again. We took their land. We were totally and completely the aggressors. There was no "conflict," only aggression on our part. Honestly, I find this entire concept deplorable. You are, in effect, defending invading a nation and "controlling" the original inhabitants. How is this mindset different from the extremist/militant Islamist's?

[bleeding heart]

Most repellent post I've read in a while.

And it has nothing to do with "bureaucrat-speak,' sanitized or otherwise.

[eyeball]

I did not use it as a racial designation. I used it to describe people who use certain methods and tactics.

I can grok this. Its why I use the term diddlers to describe people and their filthy disgusting behaviour.

[jbg]

It's your entire post that I'm taking issue with. Serious issue.

"Barbarians that skulked on the fringes??" It was their land. We went and took their land from them. We were the aggressors. Totally and completely. It's called "fighting back," just as we did when we were attacked. It's the reason NATO exists - to fight back when attacked. So how does that make them barbarians??

You can sanitize it any way you like. It's what happened. And I think bleeding heart,gosthacked et. al. even would agree.

I find this absolutely deplorable. It's horribly ugly.

My point is that if disease didn't depopulate the American and Australian continents the Europeans would never have been able to dominate. I am NOT saying that was a good thing.

Again. WE were the aggressors. WE shoved them off of their land. They didn't attack us. How would you like to be forced to march a "trail of tears" because Islamists took over our country, your land, your home, and shoved you off to Timbuktu? Calling you a savage for your resistance in the process?

If you're still talking about the Native Americans here, and the Aboriginals, why would they agree to be simply left alone? Meekly be shoved off of their land - and subjected to our laws, our way of life?? Fact is, even at that, they weren't left alone. They were constantly being shoved off their land, to land we chose, land we didn't want. Of course they fought. Just as we would have.

Why should 5% of the remaining people keep 100% of the remaining land?

Not really. The Arabs were the aggressors when the state of Israel was created. They started the war, lost, and then wanted their land back - and have been in conflict ever since. The Palestinians have a right to their state - something the Native Americans and Aboriginals never got - but Israel also has the right to exist as a Jewish state.

If Israel wanted to do to Palestinians what we did to the Native Americans, "control" and "wipe them out" the way you refer to the smallpox epidemic, I would not be supporting Israel; however, I think most Israelis and Jews would find your post as deplorable as I do.

The problem is that the Arabs keep attacking. And similar non-Arab groups as the Shabab attack as well.

Again. We took their land. We were totally and completely the aggressors. There was no "conflict," only aggression on our part. Honestly, I find this entire concept deplorable. You are, in effect, defending invading a nation and "controlling" the original inhabitants. How is this mindset different from the extremist/militant Islamist's?

To repeat what I am saying above, there is no way that a few hundred Europeans on the ships that went to Jamestown and Plymouth Rock could have conquered a continent unless the people who were there died off first. Smallpox arrived with Hernando de Soto's pigs, and spread out. A bit less than a century later the British arrived to a largely emptied Continent. While if the original 30 million Native Americans had survived there would be an argument that we came as conquerors and exterminators. They were reduced to 5 to 6 million for both Americas. Leaving them 100% of the land would in effect have left the land fallow.