| Voir le sujet précédent :: Voir le sujet suivant |
| Auteur |
Message |
Alias
Inscrit le: 06 Juil 2007
Messages: 793
Localisation: Dans les environs de Genève-sur-Léman
|
 Posté le: Lun Mai 27, 2013 13:15 Sujet du message: |
 |
|
| Merlock a écrit: | | marklbailey a écrit: | That is not a bad general summary of just how bad the Japanese strategic decision to go to war was. it is a little dated now, I think it has been there for about a decade.
It is also somewhat simplistic. Many years ago I discussed the japanese decision to go to war with Norman Friedman. He noted that the Japanese had wargamed 'their war' in 1940, and that they lost every time. Their decision to go to war was a deliberate gamble against very bad odds. |
But ? Then, if Japanese knew that they would lost every time, why have they gone to war ? Was there something so "weird" in their mentality that "forced" them to act that suicidal way ? |
From what I understand, the Navy knew, planners knew it, but the Army was less open to newfangled modern analysis and still believed the "Samurai Spirit" would beat a 1-10 force ratio. And since the Army was the senior force, they pushed the decision while the others were doing the mental equivalent of a facepalm.
_________________
Stéphane "Alias" Gallay -- https://alias.erdorin.org
Multi-classé rôliste / historien / graphiste / fan de rock-prog / utilisateur de Mac |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
 |
Anaxagore
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2010
Messages: 10075
|
| Posté le: Lun Mai 27, 2013 13:34 Sujet du message: |
|
|
I think they don't trust simulation because the true impact of the " samurai spirit" is miscaculate ( for the army point of view). And yes, it's stubborness or incredible pride (who are the sames things at this level).
In french history, the battle of Crecy demonstrate the stupidity of that certainty... Like the french chivalry who charge english longbow who are deducted behind pickets, on the top of a hill. It's only chivalry pride...
_________________
Ecoutez mon conseil : mariez-vous.
Si vous épousez une femme belle et douce, vous serez heureux... sinon, vous deviendrez un excellent philosophe. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
delta force
Inscrit le: 07 Juin 2009
Messages: 580
Localisation: france Gironde
|
| Posté le: Lun Mai 27, 2013 19:27 Sujet du message: |
|
|
for mark : ian kershaw's book was published in france in 2009 only....(2 years it seems after first publication in english).
Je reviens sur le livre de Kershaw.
Citations des pages 494 - 495.
Extrait de la réponse préparée par l'état major général de l'armée de terre en vue de la conférence impériale du 6 septembre 1941. A la question de savoir si la guerre avec la Grande Bretagne et les Etats Unis était inéluctable, le document préparé répondait
"La construction d'un ordre nouveau en Asie de l'Est tournant autour de le l'incident de Chine par l'empire, est la politique inébranlable de la nation. En revanche, la politique des Etats Unis envers le Japon repose sur une vision du statu quo mondial qui empêcherait l'essor de l'empire et son expansion en Asie de l'Est afin de dominer le monde et de défendre la démocratie. La politique de Japon est en contradiction fondamentale avec celle-ci. Des heurts entre les deux finiront par déboucher sur la guerre avec des périodes de tension et de détente. on peut dire que c'est l’ordre de la nécessité historique. tant que les Etats Unis ne changeront pas leur politique à l'égard du Japon, les réalités de la situation réduiront l'empire à un point de non-retour où il ne saurait que recourir à la guerre dans le but ultime de se préserver et de se défendre. Si au nom de la paix temporaire , nous devions aujourd’hui céder d'un pas aux Etats-unis au prix d'un recul partiel de la politique officielle, le renforcement de la positon militaire de l'Amérique la condurait à exiger de nouveaux reculs, de dix pas puis de cent. Et, en fin de compte, l'empire devrait en passer par les quatre volontés des Etats Unis."
Conclusion: l'IJA (tout comme l'IJN) était fataliste quand à la guerre, et estimait que je Japon ne pouvait se libérer de sa dépendance envers l'Amérique qu'au prix d'un pari militaire risquant de tourner à la catastrophe. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Anaxagore
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2010
Messages: 10075
|
| Posté le: Lun Mai 27, 2013 23:57 Sujet du message: |
|
|
Paix impossible...
Guerre ingagnable..
_________________
Ecoutez mon conseil : mariez-vous.
Si vous épousez une femme belle et douce, vous serez heureux... sinon, vous deviendrez un excellent philosophe. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Capitaine caverne
Inscrit le: 11 Avr 2009
Messages: 4135
Localisation: Tours
|
| Posté le: Mar Mai 28, 2013 07:28 Sujet du message: |
|
|
| Anaxagore a écrit: | Paix impossible...
Guerre ingagnable.. |
Disons que les japonais de l'êre showa avaient plus ou moins le même problème que les nazis, à savoir que leur capacité à apprehender les réalités du monde et à en tirer les bonnes conclusions était diminuée par le "filtre racial" qui les poussaient à tout interpreter d'après leurs propres préjugés. Ils avaient une vision déformé du monde qui ne pouvaient que les pousser à la faute, genre attaquer les USA un certain 7 Décembre.
_________________
"La véritable obscénité ne réside pas dans les mots crus et la pornographie, mais dans la façon dont la société, les institutions, la bonne moralité masquent leur violence coercitive sous des dehors de fausse vertu" .Lenny Bruce. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
JPBWEB
Inscrit le: 26 Mar 2010
Messages: 4113
Localisation: Thailande
|
| Posté le: Mar Mai 28, 2013 10:52 Sujet du message: |
|
|
| Capitaine caverne a écrit: | | Disons que les japonais de l'êre showa avaient plus ou moins le même problème que les nazis, à savoir que leur capacité à apprehender les réalités du monde et à en tirer les bonnes conclusions était diminuée par le "filtre racial" qui les poussaient à tout interpreter d'après leurs propres préjugés. Ils avaient une vision déformé du monde qui ne pouvaient que les pousser à la faute, genre attaquer les USA un certain 7 Décembre. |
Question de 'filtre racial', il y avait aussi les Occidentaux, qui croyaient que les pilotes japonais ne pouvaient pas voler de nuit en raison d'une malformation de leurs yeux brides et que l'armee japonaise n'etait bonne a rien, la preuve 'ca faisait des annees qu'elle n'arrivait pas a venir a bout des Chinetoques'. Il y avait aussi le jovial et ignare Brooke-Popham qui declarait que les chasseurs Buffalo de la RAF en Malaisie etaient 'tout a fait suffisants' pour tenir tete a l'aviation japonaise, l'amiral Phillips qui croyait que ses deux cuirasses allaient balayer la mer dans un combat de nuit, les amiraux americains qui pensaient que Pearl Harbor etait trop peu profond pour des attaques a la torpille, etc.
_________________
"L'histoire est le total des choses qui auraient pu être évitées"
Konrad Adenauer |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Anaxagore
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2010
Messages: 10075
|
| Posté le: Mar Mai 28, 2013 11:04 Sujet du message: |
|
|
C'est vraiment pas nouveau ce genre d'aveuglement. Comme je l'ai rappelé plus haut la chevalerie française, chargeant les archers anglais abrités derrière des pieux au sommet de la colline de Crecy...
"Esprit chevaleresque" ou " esprit de samouraï" c'est un peu la même chose lorsque cela conduit des chefs de guerre à imaginer des plans de bataille qui ne sont tout simplement pas adaptés aux nouvelles manières de faire la guerre.
Et bien sûr, c'est loin d'être une spécificité japonaise... D'ailleurs, les Français de 1940 ont eu aussi combattu selon un esprit d'une autre guerre...
_________________
Ecoutez mon conseil : mariez-vous.
Si vous épousez une femme belle et douce, vous serez heureux... sinon, vous deviendrez un excellent philosophe. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
marklbailey
Inscrit le: 05 Jan 2008
Messages: 121
Localisation: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posté le: Mar Mai 28, 2013 12:39 Sujet du message: |
|
|
Apologies if my replies seen oddly timed. I am having difficulty accessing this site. I cannot get the translation function to work from my home computer, and while translation mostly works from my work computer, I cannot post from it due to a probable server incompatibility.
| Citation: | | It is true that the Japanese have shaped their peception of the West on the one they had in their victory over the Russians in 1905, but it is also clear that it is rarely the winners who take the best lessons of conflict. In this case, the Japanese gradually cradles illusions to maintain pleasant but dangerous for any future war. |
It is much more complex than this.
This statement is true for the period to about 1914-20, but is decreasingly true after that. The history of Japan between 1914-18 and 1941 is a history of two major internal forces struggling for political supremacy. I will simplify this as much as I can for the sake of clarity - we have a langauge difference which causes subtle misunderstandings.
So, simplified. These major forces were based on traditional clans with two different views of the future for Japan. One was the group of clans which formed the political backbone of the Army and the most traditional political elite, they wanted a 'traditional' North Asian Empire (call these ‘nationalists’, the term is merely a simple label, it is not fully descriptive). The second group was the trading clans which formed the political backbone of the Navy and the more outward looking parts of the political elite (Call these ‘internationalists’, again the term is merely a simple label, it is not fully descriptive).
This really goes back to the great enmity between the Two Domains, by 1920 the Satchō (薩長) Alliance, the Satsuma-Chōshū dōmei (薩摩長州同盟) of 1866 was dying of old age. After the Boshin War it took Meiji himself to maintain the Allience, and he was gone in 1912.
The second group was ascendant from 1895 and drove the Alliance with the British Empire – the Genrō (元老)were critical to this. Their position was strongly reinforced 1914-18 when the Japanese economy boomed and they greatly expanded their overseas trade. The economy was modernised in this period through mass production of merchant ships (and even warships on French contract), ammunition and war material in British, French and Italian contract.
This group was dealt two heavy blows from which they could not recover, the 21 Demands of January 1915, and the termination of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance at US insistence in 1921 – and in 1921 there were no Genrō left (well, except for Matsukata Masayoshi of the Satsuma, Yamagata Aritomo of the Chōshū and Saionji Kinmochi of the Kuge, and all were extremely elderly men, venerated but without much influence by then). This unbalanced their senior decision making system.
From 1921, the first group (‘nationalist’) was able to gain gradual ascendance through a program of linking to teh middle-ranking officer corps of the IJA via the Secret Societies, political assassination and extreme nationalism, this being justified by many things, including the USA restricting immigration on racial grounds. However, the main reason they rose in power was not that, but the decline of Japanese export trades in the face of competition at the end of the war. We forget that from 1919 there was a freight rates collapse which did not end until 1939. So Japanese export trade was badly damaged and the economic boom which had supported the ascendancy of the outward looking ‘internationalists’. World trade in 1920 was only about two-thirds what it had been in 1913, and much worse the extremely beneficial First Globalisation (1820-1914) had completely collapsed, the world was breaking up into trading blocs.
So the ‘nationalists’ gained ascendancy, and implemented policies which led to a confrontation with the USA. It is important to remember that the USA also followed policies which led to confrontation with the Japanese, too.
The US strategic planners had their own planning processes under the Rainbow Plans and they KNEW that the Japanese could not hope to fight them and win. The problem became that they then assumed they could bend the Japanese to their will because the Japanese also had to know that they could not hope to win a war against the USA. This was the critical US strategic mistake, they assumed that the Japanese would accept being bent to US will. What they forgot was that the Japanese ‘nationalist’ power-elite simply did not think that way, and they could not permit themselves to be ‘bent to US will’ and hope to survive politically as a power-elite in Japan (or even survive physically).
So neither side actually understood the real position of the other, and the result was a war which inevitably, the Japanese lost. The reason they started it was to capitalise on the few military advantages they actually had (a sensible military choice), but they did it in such a way as to destroy all their political options for a negotiated settlement of their differences. The IJN knew this, but it and the ‘internationalists’ were not in political power.
There has been some revisionist history claiming that the USA deliberately forced Japan to go to war against them. I do not think this is correct, the evidence people use to make this point is far too thin to sustain this hypothesis.
Analysis of the US and Japanese strategic decision trees reveals two powers which did not understand each other at a fundamental level, and which possessed decision-making systems which were partially (USA) and almost completely (Japan) closed.
This is a lethally dangerous situation because it means that the lessons of reality cannot penetrate into the strategic decision-making system used by the power elite. The result is strategic decisions being made on a deeply flawed - actually an irreal - world-view. I am working in a counter-terrorism area at the moment, and we are watching exactly the same issue unfold now in countries where the power-elite has an irreal world-view. The UK is a good example.
These problems, when they occur, rarely end in anything but disaster and great bloodshed, as both the USA and Imperial Japan found out.
Cheers: Mark |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Anaxagore
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2010
Messages: 10075
|
| Posté le: Mar Mai 28, 2013 12:59 Sujet du message: |
|
|
Thank you.
_________________
Ecoutez mon conseil : mariez-vous.
Si vous épousez une femme belle et douce, vous serez heureux... sinon, vous deviendrez un excellent philosophe. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Merlock
Inscrit le: 19 Oct 2006
Messages: 2809
Localisation: Issy-les-Moulineaux
|
| Posté le: Mar Mai 28, 2013 13:47 Sujet du message: |
|
|
No problem with the delay in your answers, Mark, they worth being waited for, anyway...
Thanks for the clearing about the political power games in inter-wars Japan; they are usually quite ignored in Europe, myself included. That is very interesting.
Minor sidetalk: As for the countries where the power-elite has an irreal world-view, I suppose you meant "France is a good example", right ?
(Note: purely rethorical and misplaced question, no answer actually expected...)
_________________
"Le journalisme moderne... justifie son existence grâce au grand principe darwinien de la survivance du plus vulgaire." (Oscar Wilde). |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
JPBWEB
Inscrit le: 26 Mar 2010
Messages: 4113
Localisation: Thailande
|
| Posté le: Mar Mai 28, 2013 15:47 Sujet du message: |
|
|
| Anaxagore a écrit: |
D'ailleurs, les Français de 1940 ont eu aussi combattu selon un esprit d'une autre guerre… |
Pas tant que ça. C'est un peu la vulgate de 1940, la Ligne Maginot, et tout ça. En fait, l'armée française était bâtie sur le constat avéré que la France, surtout après l'hécatombe de 14-18, ne pouvait pas faire jeu égale avec l'Allemagne. Par conséquent, seule la défensive était adaptée à son format, et donc qu'il fallait faire la part belle aux fortifications, comme c'était déjà le cas avec le système défensif de Sérré de Rivière, qui n'a pour l'essentiel pas été soumis à l'épreuve du feu en 1914, les seule places fortes attaquées par les Allemands n'ayant pas été défendues (Maubeuge) ou ayant été désarmées (Verdun). La Ligne Maginot en était la version moderne, pour remplacer la chair a canon par le béton. La politique défensive de 1940 était très en phase avec l'époque. Il est regrettable que l'EM ait brusquement changé d'optique et décidé de lancer une armée optimisée pour la défensive dans une bataille de rencontre avec un ennemi plus mobile bénéficiant de l'appui aérien quasi incontesté.
Autre différence par rapport aux Japonais et aussi aux Nazis: les Français de 1940 se battaient plutôt sous un fort complexe d'infériorité. Point de triomphalisme ni de supériorité supposée, que du contraire.
_________________
"L'histoire est le total des choses qui auraient pu être évitées"
Konrad Adenauer |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Anaxagore
Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2010
Messages: 10075
|
| Posté le: Mar Mai 28, 2013 16:30 Sujet du message: |
|
|
Je ne parlais pas de ça et il y a déjà un topic sur le sujet (on est déjà sur un topic né d'un coup de ciseau évitons d'en provoquer un, nouveau).
_________________
Ecoutez mon conseil : mariez-vous.
Si vous épousez une femme belle et douce, vous serez heureux... sinon, vous deviendrez un excellent philosophe. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
marklbailey
Inscrit le: 05 Jan 2008
Messages: 121
Localisation: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posté le: Ven Mai 31, 2013 12:52 Sujet du message: |
|
|
Merlock: | Citation: | Minor sidetalk: As for the countries Where the power-elite Has an irreal world-view, I suppose you Meant "France is a good example", right?
(Note: purely rhetorical and misplaced question, no answer expected ...) |
Actually, it is a very good and very relevant question. The central point here is how difficult it is to think like someone ‘outside your tribe’. There are some very good studies of this. The answer seems to be that it is so difficult to think outside your own worldview that most people seek to understand others only through the lens of their own world view. This leads to conflict at all levels.
So the power elite in all countries have ‘blind spots’ and sometimes they can grow to the level of national suicide as they did with Japan. Therefore these extreme cases are worth close and careful study.
All individuals, companies and all forms of human associations have this same problem, which is part of what it is to be human.
I am not qualified to comment on France and it would be improper of me to do so. I can comment on specific international agencies such as media (we all can) and even on how islamic terrorists and organised criminals think.
They provide a good current example we can use. If you want an irreal world-view, understanding how a member of Al Nusra views the world is guaranteed to provide you with one. This interview via The Economist provides a hint: http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/05/syrias-fighters-0
Here I must refer to The Moral Basis of a Backward Society by Edward C. Banfield.
These are very dangerous people, in the category amoral familiest See banfield's book) , who in this case completely reject western notions like moral equivalency, fairness, equality, the Westphalian nation-state, rule of law and especially moral relativism, cultural relativism and multiculturalism. Discussions with them shows that they do not consider themselves to be individuals in the sense we understand, the only persons who matter and can be trusted are blood relatives of the same tribe or clan, and it is routine for the tribe or clan to sacrifice an individual if that benefits the tribe or clan more than the value of the person. This is why the payment of blood money is the only method of avoiding revenge attacks when one of your tribe kills one of the other tribe. This is why they sell females into slavery.
There is a thoughtful comment on the phenomena and epiphenomena by a very perspipacious and experienced Filipino, Richard Fernandez (he was part of the active resistance to the dictator Ferdinand Marcos) here http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/05/26/brave-new-world/#more-29213.
He notes that: “… The language of the War on Terror has masked the fact that Islamic immigrants to Europe are to a great extent also voting against the death of the tribe and the family. While the riots in Sweden and the unrest in the UK are typically portrayed as a struggle between the enlightened multiculturalists and bigoted, white racists, the reality is that the major opponents of multiculturalism are the very Islamic immigrants in whose name multiculturalism is advanced.
What Islamic radicals reject in clear, unambiguous, and often strident terms — if we would only listen to them — is the entire premise of multiculturalism. They do not want to dissolve their families in the acid bath of the welfare state. They do not want to give up their religion, as have so many of the white citizenry around them, for the pablum of green-atheism and pop culture. They want the old things: the dominance of their tribe; the triumph of their culture and the subjugation of their rivals. What they want, to paraphrase Aldous Huxley’s Savage, is “Allah, poetry, danger and sin.”
They want the ancient institutions, the things that the BNP, the English Defence League, and the Swedish Democrats are never going to be allowed to have. And because they do not consider themselves bound by the laws of the tribe they have no intention of joining, the Muslims will probably get it. … ”
he is correct, of course. If an amoral familiest dissolves his tribal or clan connections, he cannot have anything left. He loses his entire universe.
Remember that this comment is from a man who spent years fighting Marcos, so he comes from a background of experience. We are fortunate here in Asia that Islam came into the region peacefully via the trade routes and never as a conquest ideology. South South-east Asian Islam is very different to that of the Middle East and African Littoral. In Indonesia (the world’s most populous Muslim Empire) it is a overlay on top of a Buddhist culture (the thalassic Empire of Majapahit) before it and a Hindu culture before that (the great thalassic Empire of Srivijaya).
Most people in Australia do not even understand that Islam is not monolithic and has a different value structure, so again they are exactly like everyone else in the world. Indeed, here we have built a border control policy on arrant fantasy and the projected world-view of the Australian far left. The result has been disastrous, nearly 2000 dead at sea and 35,000 illegal immigrants, of whom perhaps 25,000 are ones even we (a settler society exceptionally good at integrating immigrants) cannot integrate. So Australia most definitely has the same problem. Fortunately, we are about to reject this left-wing government and the rejection is looking so fierce that it will wreck the two political parties in it for a generation.
I cannot imagine the problems faced by European nations in attempting to assimilate amoral familiests. We cannot do it, and our enire country does assimilation professionally - it is what settler societes do. We successfully assimilate Chinese in two generations, making Chinese into Australians and making Australians all a bit Chinese in culture. Our culture is not fixed, we change it all the time. No-one has any idea what Australian culture will be like in a century, except that it will be far more Asian: which says some odd things about our worldview!
From conversations here and via email, I have come to understand that Japanese history is not well understood in Europe. This is not a criticism. Japan is a long way from you and Europe certainly has plenty of its own history to study. Australia is in a different position. We link both worlds and are rapidly Asianising – a lot of Australians irrespective of ethnic background regard themselves as Asians or Australasians (myself included and my family ethnic background is mostly Norwegian).
I am far more comfortable in Singapore, Penang or Jakarta than I am in London for example. For me, London is an unsafe and alien city by comparison to Singapore. Indeed, compared to Singapore, most of London (and large parts of Sydney) are semi-barbaric places in many ways. Singapore has no street crime. Sydney does. Which is more civilised?
For most Australians, Europe is very far away, and irrelevant in all but cultural terms. For several reasons, my wife and I are thinking about sending our daughter to university in Singapore or perhaps Kuala Lumpur. We have rejected the UK, too few universities there approach the teaching quality of Nanyang University or the National University of Singapore, British culture is moribund, and it’s simply not safe enough to send our daughter there.
So there is an increasing focus here on Asia and our role in it. Our trade is with Asia and it is where our economic future has been since the Empire collapsed.
This is a long way of saying that Europe and Australia are now in two quite different worlds, which means the focuses of research and knowledge are already different, and diverging quickly. There are lessons here. The world-view of an Asian is quite different to that of a European (using the British, who I understand, as the ‘European’ example). So when the ‘European’ predicts an outcome from the ‘Asian’, he is always going to get a surprise because his predicted outcome is usually going to be wrong. The more extreme the difference in world-views and the less both sides understand the other, the more wrong the predicted outcome will be.
That is what we saw happen in 1940-41 between Japan and the USA, where neither national power-elite understood the other at all and both were basing their predicted outcome on their own false preconceptions of the other. The historical view that this difference in perception was due to Eurpean racism is nonsense. It was due to different and mutually incomprehensible world-views.
Another current example. We all recall the great global warming scare of 1995-2010. (The soon to be defeated Australian government actually introduced a CO2 tax on the basis of this scare, which shows you how stupid they are, so Australia was certainly not immune to the madness.) It was fascinating to see the look on an Australian 'global warming true believer's’ face when he or she finally understood the Indian, Chinese or Japanese or South Korean conceptual view of this scare. Their view was that ‘you are culturally susceptible to periods of collective insanity from which we can greatly profit – want to buy solar panels and wind turbines?’
They simply saw it as a business opportunity to profit from people who had temporarily gone mad. Some found this shocking, I found it hilarious.
We built windfarms. They build super-saturated steam thermal power stations using the profits. I know who is getting the better deal.
Again, different world-views, except the Asians understood the Australian 'true believer': who in turn could not understand them without admitting that their world view was false. The Australians I saw in shock over this response had made the same fundamental error made in 1940-41. They thought that the Indian, Chinese or Japanese thought, and would act, as if they were Australians of their own ‘tribe’.
Which takes us right back to Washington and Tokyo in 1940-41.
Cheers: Mark |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
sting01
Inscrit le: 30 Juil 2010
Messages: 1450
Localisation: Thailande
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 04, 2013 06:02 Sujet du message: |
|
|
Dear Mark,
While I lived my youth in an islamic country (Algeria, AFTER the independance), and have no querel with the sons of Mahomet ; I do disagree strongly wiht your analyze about Islam, Peace and Asia.
I might be wrong, but the way you write sound to me as someone coming from OZ or Australia. If I am right, then your understanding of Islam in Asia is truncated.
Allow me to play Mr SmartAss (I do love to do that), and point you to Malaysia (Islamic country) where throwing stones to unfaithful women is written in the law (for some states, under some conditions, but still ...) , where a woman, married to a non muslim man CAN NOT change of religion (if she does she is declared relapse, and will be submitted to the harshest chastiment). I will not speak about married woman to a non muslim man, who accompany him to the hotel bar, and then is arrested and caned.
I would also point to the very country where I do live, Thailand, where an unruly islamic resistance (unruly because for many reasons, they do not listen to someone). It is a DAILY slaugther, of teachers, monks, childs or infants, postmen... und so weiter. I do understand it is the duty of a resistance fighter to fight the ennemy armed forces (security forces, army, police). But what about slicing the throat of an infant!
On the other hand, and because I do know for a very long time Islam, Islamic people, I do NOT consider those people having a religion. The religion, the god, they claim to be theirs, all of that is only a name put over their acting, to justify those actings.
So while I agree with the analyze, I would suggest (but is it possible? Will it not shock and hurt the sensibility of the P.C. brigade?) to go further into said analyze, because most of the people you describe, they are already outside their own tribes, they know it and they are scare shitless (excuse my french!), and it make them behave like crazed zombies.
Here, in Phuket, religion is used as a justification for scamming the tourists, it is used as justification to prostitution and 200 km east of it the very same religion, by almost the same group of people is used to empeaching you to smile to a lady (neither you or the lady being muslim, and that in a buddhist country having a constitution protecting Roman Catholics such as me...)
University Studies are fine and dandy, mostly they allow us to understand better, but still they stay University bound, and on the field things are a bit more complex.
_________________
La can can-can, cancouillote,
c'est pas fait pour les francois.
Anscarides je suis ne,
heritier de la Comte je serai. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Casus Frankie
Administrateur - Site Admin
Inscrit le: 16 Oct 2006
Messages: 13781
Localisation: Paris
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 04, 2013 07:43 Sujet du message: |
|
|
NOTE to MARK - Sting writes on a thai keyboard, which explains many typos. 
_________________
Casus Frankie
"Si l'on n'était pas frivole, la plupart des gens se pendraient" (Voltaire) |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
|
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
