OT: Al Ahram

[Possum]

If anybody here is really interested in what people in the Middle East think, there's a better source than American "Old Media".

Check out Al Ahram (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/index.htm), and get it straight from the source.

[dogscoff]

Very interesting. It's quite startling (although it shouldn't be) that those articles take certain things for granted that are in complete contradiction of the things perceived as "undeniable truth" here in the West. Almost humbling. Their take on the ecenomic and political situation around N.Korea is interesting too, particularly as regards sanctions.

Definitely worth a read for *anyone* with an interest in current affairs.

[Possum]

dogscoff, I love you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Thank you for cutting straight to the one and only reason for reading something like Al Ahram.

We may disagree with everything they say and believe, but any insight into the thinking of our enemies is always valuable.

[AMF]

Possum said:
We may disagree with everything they say and believe, but any insight into the thinking of our enemies is always valuable.



As far as I can tell, Al-Ahram is a regional egyptian paper whose audeince is people in the middle east. I would therefore caution that these people are not "our enemies" per se - taking "we" to mean the US and it's allies in the Global War on Terror, then our enemies are most certainly NOT the entire people of the middle east - rather, our enemies are Osama Bin Laden, and various other terrorists and people like him around the world. The people we are most desperately trying to make into our friends are, in fact, the moderate Arabs in the region.

A minor point that probably didn't need to be made explicit, but it is an important distinction nonetheless.

[Puke]

well, i dont have a personal opinion on the topic, i'm not religious, and im an ill-bred mut with no particular cultural heritage. but i WILL play devil's advocate.

The Persians fell to Alexander. Constantinople fell to the Turks. The Iberian Pinensula fell to Mohamadeans which were in turn pushed out by the Spaniards who continued to purge them for the next hunderd years through an inquisition. The Ottoman empire was carved up by Allied powers after WWI. currently one of the largest sources of instability in Europe is continued friction between Islamics and Christians.

If any two groups of people could be said to be "enemies" through the entirety of their history, it would be Western Europe and the Middle East. Even the French and English made ammends. Even the Brittons and Saxons... bred each other out... you get the idea.

So there you go. Refute it. Convince me of the universal brotherhood of man.

[Baron Munchausen]

The Brits and the French "made up" because they had common enemies. The Russians, the Germans, etc. Europe as a whole has been decidely violent and fractious from the Medieval period right down to the present day. It was only the overwhelmingly huge confrontation between the US/NATO and USSR/Warsaw Pact that seemed to settle things for a while by polarizing Europe. As soon as the 'Cold War' ended Europe started resuming its nationalistic ways with the disintegration of Yugoslavia and some pretty strong resistance to further integration of the EU. While it doesn't look like it's going to come apart, it also doesn't look like any nation wants to give up its individual identity and sovereignity to the 'super state'. (The Crusades had a similar effect to the Cold War -- temporary suppression of local conflicts in favor of a larger one.)

And in the 'Islamic World' there are also plenty of rivalries and outright hatreds. Arabs and Persians actually have a history of quite a bit of strife, for example. Saddam was trying to exploit that with his attack on Iran in the 80s. He was hoping to rally other Arab nations to join up with him. There are all sorts of ethnicities in North Africa, the Middle East, India and Southeast Asia that hate each other even though they are all 'Islamic' (and then there is the Hindu-Muslim tension in India itself). But just like 'Christian' Europe, the 'Islamic world' would also occasionally unite to fight a common enemy.

It's not that 'Christianity' and 'Islam' are inherently enemies. It is that people in general tend to need an enemy of some sort. The two largest religions of the world happen to have originated from nearly the same place and are located in adjacent regions, so they naturally come to strife now and then. We just tend to remember the larger 'epic' conflicts and forget the common strife between close neighbors.

[Atrocities]

I want to see the movie My Country My Country. ( I think that is the name of it. I think its going to be on public broadcasting soon.)

[Possum]

AMF said:

Possum said:
We may disagree with everything they say and believe, but any insight into the thinking of our enemies is always valuable.



As far as I can tell, Al-Ahram is a regional egyptian paper whose audeince is people in the middle east. I would therefore caution that these people are not "our enemies" per se - taking "we" to mean the US and it's allies in the Global War on Terror, then our enemies are most certainly NOT the entire people of the middle east - rather, our enemies are Osama Bin Laden, and various other terrorists and people like him around the world. The people we are most desperately trying to make into our friends are, in fact, the moderate Arabs in the region.

A minor point that probably didn't need to be made explicit, but it is an important distinction nonetheless.



AMF, I see the point you're trying to make, but let's not delude ourselves with PC-ness here.

How much of Al-Ahram did you read?

I've been reading it semi-regularly for 2 years now, since I was shown this (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/710/special.htm) weekly special back in October 2004.

The basic editorial stance of Al Ahram is -

1. Hatred of the US and all US citizens.

2. Hatred of Israel and all jews.

3. Dedication to the extermination of the modern state of Israel.

4. Support for all anti-US and anti-Israel terrorists.

If that doesn't make them our enemies, then what does it take?

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7:20

[AMF]

WE're talking past each other here.

I said: "our enemies are most certainly NOT the entire people of the middle east - rather, our enemies are Osama Bin Laden, and various other terrorists and people like him around the world. The people we are most desperately trying to make into our friends are, in fact, the moderate Arabs in the region."

I said this becuase you said: "If anybody here is really interested in what people in the Middle East think...Check out Al Ahram...[and]...any insight into the thinking of our enemies is always valuable"

Implying that the entire people of the middle east are our enemies. Which is totally wrong.

Now, whether or not Al Ahram represents "the mainstream" or "fundamentalists" or, indeed, whether those are in fact the same things, are different questions (and one's that I'm not really qualified to answer at the moment).

[Possum]

I disagree.

When it comes to any conflict between "infidels" (that's you and me) and any islamic state, other islamics will support the islamic state against the infidel every time.

It doesn't matter whether we were right or wrong to invade Iraq (I tend to think the latter myself); the mere fact that we are occupying Iraq makes all islamic people hate us.

IMO, the entire middle east outside of Israel and possibly Turkey are our de facto enemies, regardless of the diplomatic niceties.

The problem with your position is the phrase "moderate islamics". There ain't no such thing, bro, there just ain't no such thing.

[Phoenix-D]

Minor problem with that position, Possum. Namely the lowest estimate I've seen puts the Muslim population at 1.6 million..US citizens.

Going to be breaking out the concentrations camps anytime soon?

[Possum]

Low blow, Phoenix. That's a personal insult, and I object.

I did not, and will not ever, suggest any such thing.

[Phoenix-D]

You start insuinating that every Muslim is the enemy and I'll start pointing out the ad absurdem consequences of that. I don't think you would, but there are those who would, and they use statements very similar to yours.

Your statement was insulting to pretty much every non-insane Muslim on the face of the planet, by the way. Adds up to several hundred million people.

[AMF]

My point is less highfalutin': every single bit of offical national strategy document, military policy document, or any other formal position by the US (and coalition powers involved in the GWOT) states that it is official policy to promote relations with muslims, yes, moderate muslims, and that it is necessary to do so if this "long war" is ever going to suceed. That's what I mean when I say, formally, that the people of the mideast or muslims in general are not, in any way shape or form, considered "the enemy" - becuase it is our (US) national military policy.

However, there are two other important points to be made:

First, yes, there are moderate (and secular)muslims. I live in a moderate muslim country, filled with moderate muslims who drink beer and do all sorts of other things that fundamentalist muslims don't. I think they drive as bad as anyone from Boston, but that's not a reason to hate them, or declare them the enemy. In fact, empowering moderate muslims, and gaining their friendship and assistance, are the only way to win this war. If suddenly tomorrow all the muslims in the world decided they didn't want to cooperate with the US, then our war effort would grind to a halt overnight. And so when people start implying or outright saying that "all muslims are our enemy" then it makes my job, and the job of every service-member out here, that much more difficult and dangerous. We're trying to win this war, and find OBL, and declaring war on an entire religion is not the way to do that.

Second, one fights wars against people NOT regions. So, to state that "IMO, the entire middle east outside of Israel and possibly Turkey are our de facto enemies, regardless of the diplomatic niceties." is just nonesensical to me.
How much do you know about Turkey by the way? They are exactly the sort of Muslims that I'm talking about when I say moderate (and very much secular).

In fact, I think you're also conflating people and geography and religion. One does not equal the other.

Note the following (from wikipedia)"There are estimated to be 1.4 billion adherents, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world...Today, Muslims may be found throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. The majority of Muslims are not Arabs; only 20 percent of Muslims originate from Arab countries. Islam is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, and many other European countries, including France, which has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. If current trends continue it will soon become the second-largest religion in the United States."

EDIT: deleted constipated and duplicate writing, added last line of thinking

[dogscoff]

I think AMF has said it all about right in his post.

There is a disturbing tendency about at the moment to lump all Muslims together into one group, which is both absurd and dangerous. I mean take Christianity as an example: From afternoon tea with the Church of England vicar to the intense African evangelical denominations to the Roman Catholics to the Greek orthodox to the Amish to the fundamentalist "Intelligent Design" crowd... Now try to appreciate that a similar diversity exists in Islam and you reaise that you simply cannot treat it as a single entity.

Phoenix' "concentration camp" remark was maybe a bit below the belt in this case, but I honestly feel that is the way things are heading. If a newspaper from 2016 were to drop out of a temporal rift and into my lap I would not be at all surprised to read about large numbers of Muslims (or 'islamic-looking' people) being rounded up indiscriminately in the US, UK and other Western countries for deportations, interrogation or worse. People seem to have forgotten the lessons of the holocaust and all the other genocides and massacres that have brought about human rights legislation and the rules of war and so on.
Day after day I am sickened again and again as I hear people talk about human rights as though they are some kind of obstacle to (rather than the cornerstones of) justice and security and what they think of as their 'way of life'. It seems they are more than happy to write off people they have never met or known as someone less than human, someone who doesn't deserve due process and dignity. They will cheerfully allow atrocities be carried out in their name, as long they are free to look the other way and ignore the pain and anguish being generated and the hatred being stored up for the future.

To do away with human rights is to dehumanise people, and from there it is a short step to demonisation, I don't have to tell anyone here what comes next. However the people likely to read this and understand it are in the minority. It looks more and more as though the majority will have to learn all those lessons again, the hard way.

Ignorance will beget ignorance, hate will beget hate, violence will beget violence. None of those things will help us. Things will get a lot worse before they get better.

[Possum]

Phoenix-D said:
You start insuinating that every Muslim is the enemy and I'll start pointing out the ad absurdem consequences of that. I don't think you would, but there are those who would, and they use statements very similar to yours.

Your statement was insulting to pretty much every non-insane Muslim on the face of the planet, by the way. Adds up to several hundred million people.



Phoenix, let me quote you from the forum rules, section 3

"If you post in this forum, we expect you to contribute positively to a conversation. If you disagree with someone, great, explain your point of view, have an open discussion. Please do not disparage the other person. Personal attacks are unacceptable. They just lower the brow of all involved. If you don't like someone, talk about it on ICQ, MSN, AIM, YIM, your journal, or your blogger, but not here. People who bait or bash members or mods may be banned without notice.

Flaming, humiliating, ridiculing, or belittling other members will not be tolerated. This includes blatant disrespect of others whether it is through negative language or general attitude. We see no difference between straight out calling someone stupid and using creative language and attitude to imply that person is stupid."

I have quoted the whole first 2 paragraphs, rather than a snippet, so nobody can say that I was quoting out of context.

Now, can you honestly claim that your reply does not violate this section?

No, you cannot. It was a gratuitous personal attack, made solely because you did not like the opinion I was expressing.

[Phoenix-D]

Not really. It logically follows from your statement that there are no moderate Muslims and that all Muslims are the enemy (though I see I misread *that* part a little, which I do apologize for).

More to the point, when I said concentration camps I was thinking more to the effect of the Japanease internment camps during WW2, which I should have made clear. If you substitude "Japanease" for "Muslim" the logic is identical.

[Possum]

AMF said:
My point is less highfalutin': every single bit of offical national strategy document, military policy document, or any other formal position by the US (and coalition powers involved in the GWOT) states that it is official policy to promote relations with muslims, yes, moderate muslims, and that it is necessary to do so if this "long war" is ever going to suceed. That's what I mean when I say, formally, that the people of the mideast or muslims in general are not, in any way shape or form, considered "the enemy" - becuase it is our (US) national military policy.




I never mentioned national policy, bro. I was just expressing my personal opinion, nothing more or less.


AMF said:
However, there are two other important points to be made:

First, yes, there are moderate (and secular)muslims. I live in a moderate muslim country, filled with moderate muslims who drink beer and do all sorts of other things that fundamentalist muslims don't. I think they drive as bad as anyone from Boston, but that's not a reason to hate them, or declare them the enemy. In fact, empowering moderate muslims, and gaining their friendship and assistance, are the only way to win this war. If suddenly tomorrow all the muslims in the world decided they didn't want to cooperate with the US, then our war effort would grind to a halt overnight. And so when people start implying or outright saying that "all muslims are our enemy" then it makes my job, and the job of every service-member out here, that much more difficult and dangerous. We're trying to win this war, and find OBL, and declaring war on an entire religion is not the way to do that.

Second, one fights wars against people NOT regions. So, to state that "IMO, the entire middle east outside of Israel and possibly Turkey are our de facto enemies, regardless of the diplomatic niceties." is just nonesensical to me.
How much do you know about Turkey by the way? They are exactly the sort of Muslims that I'm talking about when I say moderate (and very much secular).




The first paragraph above is just a statement of your personal opinion. That's fine, and I respect your opinions, just please respect my right to disagree with them.

Now you ask me how much I know about Turkey. Well, anyone with half a brain could write you an essay from online sources, or just cut & paste one, but let me see how well I can answer your question just off the top of my head.

About the pre-modern turkish state, I know very little, except that they were in large part some of the nomadic tribes that came to europe with Temujin (Genghis Khan). Oh yes, and they sacked Constantinople in the mid 16th century, after which they pressed on and laid siege to Vienna. Unsuccessfully, or we would live in a very different world.

The modern Turkish state was founded in 1922, (1923 maybe?), by Mustapha Kemal, after he and some of his fellow "colonels" staged a coup that toppled the old hereditary ruler.

This was the same Mustapha Kemal that defeated the british (or rather the largely colonial force under british command) at Gallipoli. It should be understood that Kemal was a truly brilliant man, and easily comparable to George Washington.

The modern turkish constitution states that Turkey is and shall always remain a secular state, and expressly forbids the establishment of any religious or theological government.

Three times in the history of modern Turkey, the turkish military has intervened to prevent a religious government from taking power, or to eject one already in control. Some observers feel that a fourth occasion may occur in the very near future, as Turkey's current government is decidedly non-secular, and the military has been sending warning messages for years now. This crisis has been 4 years in the building, but comes to a head now because the Chief of Staff of the turkish army has just retired, and his replacement has already shown less patience with the current government.

On the economic front, Turkey was badly hurt by Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991. The single biggest cause of this was the loss of oil pipeline payments from the Iraqis. This and the general loss of Iraqi trade had a cascading effect that was felt throughout the Turkish economy. My friend Khan, who today is (like me) a waiter in San Diego, was in 1991 the owner of a thriving rug import/export business in Turkey with 12 employees.

AMF, was that enough to dispel your assumption (suspicion, maybe?) that if I disagree with you, I must be doing so through ignorance?

I said "possibly Turkey" in my earlier post because the existence of the current religious government clearly shows that there is popular support for that government.


AMF said:
In fact, I think you're also conflating people and geography and religion. One does not equal the other.

Note the following (from wikipedia)"There are estimated to be 1.4 billion adherents, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world...Today, Muslims may be found throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. The majority of Muslims are not Arabs; only 20 percent of Muslims originate from Arab countries. Islam is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, and many other European countries, including France, which has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. If current trends continue it will soon become the second-largest religion in the United States."

EDIT: deleted constipated and duplicate writing, added last line of thinking



Umm, no comment.

Folks, all I'm trying to do here is have a calm, civilised discussion. I have no problem with others attacking my ideas, but I do object to those who have launched attacks on me, simply because they don't like my opinions.

[Possum]

Phoenix, you seem to be more interested in fighting than discussing, so I'm not going to respond to your sallies any further.

Thank you, kind sir, and have a nice day http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[AMF]

Possum,

I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying - and I do think we're having a civil discussion.

You stated that the people of the middle east are our enemies.

This is a very easy point to refute, if one stays away from the theoretical and merely (simply) looks at national policy. ALL I am saying is that the US government, and all other governments involved in the Global War on Terror, have clearly stated that the war is against terrorists, and most certainly NOT ALL the people of the middle east.

I then went on to say that "empowering moderate muslims, and gaining their friendship and assistance, are the only way to win this war. If suddenly tomorrow all the muslims in the world decided they didn't want to cooperate with the US, then our war effort would grind to a halt overnight"

This is an empirical fact, that any basic ops analysis will show. For example, almost all of our bases in the middle east are in muslim countries (the only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Diego Garcia, which is actually very far away, as are our european bases). If we suddenly decided that all muslims were our enemies, then all our bases here would be unusable the next day. I can show this relatively easily if you want me to, based on the fact that local support and friendly governments, and co-located facilities in the region, are all vital to the operation of our bases. And without our bases we couldn't supply our forces, carry out missions, and so forth. I have a hard time seeing how this is a controversial supposition.

So, in one sense, yes it is my personal opinion. But it is analogous to me saying that it is my opinion that oxygen is necessary for most life on earth to survive. It's really just a fact of life that we rely upon friendly muslims to conduct most (almost all) of this war. Without their help, we'd be sunk.

And, I really don't see how I was disrespecting your opinion at all. But I'm eager to learn (and change my habits) if you'll point it out to me. It's not my intention to "diss" people, because once "dissed" there is no chance to change their minds. So I try not to do that.

Re: Turkey, you stated that perhaps turkey was our enemy. But everything you stated about Turkish history supports my contention that it is a secular state (suspicion re relgiious govt, military being very secular, Ataturk's reforms, etc). I'm not sure what the disagreement here is.

As an aside, Turkey is a great place. I've been there three times in the last six months, it's where I vacation usually. People are great, highly secular, very low crime, great beaches (many of them topless, woop!), and just overall extremely friendly, and extremely wary of religion and religious violence. They're proud, but secular and moderate. That's why I say they're exactly the model for the moderate muslim state. I think we're saying the same thing in re: Turkey.

Now, in regards to your statement that "AMF, was that enough to dispel your assumption (suspicion, maybe?) that if I disagree with you, I must be doing so through ignorance?"

If I implied that by virtue of you disagreeing with me that you are ignorant, that wasn't my intention. Again, I try not to 'diss' or insult people, becuase once it gets to that point, no one will ever change their minds. So, sorry if I came across like that.

RE:"Folks, all I'm trying to do here is have a calm, civilised discussion. I have no problem with others attacking my ideas, but I do object to those who have launched attacks on me, simply because they don't like my opinions."

Again, I don't see how that really happened, but if you feel that way, I guess it must have.

In any case, I do think we're having a civil discussion. If we all agreed it would be boring.

And I think that I have put forth pretty strong arguments against declaring all muslims our enemies. Others have put forth other, different arguments that I feel are just as powerful.

I really don't see that anyone has crossed a line, and certainly there's been no forum rules violations. People have merely disagreed with you, and deeduced logically from statements that you made, which is pretty typical in a debate. If you don't want people to disagree with you, or draw conclusions from what you post, then I would suggest you avoid starting threads that will engender debates.

I don't see how there's been any name calling, but if you can point some out I'm eager to be corrected in that beleif.

EDITs: corrected misspellings, a few clarifications, etc

[Possum]

Wait, there are 2 separate issues here.

AMF, you have been fine. We disagree, but I have no complaints with anything you have said.

My objection was mainly to Phoenix's "concentration camp" comment, and I am frankly apalled that you would actually defend him for saying that.

No, that was not a logical deduction. Go back and look carefully. I made a comment about residents of the middle east, and he responded by accusing me of wishing to put US citizens in concentration camps.

How does "residents of the middle east" equate to "US citizens"? Even if we ignore all the other outrageously insulting implications of his comment, that alone tears any basis of logical deduction out from under his comment. It was a gratuitous cheap shot.

Care to defend him further?


AMF said:
If you don't want people to disagree with you, or draw conclusions from what you post, then I would suggest you avoid starting threads that will engender debates.




AMF, please go back and look at the initial post in this thread. And please tell me what in that first post is engendering debate.

[Possum]

OK, back to the real issue under discussion here. I chose to separate the two issues into two separate posts.

AMF, you're right about at least one thing; we are definitely talking past each other here.

Let me make a request. Have a look here at the Wiktionary definitions of de facto (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/de_facto) and de jure (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/de_jure).

If I understand correctly, you are arguing that "they cannot be our enemies, because if they were our enemies, we would not be able to operate in that area". Your reasoning in support of that argument is impeccable, and I would not question it in any way. Believe it or not, I was actually aware of 90% of that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I am arguing that, "They are our de facto enemies because they hate our wormy guts and would gladly see us all burn in hell."

Bro, those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Or even directly contradictory.

[AMF]

Well, ok, but my comment was more than just the practical one but also based on the fact that if you want to know who our enemies are, you can just ask the people who have decided these things. And US and other Coalition policymakers state publicly that the 'people of the middle east' are NOT our enemies. They go out of their way to say that.

It sounds like what you're saying when you state that "They are our de facto enemies because they hate our wormy guts and would gladly see us all burn in hell" is that we should consider all muslims to be our enemies, becuase they all hate us.

(I'm not going to get into what I perceive to be the inhernet immorality of that -- I think others have done that better than I) but instead, my rejoinder is that if we made them all our enemies the consequences would be impossible to deal with in the extreme. And there is no need - there are lots of moderate Muslims. Again, look at our alliances and so forth (Pakistan, Qatar, Bahrain, etc...). The Pakistanis, for example, are key allies of ours. In fact, just a few months ago, they were in command of a wide variety of US and other coalition naval assets in the area. (unclass info here, obviously). At the end of the day, conducting this war is utterly dependent on the good will of moderate Muslims. But, it sounds like we agree on that, so I would just enquire as to how you would deal with the consequences of treating all muslims as our enemies.

Which brings us to the concentration camp statement: First, Phoenix should have been clearer, and stated internment camps rather than concentration camps. They are, obviously, different with much different implications. But he did correct himself later.

Second, it was somewhat unclear from your first few posts whether you were talking about people from the middle east in general or all muslims. And if you were talking about treating all muslims as our enemies, then I think the debate must inevitably address the fact that there are a lot of muslims in the US and other coalition nations, so, if they're our enemies, how does one deal with that? And, the perfectly apt historical analogy was Japanese internment camps in WW2 (again, Phoenix might have been better served by saying internment camps vice concentration camps from the get go). So, I see the logic in both sides, but it perhaps was more an issue of diction.

Just to clarify, then, when you say that "They are our de facto enemies because they hate our wormy guts and would gladly see us all burn in hell" are you claiming that 'they' is 'all muslims' and that they are all our enemies?

Thanks,

AMF

EDITed: re-wrote what I was thinking in a more straightforward way to take into account prior postings.

[Possum]

No. In this thread, I have only talked about the Middle East. It was others who tried to extend this to moslems resident elsewhere in the world.

And Pakistan is not considered a middle eastern nation, is it?

I have no idea how old you are, so this question may be wildly inappropriate, but did you spend any time in Iran before the revolution?

Pre-revolutionary Iran was in many ways much like the Turkey of today, (barring the topless beaches, of course!).

There was a sizable, educated, secular middle class. And they drank wine. Hell, it was Omar Khayyam who said, "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou."

And everybody was so sure that the military would keep Khomeini in line, that the fundamentalists would never be a real problem. Right up to the last moment, they were so serenely confident of that.

Yet somehow, it all turned to [censored], almost overnight. Somehow, the military, (best trained and equipped in the Middle East, outside of Israel) failed to intervene. Some mysterious religious thing happened, and the generals just....folded. Suddenly, bright Paris-educated women, who had been wearing Parisian fashions last week, were in chador. And their husbands were suddenly saying "Allah Akbar", banging their heads on the carpet 5 times a day, and desperately pretending to have been good observant muslims all along.

And all those solid-gold contracts we had were suddenly worthless, assets nationalised, or just destroyed. Gods only know how many millions Schlumberger alone was ripped off for. Gods only know how many westerners were murdered, or just beaten silly, robbed, and sent scampering for home.

So when I look at Turkey, and say "maybe...", that's what I'm remembering. It could happen again.

Now, there are important differences.

Persia/Iran was the only nation in the middle east with a Shia (AKA Shiite) majority; in all other middle eastern countries, the Shia were a relatively small, poor, and generally despised minority. Some people might argue that only the volatility of the Shia made the Persian revolution happen. I don't know if I buy this theory or not, but it's out there.

Others might point to a fundamental difference in the nature of the Turkish and pre-revolution Iranian militaries. Maybe this counts for something. I won't pretend to be sufficiently well-informed to say.

I'm not saying I expect Turkey to go the way of Iran. I am only saying it's entirely possible.

Which is why, when I listed our friends in the middle east, I used the qualifier I did with regards to Turkey.