24-Dec-11 WV-Syria may be responsible for suicide bombings

[John]

24-Dec-11 World View -- Syria's regime may be responsible for suicide bombings

Turkey accuses France of genocide in Algeria

** 24-Dec-11 World View -- Syria's regime may be responsible for suicide bombings
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e111224#e111224



Contents:
Syria's regime may be responsible for suicide bombings
The 'Great Successor' Kim Jung-un takes over in North Korea
Turkey accuses France of genocide in Algeria


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Damascus, Syria, Arab League,
Bashar al-Assad, North Korea, Kim Jung-un, Great Successor,
Turkey, France, National Assembly, genocide, Armenia,
Nicolas Sarkozy, Paul Sarkozy, Algeria, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Turkophobia, Islamophobia

[Trevor]

I actually looked up the Algerian War of Independence and the bloodbath was just massive, although I'm sure you already know that. There is one thing that confuses me, though: their civil war 30 years later. It wasn't nearly as brutal, but still had a rather high death toll. What made their independence war a crisis, but not their internal war?

[Guest]

I actually looked up the Algerian War of Independence and the bloodbath was just massive, although I'm sure you already know that. There is one thing that confuses me, though: their civil war 30 years later. It wasn't nearly as brutal, but still had a rather high death toll. What made their independence war a crisis, but not their internal war?

I would venture a guess their civil war wasn't a crisis war, but was must likely along religious (or tribal) lines. I haven't even googled it to find out, but it's clear it wasn't a crisis war just by the description you've provided here. Just like if Iraq does delve into a civil war, it won't be civil in the sense of being along political ideologies, but religious ones. Which really is then a religious war and not a civil (political) war.

Just my two cents... won't get you much. Sorry!

[Marc]

I actually looked up the Algerian War of Independence and the bloodbath was just massive, although I'm sure you already know that. There is one thing that confuses me, though: their civil war 30 years later. It wasn't nearly as brutal, but still had a rather high death toll. What made their independence war a crisis, but not their internal war?

I would venture a guess their civil war wasn't a crisis war, but was must likely along religious (or tribal) lines. I haven't even googled it to find out, but it's clear it wasn't a crisis war just by the description you've provided here. Just like if Iraq does delve into a civil war, it won't be civil in the sense of being along political ideologies, but religious ones. Which really is then a religious war and not a civil (political) war.

Just my two cents... won't get you much. Sorry!

All of this is very interesting food for thought in regards to Generational Dynamics theory. Even if Iraq goes shortly into an all-out religious war as opposed to a "civil" war per se, it would seem to me that this sort of religious war has the potential to be extremely fierce and bloody. As such, I'm left to wonder if what could be termed "civil wars," in their "broad and common" sense of meaning, can indeed take place in Awakening eras (such as via massive instability and "tribal" tensions being created/unleashed due to a protector nation evacuating a country).

I can see Iraq being ripped apart in the near future due to its Sunni-oriented provinces trying to break away from the country, with whatever that eventually militarily means. —Best regards, Marc

[thomasglee]

I actually looked up the Algerian War of Independence and the bloodbath was just massive, although I'm sure you already know that. There is one thing that confuses me, though: their civil war 30 years later. It wasn't nearly as brutal, but still had a rather high death toll. What made their independence war a crisis, but not their internal war?

I would venture a guess their civil war wasn't a crisis war, but was must likely along religious (or tribal) lines. I haven't even googled it to find out, but it's clear it wasn't a crisis war just by the description you've provided here. Just like if Iraq does delve into a civil war, it won't be civil in the sense of being along political ideologies, but religious ones. Which really is then a religious war and not a civil (political) war.

Just my two cents... won't get you much. Sorry!

All of this is very interesting food for thought in regards to Generational Dynamics theory. Even if Iraq goes shortly into an all-out religious war as opposed to a "civil" war per se, it would seem to me that this sort of religious war has the potential to be extremely fierce and bloody. As such, I'm left to wonder if what could be termed "civil wars," in their "broad and common" sense of meaning, can indeed take place in Awakening eras (such as via massive instability and "tribal" tensions being created/unleashed due to a protector nation evacuating a country).

I can see Iraq being ripped apart in the near future due to its Sunni-oriented provinces trying to break away from the country, with whatever that eventually militarily means. —Best regards, Marc

You're right and that's the only question i've really ever posed to John whereby I haven't felt I received a sufficient answer. How does migration, tribal differences, etc. play into generational dynamics? Religion - especially - has a way of breaking generational lines (or it seems). Countries like Iraq are not really "countries" in a historical sense. They were creations of the old British Empire. Was the Iran/Iraq war a crisis war in the sense of religion only or ??? The ME is part of the world where generational dynamics seems hardest to pinpoint.

[Trevor]

Well, Iraq does have a national identity, in addition to a religious one. I've looked it up and apparently one thing that can give a sense of a national identity is uniting against an external foe, like in the Iran-Iraq war. I'm not expecting an all-out civil war in that region, but I'm sure there's going to be violence, assassinations, car bombs, particularly since I'll bet that some foreign terrorists are still there waiting for the opportunity to cause havoc and attempt yet again to start a war.

[Marc]

Well, Iraq does have a national identity, in addition to a religious one. I've looked it up and apparently one thing that can give a sense of a national identity is uniting against an external foe, like in the Iran-Iraq war. I'm not expecting an all-out civil war in that region, but I'm sure there's going to be violence, assassinations, car bombs, particularly since I'll bet that some foreign terrorists are still there waiting for the opportunity to cause havoc and attempt yet again to start a war.

The sense of Iraqi national identity, and the recent uniting against a next-door foe, may well strongly aid in preventing a civil war anytime soon in Iraq. However, I know that there are Sunni-oriented provinces in Iraq that are opting out of participating in the Iraqi national government. I wonder if there could be a sense of "awakened" national identity in these recalcitrant provinces, who then decide that they have a "right of the oppressed" to go it alone. If they insist, which I don't think is out of the question, I do wonder what would then happen. Thanks for the valuable perspective here. —Best regards, Marc

[Trevor]

They're going to have plenty of problems, don't get me wrong. It all depends on what the government decides to do. If there's a massacre of the Sunni minority, that can foreshadow a civil war 20,30 years down the line. I don't see an imminent civil war occurring, and I imagine we'll be using their country as a base during the war. They have a chance to build a better country; let's see what they do with it.

[Marc]

I can see how the Civic and Artist generations of most any nation would tend to have little appetite for a civil war during an Awakening period. I do wonder, however, if you have a country that is split into historically antagonistic religions or tribes — even if there has been some measure of religious/tribal peace within the country but still some lingering tribalism/animosities between the two camps — and along comes, say, a tribalistic demagogue, along with Cabinet ministers and a Parliament which all heavily support the demagogue, that you might not get a civil war during an Awakening period. This could possibly be heightened by very fierce animosities existing between the two religious/tribal camps in neighboring countries, along with the demagogue harboring highly oppressive designs (short of genocide) on the opposing tribe/religion. If the nation can be held together largely by force during the initial part of an Awakening period, but the oppression begins in earnest during the Awakening (and even given an added chance to oppress due to an occupying force leaving the country), what might the oppressed people (and the provinces where they dominate) want to do? This may not represent the situation in Iraq, but perhaps it could model some other country in history. Again, just more food for thought here. —Best regards, Marc

[Trevor]

It's certainly possible. Any awakening event would have been slaughtered by Saddam if he was still in charge of Iraq. The people they have in charge now aren't nearly as brutal as he was, but even so, it isn't like they have a western-style democracy now. A crisis civil war won't happen, but I'm sure there's going to be plenty of violence. Honestly, I don't think they're ready to stand on their own yet.