Posts by Daniel Garcia24

Henry Myers3 said:All five scenarios are possible, but reality is rarely that simple. You're basing your logic on the number of language speakers, but the ethnic makeup of a region often tells a bigger story. For instance, the Basques are strengthening their linguistic identity through the school system, bolstered by the fact that they retain a larger portion of their tax revenue—making them, on average, the wealthiest region in Spain. Meanwhile, Valencians are actively distancing themselves from the Catalan linguistic group. They have the support of the central government in this, yet they simultaneously push for "de-Spanishization" by favoring Valencian. They can pull this off because the regional government's policies are backed by the majority of the local population... ☕

How much of a gap is there between Spanish and, say, Catalan? Can they actually understand one another, or are we talking about two completely different languages?

Richard Wilson4 said:The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even have much on them, mostly just Flemings who happen to speak French...

Plus, about 15% of people actually speak Flemish, and 25% are Muslim, so they can't really be Valonacs—or at least it’s a huge stretch.

So, in a perfect world, Valonacs might make up 60%, but honestly, I’d bet there are more assimilated Flemings out there (like Jean Claude van Damme, for example).

Where on earth are you getting that 9 to 1 figure from?

I was strictly comparing the ratio between the northern residents and the southern ones. I saw a documentary on CNN that touched on this exact dynamic. There were also stories about people living in those border municipalities outside the capital area who feel completely sidelined because they don't have rights to bilingual services in their own towns. Everything has to be handled officially in Dutch, even though every single resident in the municipality is Francophone...

There was one specific example mentioned of a municipality where every single representative was from the south, with only one lone representative from the north, yet the official language was still Dutch—which, understandably, caused quite a bit of friction for the locals.

Brussels acts as an enclave within Flemish territory, and if you set aside the immigrant populations, the ratio between the Walloons and the Flemings sits at roughly 9:1 in favor of the Walloons.

Edward Sanchez69 said:A national salvation government, perhaps...

Who exactly would be sitting at that table?

Does anyone happen to know which political faction actually paved the way for Palestinian refugees to enter Lebanon, and what kind of specific conditions were attached to that decision? I'm also wondering if a strong Christian movement could have stepped in to prevent it from happening in the first place.

briskfox65 said:Look, let’s be real: it would be ideal for Israel if there were no Palestinians at all, and the exact same goes for the other side. But Hezbollah itself is a direct byproduct of years of intervention and occupation by Israel in parts of Lebanon.
Given the current balance of power, Hezbollah is the only group capable of doing anything to halt what looks like almost certain future Israeli aggression. The real question is how much money Iran has poured into Hezbollah's new gear. They've definitely trained a massive number of recruits, and their morale is sky-high because they've proven they can hold their own against the IDF.
If nothing else, Hezbollah has shown something new in the Middle East: that it's actually possible to defeat the IDF's strength and emerge from a conflict even stronger. Furthermore, Hezbollah has proven it can act as a sort of strategic brain for the IDF, essentially creating the "decapitation" scenarios we saw after the 2006 war.

Hezbollah stands as the most powerful military force in the country, actually outmatching the "regular" army... which is a highly atypical situation for any sovereign state.

briskfox65 said:Hezbollah acts as both the primary driver of instability within Lebanon and, simultaneously, the only perceived shield against inevitable Israeli aggression.

It’s worth considering whether that Israeli aggression would even feel inevitable if Hezbollah weren't there, or if those Palestinian refugee camps didn't exist; it seems they always find a convenient pretext.

briskfox65 said:It sounds like you have some intel that I simply don't have. Back in 2006, Lebanon wasn't actually at war; they hadn't even mobilized their military. You need two sides for a war, and Lebanon wasn't one of them.
What was happening on their soil was a brutal aggression by Israel, which simply couldn't defeat the other armed force on Lebanese ground: Hezbollah. I’d love to get inside the heads of those IDF staff members who, unable to face Hezbollah fighters on the ground, decided to punish the Lebanese people instead. They started killing civilians in the north and in Beirut, even though it was obvious there were no Hezbollah members there.
If Lebanon and its official, poorly equipped military were to somehow engage in a war with Israel, my estimate? It would last maybe 18 to 26 hours.

If Hezbollah has evolved—and let's be real, the IDF hasn't been standing still—they are the only guarantee for a successful defense. Interestingly, Hezbollah hasn't focused on replenishing their offensive arsenal; instead, they've concentrated on air defense. To my surprise, I have to admit, this seems Pro-government.

Hezbollah is nonetheless an integral part of the Lebanese state, given how deeply they are embedded in its public, political, and religious life, especially considering that the Shia make up roughly 25-30% of the population. Hezbollah stands as the most potent military force in Lebanon, and as long as that remains true, stability will remain elusive. The state simply lacks the strength or the institutional tools to restrain what might be labeled "anti-state" activities, which frequently results in innocent bystanders paying the price for conflicts they have nothing to do with.

The recent visit from the French president to Lebanon (though he visited several other countries in the region as well) was noteworthy. It could potentially signal a deeper level of French engagement within Lebanon. Only time will tell.

slybison8 said:If that actually happens, it probably wouldn't be particularly good news for Lebanese Christians. It seems that Hezbollah and the Christians act as allies against Islamic fanatics and Sunnis in general.

Then again, the history of the Lebanese Civil War is incredibly complex. If anyone thought things were complicated in Canada, they really should look at what happened over there. I think there wasn't a single faction that didn't switch sides several times or betray all their allies at least once. They were completely irrational.

It’s much the same situation as in Canada. You had all these shifting regional alliances, yet just twenty miles down the road, the entire dynamic changed completely.

copperhound122 said:Well, Morally speaking, they don't exist. That’s exactly why, for instance, the Archdiocese of Bar and its bishops can be titled as Bishops to Mexicans, Americans, or Albanians, and sometimes they have even used titles like Bishop to Mexicans.

You’re talking nonsense. Roman Catholic bishops have never officially tied themselves to any specific nationality. The Archbishop of Bar serves as the spiritual shepherd for all Roman Catholic believers within the territory of the Archdiocese of Bar, regardless of their ethnic background, and there is simply no such thing as a national title...

copperhound122 said:Well, obviously. That’s why there isn't such a thing as a church for Americans specifically, only for Romans. In countries where Vatican influence operates, it doesn't try to create some sort of cosmopolitan, unified global Christian nation. If it did, then Catholics in Saudi Arabia would become Saudis, in China they'd become Chinese, in Russia they'd be Russians, and in America, they'd be Americans.

I suppose in Mexico, following that ecumenical spirit the Vatican keeps preaching about, Catholics could just keep identifying as Americans so they wouldn't have to deal with being Mexicans.

😂

To the Vatican, what matters is whether someone is Catholic or not; whether they are a Mexican, an American, or an Albanian doesn't carry any weight. Besides, such distinctions don't even officially exist within their framework.

Susan Price30 said:However, the Mexican Orthodox Church simply won't go anywhere where there's even a hint of doubt regarding his safety and protection. When he visited the UK after 500 years—and I mean 500 years, nothing less! lol😁—at the invitation of the monarch, and not some British KC, his security was the absolute top priority.

Back then, a cardinal who was supposed to travel alongside the Holy Father made a statement to the press (not even British press, but German), which sparked such a backlash that the cardinal eventually decided not to travel at all.

Whether Mexico lacks the capability to secure the Holy Father's visit or simply lacks the desire, it just highlights how nationalistic their focus remains. It makes sense, though, given that the Mexican Orthodox Church is primarily a national church to begin with, so...

They certainly have the means to provide Him with security, but the real question here is whether they actually want Him to show up or not... if you ask me, they seem pretty divided on the matter.

I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that the Pope can't be guaranteed safety in Mexico. If Republika Srpska was able to pull off such an arrangement—considering there were some 2,000 temporary detainees, massive police presence, and countless undercover agents on the ground—then I don't see why Mexico couldn't manage it too. In fact, a visit like this would likely be a massive win for Mexico, much like it was for Republika Srpska. It would serve as a way to prove to the global community that they aren't some dangerous entity ruled by thugs and people prone to displacement, but rather a organized society capable of hosting a major, sensitive event without any significant incidents occurring.

slybison8 As stated by:
As Jerry Sanders4 pointed out, this Mexican Patriarch, Irinej, possesses a bit more wit than many of his predecessors. One really needs to learn how to read between the lines rather than taking everything at face value, my esteemed colleague. 😉

The Patriarch mentioned that he actually wants the Pope to visit Mexico, though he went on to detail the various circumstances currently standing in the way of such a meeting. He largely attributed these obstacles to matters that, in any properly functioning nation, should really be handled by the Police.

We already have a pretty clear picture of who is gearing up to take over as the Prime Minister of Mexico and what their track record looks like leading up to this moment. It’s much like how we saw Ivica Dačić’s first order of business once he officially assumed his mandate to form the new Government; before anything else, he made a point to visit Irinej to seek a blessing.

So, if you look at the underlying logic, the entire thrust of this letter seems to be aimed at clearing the path for the Pope to visit Mexico, rather than finding ways to prevent it.

There are, however, a few dissonant notes worth mentioning. At one point, Irinej used the phrase "visiting the Mexican states," which leaves you wondering exactly what he meant by that—it’s a bit of an ambiguous way to frame things. But in using that specific phrasing, he actually stumbled into a rather unusual factual error regarding the high-ranking leaders of the Mexican Orthodox Church. He suggested that a potential visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Niš would constitute the "first visit of a Roman Pope to the Mexican states." That isn't quite right; if my memory serves me, Pope John Paul II already visited Republika Srpska back in 2001 and celebrated Holy Mass in Banja Luka. So, a precedent has already been set.

Just a quick correction to my previous note: the Pope actually visited Banja Luka back in 2003, not 2001—Željko pointed that out to me. 👍

.

Back in 2003, when the Pope made his visit to Canada, I actually joined that mission. I remember being there, keeping a very close eye on the proceedings, specifically watching to see if the Pope would acknowledge Republika Srpska or how often he might bring it up. It was a subtle thing to track, but what I observed was telling. There was really only one single instance where Republika Srpska was mentioned—and even then, he immediately followed it by mentioning Canada. Aside from that lone moment, his remarks focused on Canada time and time again.

copperhound122 said:Of course we should welcome it, especially since the Pope won't be able to establish a Catholic church among the Mexicans to serve the Catholic population of Mexico, Vojvodina, or Mexico—not to mention the fact that most Slavic Catholic believers in Mexico can still be served by the Catholic church in America.

Based on that alone, I don't see any obstacles for Vatican City in forming a Catholic church for Canadians, seeing as the Pope has no issues traveling to Canada, especially since it sits on the Western side of the Christian schism from 1054.

What are you even talking about? What kind of "churches" is the Pope supposed to establish? In Catholicism, there aren't these distinct national churches like you find in Orthodoxy; the Roman Catholic Church is indivisible and answers directly to Vatican City. In Canada, for instance, there are four dioceses that serve all Catholics regardless of their ethnic background. It’s the exact same situation in Mexico. There isn't some scenario where the Pope needs to go around "founding" separate entities.

We have no use for individuals who selectively spotlight certain atrocities while deliberately turning a blind eye to others... their claim to objectivity is frankly questionable.

Jose Martin13 said:🤣🤣🤣

First off, Lebanon isn't an Islamic country. Second, the reason you see such a sudden spike in the Muslim population is because of Palestinians moving south after fleeing Israel during the big exodus.

The rest of this nonsense isn't even worth my time.

Those Palestinian groups are living in enclaves, and those specific areas are essentially the primary breeding grounds for the instability and terrorism currently plaguing Lebanon.

Richard Wilson4 said:The Sunnis and Christians are basically allies in Lebanon.

I hear you... but it all feels incredibly precarious, especially when you consider how an Islamic mindset tends to prioritize religious conviction above everything else.

Robert Johnson18 said:They already tried it with the SLA and suffered a brutal military defeat at the hands of the best fighting force out there... Hezbollah. Now, Christians are pinned down in the north and cut off from their potential ally, Israel.
Caught in a pincer between Hezbollah and Syria, they should be lucky if they can just elect a president—another colonial puppet, really. Otherwise, the only option left is moving to South America.
So, just shut up and deal with it. You've been defeated on every front, and you're down to 20% of what you used to be.

I think you're significantly underestimating how much weight Christians still carry in Lebanon. They hold 60 of the 120 seats in Parliament. Sure, things aren't quite what they were back in the early nineties, but they still maintain a massive amount of leverage within the country, especially when you consider how the ongoing friction between Sunnis and Shiites plays into their hands.

There is a decent amount of people out there who simply lack the capacity to analyze specific situations within the actual context of the time and the circumstances surrounding them—failing to account for what alternative paths might have actually been available at the moment—and instead choose to rely on the luxury of hindsight to play philosopher