PeterRS

Never mind emojis! You have never responded to my answer about the change of name from Persia to Iran. You gave the impression I was around at that time - and you made it seem like a joke. Your posts too often are like jokes rather than serious responses to serious questions you have actually asked!

Especially with news of him lying naked on the bed! Mind you, I think that would surely have them running for flights returning home pretty quickly LOL

Totally agree. Hotel review sites are the same with Tripadvisor heading the list, at least according to one Business Travel Magazine. I once complained to Tripadvisor Head office about obvously fake one-line reviews (allthough these were praising one hotel obviously to get it up the city's 5-star hotel rankings). I was rather surprised when Triadvisor then took down half those reviews. Qatar has ben my airline of choice on annual trips back to Europe, largely due to cost. Once when in the UK I was living about 50 ms from the airport and so checked the incoming flight on Flight Radar. Just as well because that flight was going to be 4 hours late in arriving, meaning I'd miss my connection in Doha. I was shocked that QR never once advised me of any late arrival, never provided any information of what onward flight to BKK I was booked on, and left me on my own in that huge biz class lounce in Doha. I know they have cabins for longish layovers and other semi-flat seats. I expect they were pre-booked, but no one told me about it. The 8-hour overnight layover in Doha was not pleasant.

Not sure why there are so many tourists now. When I return to BKK late afternoon yesterday, the airport was humming with arriving passengers. I have not seen it so crowded for quite a few years. Was it a holiday somewhere? My flight was CX from Hong Kong and was no more than 15% full.

Returning to the topic, as I flew out of BKK to HKG on Tuesday there were two El Al jets and one Qatar jet in parking spaces off the taxiways. When I returned yetsrerday afternoon, the israeli jets were still there and the single Qatar jet had been joined by two more.

So you question the legitimacy of whatever happened before you were born!! You never rescinded your comment about elections in Iran. Oh, I know! You will now comment that there is no present day indication if they were "fair". You have to look to history - before you were born - to answer that.

So true. To label Arabs as one people is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as naming the British as one people formed from the same ethnic stock. Present day Britons were made up of a host of different tribes. And not only those who inhabited the islands many millennia ago. They are a mix of the Picts, a host of more than 20 settled tribes and ancient kingdoms, Neolithic farmers from the Near East, Celtic Druids, Germanic settlers, Roman, French, Viking and probably more. Throughout a long, long history, the country has settled into four bascially separate parts of one union. You might wish to look a bit more closely at the history of the United States where there were more than 1,000 distinct civilizations in the pre-Columbian era alone. The name Persia derives from the region in south western Iran that was home to the Persian Empire's founders. It was essentially the Greeks who promulgated the name to cover the entire country. It was never a name used by the Iranian peoples themselves. Those we named Persians actually called themselves "Airyan" (Irani). It is a term deeply rooted in Iranian culture and history, in ancient texts and Zoroastrian scriptures. It is a far more accurate name to depict the country as a whole rather than a small part of it. Hence iran. Raza Shah changed the name to symbolise a deliberate reconnection with the country's past and a pointer to a future away from colonial influence.

Sadly we tend to foget that Iran did have fair elections for the Majlis (parliament) following WWII. Mohamad Mosaddegh had first been elected to parliament as far back as 1923. Having been in favour of Reza Khan as the Prime Minister in the 1920s, he turned against him after a coup in 1925 when the British deposed the then Shah and installed Reza Khan in the post. Whereas Britain had discovered oil in Iran, following its own revolution Russia wanted and took part of Iran. In Britain's eyes, this was less for oil than the threat it posed to the British Raj in India and beyond. In 1941, the British forced Reza Khan's abdication in favour of his son, even though as Shah he had helped modernise Iran. A secularist, he even prayed in a Jewish synagogue and changed the name of Persia to Iran. In 1951, the Majlis voted 79 to 12 to elect Mosaddegh as the country's next Prime Minister. Mosaddegh introduced a lot of social reforms in the country. But Britain and the USA loathed the fact that he introduced legislation to nationalise the country's oil production. As Britain had discovered the oil, it regarded the income from it as its own, paying Iran a pittance for the rights. In the 1920s, Britain was supposed to pay 5% of net profits, but Britain never permitted any inspection of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company's books. In fact, although there were formal agreements, Britain often did not pay Iran anything. Mosaddegh then made life difficult for the British by, for example, instituting a blockade of the Gulf so oil could not be transported. There was also some bad blood between Mosaddegh and the Shah when parliament cut the Shah's personal budget. The end result was that Britain and the USA through the CIA helped get rid of Mossadegh through a variety of means that the CIA has used regularly since then, including paying tribesmen and mobs to demonstrate openly against Mosaddegh. The Shah initially fled to Rome. In Iran Britain, still recovering from its WWII efforts, could not carry out Mosaddegh's ouster on its own. Initially the USA was reluctant to join Britain's Iran advanture. But when Eisenhower came to power, everything changed. The two countries then arranged for Mosaddegh's ouster and far greater powers provided to the Shah. The USA then basically became the Shah's paymaster until he was forced from power in the 1979 Revolution. So Iran did have elections that were at least basically fair long before Britain and the USA took it upon themselves to destabilise the country. And everything since has to go back to the duly elected Mosaddegh's ouster in 1953.

Earlier today I came across an old Huffington Post article from 2014 updated to 2017. Given the changing fortunes of Hong Kong there were those who forecast a bright future - like the last pre-July 1 1997 Governor Christopher Patten - and those whose crystal balls predicted a much murkier future. I have made no attempt to to disguise my dislike of Patten, both as a Hong Kong Governor (from 1992)and subsequently as the Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors - a post from which he was fired. I did meet him just once in a very casual setting. He knew nothing about me and my work and he was clearly much more occupied looking around for someone more interesting to chat with. Fair enough. I could never blame someone for that. No, as I have written before, I resented him for his childishly secret - to all but a BBC TV team which he paid to come to Hong Kong several times to witness his shenanigans - attempts to find faults in the two documents which Britain and China had jointly signed laying out Hong Kong's future. They made perfetly clear that not a word could be altered without both parties having agreed in writing. Patten set out to embarrass China into putting Hong Kong on to a much more democratic path. One of those who felt this decade-long faint-hearted attempt at democracy was belated stupidity was a man named John Walden who had been a senior official in the government for decades. As the territory's Director for Home Affairs, he said this - "If I personally find it difficult to believe in the sincerity of this sudden and unexpected official enthusiasm for democratic politics it is because throughout the 30 years I was an official myself, from 1951 to 1981, 'democracy' was a dirty word. Officials were convinced that the introduction of democratic politics into Hong Kong would be the quickest and surest way to ruin Hong Kong's economy and create social and political instability." In 1975, hardly anyone in Hong Kong cared about democracy. There was not even a democratic party - finally formed in 1995. It was Patten who, often secretly, encouraged the rise of democracy, and to hell with what China thought. Yet Hong Kong was dependent on China continuing Hong Kong's laissez-faire attitude to politics and its way of life after 1997. Hong Kong people, most of whom had emigrated from desperately poor circumstances in China, were more interested in a roof over their heads, money in the bank and education for their children. So when Patten unilaterally announced major changes to the Joint Agreements, the Chinese government was as livid as the UK government would have been had the boot been on the other foot. China then cancelled what had been termed the "through train" in terms of how the territory was going to be run and instead installed its own administration. But the democratic forces deliberately unleashed by Patten ewere a Pandora's Box. They took root 15 years later in the student body. And as the world knows, even after demonstration and more demonstrations China did nothing. But eventually it could tolerate it no more, as it became obvious that Hong Kong political views were being aired in the mainland. Thus the clampdown of three years ago and the end of democracy in Hong Kong. Hong Kong which I shall visit again tomorrow is now devoid of the freedoms it once enjoyed and all because one pig-headed man with zero experience of China who should never have been appointed Governor thought he could outwit the old guard in Beijing. He totally failed and thus condemned Hong Kong to a less bright future. In my view John Walden and his government colleagues with similar views was spot on.

Getting back to the title of the thread, air travel around the Gulf region looks like it will be in chaos for several more days with several major airports still closed. There will then be a period of several days while airllines get planes and flight staff back to where they should be. I feel sorry for those who have booked flights to and from Asia via the Gulf at this time.

The refeence in the vdo to Air America is more than pertinent. It was the cover for the CIA and responsible for its operations during the wars in IndoChina. It established a secret airbase in the northern Laos jungle at Long Tieng. For years it had the most flights of any airport in the world, frequently handling 400 aircraft movements a day. Ironically, though, the airlline and its handlers were responsible for the importation of a mass of opium and heroin into the United States.

For reasons related I think to mosquitos, he turned down my invitation 🤪 . I was so upset

I wonder why this makes me think of the 15-year old student known as Nayirah who allegedly worked as a nurse and spoke before a Congressional Committee under oath about the atrocities committed by Iraq. These included stealing incubators for premature babies and letteing them die on the floor. This comment was made in 1990 immediately after the iraqi invasion of Kuwait and was in part used as one of the excuses to start the first Gulf War. Two years later it turned out Nariyah was lying through her teeth, She had never been a nurse. In fact she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the USA at that time. She and her father were related to the Kuwaiti rulers. Her appearance berfoe Congress was later discovered to be part pf a major PR campaign organised by the PR company Hill & Knowlton. The head of Amnesty International accused President George Bush I of blatant and "opportunistic manilulation of the international human rights movement." Hill & Knwlton were alleged to have coached Nayirah in her testimony. Hill & Knowlton made sure the testimony was filmed and then sent to news organisations around the USA. Its campaign was later described as "corrupt, unethical and deceptive." It is estimated to have earned US$12 million for its efforts in the overall anti-Iraq campaign. In the following weeks, Bush repeated her false claims no less then ten times. It also helped sway several senators and American public opinion in general in favour of the subsequent invasion of Iraq. Following the revelation of Nayirah's real identity (which begs the question, how did it take two entire years before anyone in the US administration found out?), there was outrage in the USA. Hill & Knowlton never apologised nor commented on the matter thereafter.

SInce WWII, like it or not, the USA has been the world's policeman. No other country has had anything like its military - although today China is getting closer. So the world has had to put up with the USA's actions, like them or not. I remember when Tony Blair appointed an Ambassador to Washington at the start pf the 2000s, his instructions were, "I want you to get up George Bush's ass and stay there!" In other words, we need to know what the USA is planning. Not that that worked out at all well for Blair. There were massive protests in the UK and he ended up having zero influence on Bush and his neocon's decision to go to war with iraq. That war was one based on false pretences and one that Blair eventually went on television to apologise for going along with that decision. Has Bush apologised? Silly joke! The fact is that the USA can basically do what it wishes until such time as another Empire rises and Washington finally realises that the consequences for the USA will be greater than the action it thought of taking. Yet the post WWII period has not always seen the USA having its own way. There was another time at the start of the 1970s when OPEC decided to flex its oil muscles and raised the price of oil four fold, eventually to rise even further. This created panic in financial markets and led to massive inflation in the west for more than a decade. Inflation in the UK rose to 25% in 1975 with an average of 13% over the decade. With many countries involved in that OPEC decision - including, it should be said, Iran the USA's proxy in the Middle East - there was absolutely nothing the USA could do other than attempt to ramp up its own internal production. As long as the USA has Israel as its excuse, whatever it does in the Middle East will go unchallenged. There are too many competing factions within the Islamic countries for them to form a coalition to temper the USA's ambitions (i.e. Trump's ambitions). But getting rid of leaders, sometimes with a coalition it formed and sometimes siding with opposition movements more pro to USA policies - Egypt, Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia (failed), Syria (failed), Iraq, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, The Congo, Chile, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Australia, Angola, East Timor, Argentina, Afghanistan, Chad, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Zaire - the list goes on, I submit it is unlikely to stop until US policy changes or another Empire becomes the world's policeman.

Just for info, last week my partner and I dined at this Thai restaurant in Em Quartier. It's a chain and they are found in many shopping malls. There was a queue when we arrived which I find is always a good sign. The meal was excellent. It's on the medium expensive side with our bill coming to Bt. 1,400 for four dishes and two drinks. We'd happily return.