Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by S.A.M., Nov 14, 2009.
The loyalists killing patriots? No at least, not that I know of.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Where? In Iraq where they were intermarrying before the American invasion and segregation of the Sunnis and Shias? In Iran? Palestine? Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? India?
Greg Palast did an excellent expose of Bush's fake sheikh [McCain spoke to him a year after he was assassinated] which clearly showed how the US military is occupying Shia homes in the success story in Iraq
As soon as Death Squad Negroponte entered Iraq [as he did later Afghanistan] it was bound to be Nicaragua all over again
In Iraq, please just read the comments,
In here, in there, in history; anywhere you wish to look at. My point is Sunni-Shia separation was not created by Americans, although it was used to cover up some deaths in Iraq. All in all, “muslims killing muslims” can not be based on some outsider interference alone.
These sects have been committing crimes against each other for the best part of last millennium; the hatred has been there for Allah knows why...
Politics of course. Why do you think Iraqis who had one parent from either sect are taking sides?
The same Hindus who marched to Delhi, killing every Christian man, woman and child they could find before declaring Bahadur Shah Zafar as their leader in 1857, clambered over the Babri Masjid and demolished it in 1992. Thats not a change of heart. Thats politics.
How can you separate religion from politics? Especially in Islamic countries? Show me some examples please.
Its very simple. When was the last time an Arab/Islamic country invaded another for religious reasons?
So politics is all about international state wars only, is that so? I think you should check out the definition and the scope of politics first. It's about mobilization of people towards certain direction, that's it. The art of it, tactics, discourse and traditions of politics can not be restricted to inter-state wars. What is Iranian militias and scholars are doing all around the Middle East, probably not politics, forget about international politics; it is barely a picnic, otherwise I can not find any other word to describe it if it is not politics.
Today. When another muslim decided it was time to start his jihad with nato forces.
Agreed, so how many wars have they fought for their sectarian goals in the last uh 100 years? We could set a start date for 1905 when Iran became the first ME country to establish a western style parliamentary government.
How many wars did they fight with the Sunni dominated countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Palestine? How did they ally with the Shia dominated Iran, Lebanon [not really dominant but we're pretending Lebanon is all Hezbullah here] and Hazaris [Thats a minority in Afghanistan, but again we're pretending they are part of the sectarian movement]?
The only war I remember is between Shia Iraq and Shia Iran, so maybe its a race thing, Persians vs Arabs. But Iran supports Hamas and Hezbullah, as does Saudi Arabia. Thats complicated. Who is against whom here?
I won't be able continue this pissing contest if I still don't know what do you understand from the word "politics", since you clearly separated religion from it, so gave us a couple of colourful glasses instead. With these glasses now we are not able to see muslims killing each other with indifference.
And stop using those Western concepts of "countries" and/or "parliaments", they are not helpful to understand the dynamics of Islamic societies: For Islam, there are two territories in this world: Dar'ul Islam and Dar'ul Harb. And if people are killing each other based on sects within Dar'ul Islam, there must be an issue in here.
Why not step back and see it for what it is? How about you see the divide as those under western puppet government vs those rebelling against it? Does that get a bit clearer [its still complicated for Saudi Arabia, because although the Hejaz tribal leader was established as a king by the British in the 1920s and had a US military base keeping the king safe until 9/11, the Saudi king has ambitions to be regarded as the de facto spokesman for the entire Middle East and plays both sides of the fiddle depending on whats opportunistic].
feel free to point out this stated political policy at leisure.
I can do that, but you should give me the names of Islamic countries which are not governed by western puppet governments. If you come up with almost "none" (it's almost, if you count Iran, it's "none" if you ignore Iran), so we don't only step back, we can elevate the issue further: We can think every place on this planet as "Dar'ul Harb". Which one?
Cultural break down of iraq
you have the regular arabs
they view kurds as seperatists
sunnis view the christian assyrians and chaldeans as iraqis but see the turks as inferior
many sunnis view the iranian persians negatively and fear the historical strong political and cultural influence of iran/perisa
shia and sunnies are at odds over access to political power
sunnis think the shia underminned the unity of islam and view them as loyalists to iran
shia claim sunnis margonalized the shia majority
the kurds are openly hostile towards arabs and seek their political independence
assyrians were persecuted by both the kurds and the arabs and recognize they are a minority in religion and ethnicity and relate to the chaldeans
chaldeans are catholice and believe they also are similar to assyrians to include their ethnicity
turkomans are repressed and seak more power, as a minority and have a long history of conflict with the kurds
I would say just look at terrorism, that means Iran, Gaza and Afghanistan [pre-Karzai] which are not under western puppets and hence warrant severe sanctions, invasion and occupation until they learn to play ball.
After Mossadegh in Iran circa 1953, you must be aware of how the Palestinian elections played out in 2006. Afghanistan of course has become legend for its "resistance" and Saddam paid for his intransigence with two Gulf Wars and the final complete destruction of Iraq.
So thats one Shia, one Sunni and one Sunni/Shia state. All pariahs, filled with fanatics. Reminds me of the jehad of 1857 and the massacre of Tipu Sultan the fanatic out to spread Islam in the world along with the effeminate [and debauched] Waris Ali and the poetic Zafar.
All you have to do to understand US policy is look at the history of the world.
That would be a very limited world view, and certainly not the one to understand shia/sunni clashes. But anyway, you can continue from here, because I am convinced that you have no intention to talk about anything else other than your own agenda. Yet you can make arbitrary judgements such as this is politics, and this is religion; I am asking things over your own claim -separation of these two concepts-, but you are not providing a tangible thought coordinators; a.k.a. "definitions".
Help yourself S.A.M., rest of us are only puppets for your agenda, aren't we?
I've constantly invited anyone here to show me which war they consider as relevant without the mindless participation of foot soldiers. I see no difference between the Taliban and the Americans or the Iraqi Awakening and Hezbullah. Its my assertion that all wars are bad, because there is no good war. Just mindless soldiers killing mindless soldiers. I think people like Rick for instance, deserve better than to be cannon fodder for one of Negroponte's death squads.
But the participation isn't mindless its voluntary. WW2 was relevant wasn't it? All the wars are relevant when the men participating can lose life and limb.
You are very myopic indeed if you see no difference between the Taliban and the US, but carry on we all know the rant.
There is a link somewhere about a truce between allies and Germans for one night in some thread I read recently. They all met in no mans land and had a quiet and shameful moment of togetherness before going back to kill each other.
It was Christmas, you see
This has absolutely nothing to do with the point you were addressing earlier nor my response.
Separate names with a comma.