|
I used to think I understood Middle East politics, but this recent spate of massive suicide bombs (which appear to be moslem killing moslem) is madness. Why are they doing it?
|
Those who want their independence (or country free of foreign forces) attacking those they see as collaborators or benefitting from being cosy with the western power base...not saying they're right in their assumptions.
I haven't a clue really, though as in western politics it won't be those making the decisions at the gritty end, twas ever thus, soldiers and civilians alike just pawns in power games.
Are they using Saddam's elusive stockpile's of weapons for this campaign, was teflon tone right?
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Wed 19 Jan 11 at 22:41
|
>> I used to think I understood Middle East politics, but this recent spate of massive
>> suicide bombs (which appear to be moslem killing moslem) is madness. Why are they doing
>> it?
>>
As you are asking, it shows you never understood their "politics".
In Iraq, the axis of evil runs through it - i.e. it is Shia (Iranian support) vs Sunni (Syrian support). If you are any other religion, then you are piggy(kosher or not) in the middle and fair game for extremists from both these sides.
|
|
I don't think many muslims from the outside even really understand what is going on there. I know my muslim friend certainly cannot understand the mentality.
|
>> I don't think many muslims from the outside even really understand what is going on
>> there. I know my muslim friend certainly cannot understand the mentality.
>>
Are you sure friend is a real Muslim? Tell him to Google Shia vs Sunni and he will start to understand what is going on. You can help by reading this first:
tinyurl.com/4rjo9uf
(points to this C4P censored link
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sunni-vs-shia-the-real-b*****-battle-for-baghdad-778038.html)
www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm
Last edited by: John H on Wed 19 Jan 11 at 22:54
|
She understands all that, she is the one that told me about sunni and shia but she dosn't understand what all the fuss is about. In her family they all mix but I wonder if that is product of her parents living in the UK for the past 40 years?
Just like in Northern Ireland most catholics and prodestants might not get on, but in England it is not normally an issue in the slighest.
|
>> She understands all that,
Oh so now you say she understands, but first you said "I don't think many muslims from the outside even really understand what is going on there. I know my muslim friend certainly cannot understand the mentality". Make up your mind, or is it normal Rattlespeak and/or have you had a few jars tonight.
Last edited by: John H on Wed 19 Jan 11 at 22:58
|
I don't drink during the week! The last time I touched any sort of booze was Friday. I probably drink far less than a lot of people here.
Anyway back on topic.
She understands the Sonni/Shia thing but she does not understand fighting. She dosn't understand the Palistine thing either. She understands the political reasons behind it, but not the mentality or why people behave in such a way but then she is a shrink.
Just like I don't understand Northern Ireland, I know what the despute is about but I just can never see how blowing things up can make any sort of difference.
|
With spelling like that, are you sure you haven't had any drink?
p.s. Rattle, you may want to ask some computer geek like RTJ70 how to install a spell checker in your browser.
:-)
Last edited by: John H on Wed 19 Jan 11 at 23:06
|
I am perfectly aware how to install the spell checker plugin. I just like to keep my browser as quick and efficient as possible.
Not had a anything to drink apart from far too much caffeine and I am also very tired now.
The problem with spell checkers is you end up not being able to spell at all.
|
i see the smiley but at least rattle has the guts to post rather than being a lurker
i can read what he says so im am acceptable of his foibles
just like my foibles
and maybe yours too JH?
|
>> Just like in Northern Ireland most catholics and prodestants might not get on, but in
>> England it is not normally an issue in the slighest.
While one side in NI are catholic and the other adhere to sects of protestantism relgion is just one aspect of a tectonic cultural split.
|
"she is the one that told me about sunni and shia"
Tragically Sunni was killed in the late 90s when he hit a tree while skiing in California. Shia is still going strong though and looking good for 65, probably down to all that surgery.
|
|
Yeah, they named a program after him, Ski Sunni.
|
What the yanks never realised (tho the rest of us did) was that Sadam was keeping a tight and effective lid on disparate religious fanatics, AND keeping other countries (Iran) focussed on him rather than flexing other muscles.
Thats why the old man never went into Iraq at the end of gulf war 1, of course his son was too stupid and gung ho to listen,
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 19 Jan 11 at 22:48
|
Yes - bizarrely there was more reason to invade Iraq during Gulf War 1 than in 2003.
Despite having some knowledge of Sunni/Shia conflict still doesn't make life any better for either side to simply kill yourself and 60 others.
Mind you I never understood the IRA giving warnings about their bombs. Why bomb if a warning will cause the disruption anyway?
|
|
I can't understand the desire to hurt or kill any innocent human being. I would have thought that the documented atrocities of the twentieth century would have put an end to random death. People enjoy killing sadly, they don't really need a cause.
|
>> Mind you I never understood the IRA giving warnings about their bombs. Why bomb if
>> a warning will cause the disruption anyway?
The thing that did for the IRA and forced them to the power sharing table, was the blowing up of their own people. Both the Orange and Green got a bit peed off with being blown to bits, so their relatives in the states stopped sending money. The Omagh bombing was the straw that broke the camels back.
|
|
Z you're right that the peace most likely came about because the Americans realised how foolish they were to fund them. When the money stopped they had to talk.
|
I think it is just an excuse so they they claim they never wanted to cause deaths and if people die they can blame it on the police.
I used to know somebody heavily involved in the IRA, he was a really nice guy to get on with and he always said he wasn't a terrorist. He still had his car bugged and everything.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 19 Jan 11 at 23:32
|
>> Mind you I never understood the IRA giving warnings about their bombs. Why bomb if
>> a warning will cause the disruption anyway?
Because the presence of real bombs in the past made any new warnings credible.
Bomb warnings from organisation which never followed through with the real thing would soon cease to be taken seriously.
Suicide bombing on the other hand is something that few people outside of extremist Islam can understand at all. The reasons and grievances behind it, yes absolutely, but the action itself goes against every natural human instinct, or rational thought.
|
|
But he did kill many Iraqi Kurds and others. But we were probably safer when that tyrant was around.
|
|
It de-stabilized the middle east sure enough. Plenty saw it coming. Read Robert Fisk on Iraq. In fact read Robert Fisk on any regional conflict and you'll learn a great deal. No doubt AC will blow a raspberry at me !
|
All of the OP's previous posts on politics are aimed at promoting a pro-Israeli agenda, so I'm afraid I don't buy this 'me no understand' lark.
So come on Espada, what's the punchline?
|
I think that may be a bit harsh Iffy. Espada has made no secret of the fact that he's of the Jewish faith, has relatives in Israel and where his sympathies lie in that mid of the Middle east maelstrom.
Iraq is a different kettle of fish. As somebody elser pointed out Saddam was keeping the lid on the place pretty effectively. Not my analogy but it's like a street where one criminal gang had absolute hold for decades. When they're thrown out everybody cheers briefly before the minor crooks who've been in thei shadow start to fight to be the new top dog.
Iraq is not a nation state like the Uk or France. It's a mix of tribes and cultures banged together under one rule during the years of overseas empires.
Why the constituent bits think bombing each other, whether with suicide bombs or mortars, will solve anything is a diffrent question.
But that's not unique to Iraq is it.
|
>>Suicide Bombs in Iraq - I don't understand<<
Probably Mossad/USrael - destabilizing the Middle East, to suit their own agenda.
|
Iffy - no agenda; just despair at the thought of suicide bombing (what's the point if you don't reap the benefit?) and the number dying for no particularly good reason.
I could understand the IRA blowing up parts of London to get a united Ireland; I can understand some Palestinians blowing up Israelis to get the Jews out of the middle east (although that ain't gonna happen!); but Iraqis blowing up Iraqis when they have the opportunity to making state to suit their needs?????
Dog - leave me alone. When you have met personally Israelis and Paelstinians in Israel/Palestinian Authority, and spoken to both sides about the conflict only then will anything you say about the matter be worth listening to. Stop being the Socialist Worker Party representative on C4P.
|
Espada, you are falling into the typical Imperialist Western idea of statehood that we all do.
> >but Iraqis blowing up Iraqis when they have the opportunity to making state to suit their needs?
They are not Iraqis. There really isn't any such thing. Iraq is a set of arbitrary borders foisted on the various peoples of the area by the west (The British mainly it has to be said) because it suited our tidy administrative western agenda. You had to have a quasi ruler to deal with, and nomadic tribes don't have one, well one you can find in any one place.
Most of the middle east were wandering tribes, with no real base, and no borders to worry about, or strip settlement where resources were good. Trading centres (cities) built up, with no real sense of "statehood" just places where people met, and were then press ganged into being pushed into countries.
We, - the west - have really messed with the whole middle east, trying to slap borders willy nilly, impose rulers and states and governments. In our defence we were just the last of a long line of idiots who don't understand, following the same mistakes as the Romans, The Egyptians, The Turks, The Mad Mahdi (Muhammad Ahmad bin Abd Allah) and of course the Jews (who lets face are the worlds biggest nomadic tribe) who think they can plonk a state in the middle of this lot.
Amazing really when you think Iraq was the birthplace of everything we hold as culture and civilisation.
So there you have it. The really is no such thing as an Iraqi. Thats why they can blow one another up.
|
Slightly OT.
The Daily Telegraph led with the story about Baroness Warsi's comments in her speech (qv).
Comments were enabled and there were a goodly number - none, as far as I could see crossing the "phobia" boundary.
I have just re-visited the site to make a comment myself and find that every single comment has been removed and comments not now enabled.
How's that for caving in to Islam?
|
I suspect the comments rather proved the Baroness's point and that editing out the stuff that crossed legal boundaries was too much.
|
Landsker, you are in for a shock when you return to live in Blighty permanently.
|
...iffy - no agenda; just despair...
Espada,
Fair enough, no offence intended.
One or two people seem to have taken the post as being critical of you, which it was not.
Your views on Israel seem quite reasonable to me, but it's not a topic which interests me enough to study closely.
|
Zero hits the nail on the head, as so often.
Some people in the West have always been slow to realise that leaving a nasty nationalistic strong man in key troublespots is a more expedient way of protecting our interests than pretending to be concerned about human rights.
|
|
Because they can and they don't believe the supply of virgins in paradise has long run out!
|
>> Why are they doing it?
Because they are mad. Simples.
On a serious note, if you brainwash someone enough, you can make him perform very difficult tasks.
In many militants camps, children as young as 5 years are coached for terrorism. Their brains then start to believe what they are doing are great acts!
Last edited by: movilogo on Thu 20 Jan 11 at 09:39
|
The logical progression,
Terrorist - freedom fighter- folk hero - democratic representative - political leader -international diplomat
sometimes it spans a couple of generations but sometimes an individual can make it through all the stages if he lives long enough. tinyurl.com/5t3vgrh
It also depends on who is writing the history book.
|
>> all the stages if he lives long enough. tinyurl.com/5t3vgrh
[Sorry, quick question: the web page's 'Live Traffiic Feed' displays that a visitor from Reading is viewing it - is that just based on my IP address?]
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 20 Jan 11 at 09:55
|
|
I think it's somewhat futile to pose this question to an audience which gets all het up over parking disputes, fog light usage, gadget anxiety - and all the other stresses of living in the UK's leafy suburbs....
|
There are lots of statements in the Koran about killing unbelievers.
see..www.newwave.net/~haught/Koran.html
If you are a fundamentalist and believe everything written is correct, and that an unbeliever is anyone who disagrees with your view of what your religion should be, life is simple.
Everyone who disagrees with you is an unbeliever and should be killed. And killing them is a holy act.
Simples.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 20 Jan 11 at 09:56
|
|
Watched Four Lions one evening -a quite funny film that does make a point.
|
|
I think the Baroness forgets that followers of Mohammed are not fond of christianity. Are Islamists phobic in discussion about christianity? Maybe a study of their web-sites would illuminate that. And don't start "crusade" arguments - the arabs were expanding, imposing their power (and religion) by force on the resident followers of the eastern church, when armed help was requested. Religion is almost irrelevant. Its more about power and colonisation: e.g. Spain. Religion just gives warlords their justification for beheadings/hangings/burnings at the stake of opponents. Slightly updated by the Americans to substitute dissenters such as communists, and those who hold oil reserves.
|
I don't understand either and I work in the UK and Middle East and most of my business is there. I try not to discuss religion or politics when I am out there.
During the first Gulf War I was working for an Iranian company and most of the guys I worked with had spent years in their army fighting against Saddam Hussein in the classic Shia versus Sunni conflict. One had told me how he saw his best friend blown to pieces next to him ......
But when America went into Kuwait to get rid of Saddam it was presented by my Iranians colleague as our moslem brothers being attacked by the Great Satan.....
|
>> Religion is almost irrelevant. Its more about power and colonisation: e.g. Spain. Religion just gives warlords their justification for beheadings/hangings/burnings at the stake of opponents. Slightly updated by the Americans to substitute dissenters such as communists, and those who hold oil reserves<<
Yes my friend - its *ALL* about P-O-W-E-R ... whether its USrael/Palestine, N.I. Kashmir, Sinhalese/Tamil - all wars,
I call it "the law of the biggest club" and Amerika wields the biggest club (at the moment) but, It wont always be so.
Hello China :)
|
>> I think the Baroness forgets that followers of Mohammed are not fond of christianity. Are
>> Islamists phobic in discussion about christianity? Maybe a study of their web-sites would illuminate that.
I think N that you're inadvertently proving her point. Sure there are a few Islamists whose websites and videos suggest a crusade mentality but they're no more representative of mainstream Islam than Pastor Jones is of christianity. The danger is that we assume they're typical of the whole religion and then use that to sustain campaigns against building mosques or to suggest they're forcing 'Halal' meat on all of us.
|
|
The point is that she complains that many denizens of this country do not care for Islam, and say so. Why would UK citizens welcome a proseletising religion, elements of which intend to overthrow our institutions, and replace them with a cleric-led dictatorship?
|
>> The point is that she complains that many denizens of this country do not care
>> for Islam, and say so. Why would UK citizens welcome a proseletising religion, elements of
>> which intend to overthrow our institutions, and replace them with a cleric-led dictatorship?
But why judge the majority on the basis of the elements who are proselytising and the few nutters who wish to overtrow our institutions?
The muslims I meet at work and elsewhere live lives that are really pretty much like mine. They do the same jobs, have the same troubles with their teenage kids and do the same battles with London's transport.
They beleive in the same God I was taught of at my CofE promary school but follow different prophets.
I just cannot get worked up over that.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 20 Jan 11 at 23:18
|
Imagine Iraq as a council estate run by a gang that had total control and ruled through fear.
One day the police come in a get rid of the gang.
Other gangsters who were previously unable to take control start a war to try to take over the territory. This war takes years.
The police can't use the same fear tactics as the original gang, and so can't reinstate control.
Question is, were the police in the right to remove the original gang?
|
>> Imagine Iraq as a council estate run by a gang .........
>>
>> Question is, were the police in the right to remove the original gang?
>>
That's absolutely the analogy. The pragmatic answer, which I suspect used often to be the way "in the old days" was to leave the original gang in charge, but to do an unofficial deal with the leader. He would be left alone, within limits, in return for information etc of mutual advantage. eg intelligence and tip-offs about neighbouring gangs who might be a threat.
From time to time, by agreement, the estate would be raided, just to show willing, but no WMD were of course ever found.
|
>> >> Imagine Iraq as a council estate run by a gang .........
>> >>
>> >> Question is, were the police in the right to remove the original gang?
>> >>
>>
>>
>> That's absolutely the analogy.
Its a fairly good analogy, but I wouldn't say perfect.
think of it this way....
Imagine Iraq as a British council estate run by a gang .........
Question is, were the Italian/French/German/Swedish etc police in the right to remove the original gang?
What I'm saying/asking, is did/do we have the right to interfere in other counties politics?
|
>> >> >>
>>
>> What I'm saying/asking, is did/do we have the right to interfere in other counties politics?
>>
The analogy presumes that "international opinion" is a sort of police force to enforce agreed decent standards, so of course would have the right.
I don't actually care whether we did or didn't have the right. Did intervention further British interests? I think clearly not.
|
Gorgeous George Galloway speaking on the Iraq invasion, last night on question time, 12 mins in.
For Socialist Worker Party representatives on C4P ~
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xzvz2/Question_Time_20_01_2011/
|
|
I don't often agree with GG but I have to say the evidence suggests he is correct...
|
That's rather a good analogy SS as far as it goes. But it leaves out an important part of the back-story: the police had earlier given the dominant gang weapons and encouragement to attack the dominant gang on a neighbouring estate that they couldn't deal with themselves, then stopped the dominant gang from eating up a third, smaller, rich and fat estate.
Iran/Iraq war cost hundreds of thousands of lives, mostly of course conscripts who would rather have been at home or school or university.
|
Suicide Bombs in Iraq - I don't understand - -
