muslim political clashes

[happythoughts 0]

news

In todays news, 63 Sunnis were killed in retaliation for the beheadings of 17 Shiites on Friday. Plus, there were little girls killed outside of an all girls school by a suicide bomber.

The girls school was not a strategic target. It could also not be dismissed as a technological "accidental" like a rocket attack gone awry.

This type of sectarian violence is only the fault of the
people involved. It is muslim in-fighting.
Muslims killing muslims over political power. Westerners may have just removed the safety valve.
S Hussein may have effectively kept the situation in control by killing whoever disagreed with him.

In effect, unbridled free speech has allowed the religious leaders to drive this violence. If someone wants to give me the "Islam is a religion of peace" speech, go ahead. The idea that middle east religious figures are non-violent would be fairly difficult to sell to anyone.

Divisions of Islam

From what I read recently, it isn't the guidelines that make a huge difference, it is more about who said it.
"We are following the 1st Caliph, instead of the 12th, so you are wrong."

Granted, I am looking at this from the outside, but
this appears to be a political power by people using their religious influence.

[billvon 3,173]

>Westerners may have just removed the safety valve.

That's not a bad way to put it, I think - although it's more like a governor than a safety valve. (A safety valve opens when pressures get too high; a governor keeps things under control.)

The problem is that unless we want to release Saddam Hussein (or someone like him) to get things back under control, we're stuck there forever trying to keep a lid on things without becoming a worse tyrant than he was. And without those kinds of measures, we may see the violence continue to escalate.

Some people in the administration are currently talking about replacing the government with some other type, one with more "teeth." Would that even work? Probably the worst outcome of all would be to put a Saddam Hussein type back in power, have him kill and torture hundreds of thousands, and then fail anyway. If that's what we're looking at, it may make sense to just pull out and let the civil war happen; at least then the Iraqis will be deciding on their own (albeit with a lot more violence than we might have hoped for.)

>If someone wants to give me the "Islam is a religion of peace" speech, go ahead.

It's no more a religion of peace (or of war) than christianity. If all those people were hindu, there would be just as much fighting - the names would just be different.

I think you're absolutely right - religious leaders are using religion to get political power, and encouraging the chaos in Iraq because it's fertile ground for their manueverings. It looks like police squads and parts of the army are starting to follow these religious leaders as well, and that's a very worrisome development.

[Skyrad 0]

Hate to say it but most of what you say there is correct. Al Zacarwi and 'Al Q in Iraq ' has pushed this agenda to the fullest trying hard to start a secatarian war between Sunni and Shia at first this was argued against by Bin Laden and his good Doctor the Egyptian. But eventually they came around to Al Zakarwi's way one thinking and endorsed the attacks on the Shia. This really has nothing to do with is Islam a religion of peace or not any more than Northern Ireland's thirty seven years of sectarian war had to do with wether Christianity is a religion of peace or not. Catholic murdered Protestant and vice versa just because the person didn't belive the same version of Christianity as they did. The only 'upside' of this is that it makes the scenario of Al Queda obtaining a nuclear device or fissial material via the chain of N Korea-Iran-Hezbollah-Al Queda exceptionally unlikely if not almost unthinkable.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[happythoughts 0]

I think eventually that a civil war will dissolve the country into 3 pieces. At that point, there will be 6 years of peace until one of them builds up enough cash and arms to invade another.

The saying, "business is war" is based on the goal.
"We want your stuff, we'll do it by trade if possible."
War is option two. "We like your stuff, we are just gonna take it."

The sad part is, instead of accepting the goal as being "for the cash", they frame it as "your deity wants their stuff".

That is the crux of my issue. Using moral values to drive a mission of theft and death. How far have you drifted from your religious base when you can accept that?


Religions have always been a partner with governments. They give the populace moral guidelines which fit the agenda of the govt.

I find it laughable idea that any religion is the "religion of peace". In this case, the religious figures are condemned by their own words and actions (repeatedly).

Before anyone starts in on the "not ours, not ours" speech, I can do this all day. Name the religion, I can give a lot of long-running historical examples. (Before the buddhists chime in, you need to study some history)

[Skyrad 0]

Its beyond all that now, now its 'they' killed my cousin/brother/fater/mother/son/daughter/friend I'm going to kill 'them'.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca