But it is good form to admit that you did change your mind, and to apologize for the insults you hurled at people who hold the opinion that you now hold.
But, but, that would imply that he was wrong ! That’s unthinkable !
What?!
Cite?
The Iraqi Kurdish nationalists will not give up their territorial claims to southeastern Turkey! There are more Kurds living there than in Iraq, Iran and Syria combined!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No, but it is hypocritical to simply come out with a 180 degree change in your opinion/bloviation.
If Big Bill were to say something along the lines of “after careful consideration, my opinion of the Iraq operation was wrong, my mind has been changed by the violence.” I would be inclined to be more accomodating. It also wouldn’t hurt to apologize to Rep. Murtha.
On preview, what Anne Neville said.
Update: At least 54 Sunnis have been killed since the Golden Mosque bombing. Also seven U.S. soldiers. The Sunni Accord Front has pulled out of political unity talks with the government. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/23/iraq.main/index.html
That would work how exactly? Import the problem over here…great, just what we need.
How many Iraqis do you think would be able to afford to get here to begin with? ISTM that any influx of Iraqi immigrants would be a drop in the bucket, numerically, compared to immigration from Latin America.
There’s also a precedent: we allowed a wave of immigration from Vietnam in the wake of the fall of South Vietnam to the Communists in 1975.
You exported the problem over there… great.
You broke it, you fix it.
It wouldn’t work, in the sense of having any appreciably effect on the on-the-ground situation in Iraq. (No more than keeping our borders open to dry-foot Cuban refugees weakens Castro.) It would merely be the least we could do under the circumstances.
A bit of history seems to be in order, as people seem to be labouring under the idea that the West has something to do with this. One poster said, referring to the US and Iraq, “You broke it … you fix it.”
In 632, the Prophet Muhammed died. By Islamic tradition, he was buried within 24 hours. But before he was even in the ground, a fight started over who should be the new big boss. Some favoured Ali, Muhammed’s cousin and son-in-law. Others favoured Husain, Muhammed’s uncle.
Fighting broke out, and the two sides each declared the other side to be heretics. In the Koran, it says that heretics should be killed, or crucified, or have one hand and one foot cut off on opposite sides of the body … it’s a charming religion. In the event, Husain won the struggle, and became the big boss.
But this settled nothing. The two sides started killing each other with all of the brutality they could muster, which is a lot, and have continued the Koran-supported killing of each other for about 1,400 years and counting.
The oddity of this is that they have no significantly different beliefs or practices. Both sides give alms, and pray five times a day, go on the pilgrimage to Mecca if they can, observe the Holy Month of Ramadan, they all generally obey these and all the rest of the principles of Islam.
The followers of Ali are the Shiites, and the followers of Husain are the Sunnis. The only difference between them is the contested selection of the big boss in the year 632. But they are experts in long-standing hatred, a millennium or so is not enough to get over that.
A couple of weeks ago, a Sunni loaded up at truck with explosives, put watermelons on the top, and went to a Shiite village. When all the women and kids had gathered around the truck to buy cheap melons, he blew everyone up … you see, they’re heretics, the Koran says it’s OK to kill them in any fashion.
Anyone who thinks that Americans, or the Western world in general, has anything to do with this homicidal insanity is fooling themself badly. This is a lunatic struggle with absolutely nothing at stake, an internecine war of long standing. These maniacs were killing each other for eleven hundred years before America existed …
Someone mentioned above that only a “strong man” type of leader could stop this kind of war. However, since the “strong man” is either of one party or the other, all that happens in that case is the killing becomes more one-sided. See, for example, the near-extermination of the (Shiite) Marsh Arabs by (Sunni) Saddam Hussein.
So I’d be cautious about ascribing any of this violence to the US or the West. It is a Koran blessed killing of “heretics” that has lasted for fourteen centuries, and we of the West have had very little to do with it.
People think that Muslim hatred is aimed towards the West. The truth, however, is that the overwhelming majority of victims of Muslim terrorists are Muslims.
w.
Well, it’s a pity you werent around to give the Bush administration this history lesson before they invaded, because they seemed to think that this sort of intra-religious/ethnic warfare would be non-existent.
Nope. That wasn’t religiously motivated in the way you’re trying to paint it. Saddam went after the Marsh Arabs because they attempted to overthrow him. Not because of differences in Koranic interpretation.
So, the country which topples a government which had been squelching this type of violence, a country which had no plan in place as to how to build a new government or deal with the flare up of violence that was likely to occur, bears no responsibility for the violence when it did actually occur?
No argument from me. Terrorists are assholes who largely prey on the misery of their own people.
Abdullah Ibn Abi Quhafah, aka Abu Bakr, Muhammed’s father-in-law. Not anyone named Husain.
No, Rather the majority of Muhammed’s most important followers, organized by Umar and worried by the propect of the polarizing figure Ali taking power, did an end-run and elected Abu Bakr in a council while Ali was in mourning. Ali was none too pleased, but sullenly acquiesced. There was no fighting.
After Abu Bakr died a further election was held - Ali lost, Umar won. Again, no fighting. After Umar died, Uthman won and again Ali lost. Again, no fighting. It was only after Uthman was assassinated, 26 years after Muhammed’s death, that Ali was proclaimed Caliph by acclamation without an election, including by the assassin’s faction. This is what sparked the first civil war.
Hardly as clear-cut as that. I won’t go into a lengthy history of Sunni-Shi’a sectarian conflict, but let’s just say it has been quite varied in vehemence. One can find relations all over the map, including the quite cordial or even allied. One can find communities today where Shi’a and Sunni mingle indiscriminately, intermarrying frequently. Indeed many Iraqi tribes have both Sunni and Shi’a wings, like the huge Shammar ( a sprawling multi-country entity that reaches right across Arabia to Yemen ).
The folks slaughtering their neighbors do not represent a majority of Iraqis. Yet, anyway.
I’d say one should be just as careful, especially given a somewhat imperfect understanding of Islamic history, of casting this as merely an inevitably the outcome of a never-ending millenia-old blood feud. It’s actually quite a bit more complex than that and yes, the west does have to shoulder some ( but certainly not all ) blame for the situation in Iraq. There is more than enough blame to go around for everyone.
- Tamerlane
Thank you for correcting me on the name, Tamerlane. I was running fast.
My apologies also for stating that the Sunnis and the Shiites have been physically fighting for one thousand, three hundred and seventy three years. As Tamerlane correctly points out, they have only been physically fighting for one thousand, three hundred and forty nine years.
Also, Umar was not elected, but was appointed by Abu Bakr.
Finally … are you Sunni? I ask because you characterize the selection of Abu Bakr as having been done by a “majority of Muhammed’s most important followers, organized by Umar and worried by the propect of the polarizing figure Ali taking power.” This is basically the official Sunni line.
Yes, of course they have not fought each other every where every day for 1,349 years. And of course it has varied in vehemence. But they have continued the fight for 1,349 years, and are bombing and killing each other today at a rate of knots on that basis … which implies something more than the small disagreement you seem to be positing.
I am also not impressed by the “it’s not a majority … yet” argument. Are you planning to ignore the problem until it is a majority?
Tamerlane, when you explain to me why the West has to shoulder the blame for, or even has the slightest interest in, the fate of the Golden Dome, I’ll believe we have some responsibility for the bombing of the Golden Dome.
But I don’t see it. The bombing of the Golden Dome is a result of centuries-old hatreds that have nothing to do with the US, Denmark, France, or anyone outside of Islam. The Golden Dome was picked particularly because of its significance and importantance to Shiite Muslims, and was bombed by Sunni Muslims. I agree with you that the US has much to answer for in its relations with Iraq … but the bombing of the Golden Dome is not on that list.
w.
As I pointed out, there basically are no differences in Koranic interpretation between Shiites and Sunnis, which is what makes the whole fight so meaningless.
Shiites were badly oppressed during Saddam’s (Sunni) regime. The Shiite Marsh Arabs tried to overthrow an oppressive Sunni regime, and were nearly exterminated as a result. This doesn’t involve the Sunni/Shiite hatred because …?
Saddam had not been “squelching” Sunni/Shiite violence, he fomented it. See the Iran/Iraq war as one of many examples.
In 1,349 years, no one has ever been able to stop the Sunni/Shiite violence. Not Saddam (he just used it for his own ends). Not Khomeini (he just used it for his own ends). Not anyone.
To no one’s surprise except perhaps yours, Americans have not been able to stop Sunni/Shiite violence either.
Perhaps you feel responsible for that. I don’t. The US made many mistakes in their handling of the Occupation, and bear responsibility for many things, but failing to stop Sunnis and Shiites from hating and killing each other is not one of them.
w.
And I think you are conflating politically motivated violence with religously motivated violence. The Iran/Iraq war was started by Saddam in order to grab territory, not because of Sunni/Shiite differences. This is like saying the Mexican-American war was a result of Protestant/Catholic differences.
If you are going to keep contending that all instances of violence perpetrated by the Saddam regime should be characterized as a sectarian conflict, then I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
This type of analysis is hardly helpful, I think. In 1400 years, nobody’s been able to stop Hindu-Muslim violence or Christian-Muslim violence or Catholic-Protestant violence. However, within specific regions of the world, as Tamerlane has pointed out, such violence doesn’t exist anymore if it ever did. The question is why this particular outcrop of violence is happening in this particular place at this particualr time.
Not to my surprise – to the Bush administration’s surprise. I had no illusions that the Iraqis were going to join hands and sing Kumbaya.
You agree that the US made mistakes in handling its occupation. I contend that one of these mistakes was to completely ignore the very real possibility that there would be an outcrop of sectarian violence. And that since the US is the occupying power, it had the moral obligation to plan for such a possibility.
Saying that the current conflict between Sunnis and Shi’as in Iraq is “on the basis” of ancient Sunni/Shi’a theological differences is a bit like saying that Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland were fighting on the basis of disagreement about the Immaculate Conception or the doctrinal authority of the Pope.
In reality, the primary cause of the conflict in both cases wasn’t religious differences per se, but rather the political, ethnic, and cultural antagonisms that were strongly correlated with those religious differences in that particular context.
In the Iraqi case, the Sunni/Shi’a antagonism was largely bred by the political dominance of the Sunni minority, especially under Saddam’s regime, and their subsequent large-scale “disenfranchisement” during the post-invasion de-Ba’athification.
Nope, the bombing of the Golden Dome is a result of political/social tensions between Iraqi Sunni and Shi’a groups that definitely have been influenced by non-Muslim policies (including the British colonial policy of continuing to support Sunnis as an elite minority with disproportionate political power).
The people fostering the current violent conflict are certainly exploiting ancient sectarian antagonisms to increase mutual hatred, but it’s not the sectarian antagonisms per se that started the conflict.
That’s only true if you’re using “stop” to mean “permanently eradicate everywhere”. Of course, as Tamerlane pointed out, there have indeed been many situations where Sunnis and Shi’as lived side by side without violence.
Ah, quite correct. That was a bit of a slip - Abu Bakr never really considered the office elective per se.
Nope, half-Serbian/half-WASP atheist. My understanding of the situation after Muhammed’s death is most heavily informed by Wilferd Madelung’s work, The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate ( 1997, Cambridge University Press ) and if anything he tends to come down more on the Shi’a side of the interpretation ( i.e. he is of the opinion that Muhammad probably did expect Ali to succeed him ). The extreme Sunni position ( held by such folks as Ibn Taymiyya ) is that Abu Bakr was actually Muhammad’s choice. The majority Sunni opinion is of course roughly as above and the Shi’a position was that it was essentially a coup, which I don’t think is at all contradictory to the above, except insomuch as official Sunni historiography ( or hagiography ) denies that Muhammad intended anyone to follow him.
Didn’t say it was a “small disagreement” :). I said that one can’t chalk up all the violence to a majority sentiment that Shi’a and Sunni regard each other as out and out heretics and should be slaughtering each other. The Salafist-Jihadists believe that Shi’a ( and Sufis and damn near everyone not of their restrictive creed ) are heretics, but they aren’t most Muslims.
Of course not.
Responsibility for Iraq’s instability, if not necessarily choice of targets ( I’m not blaming the U.S. directly for the al-Askari attack ) has some relation to ( long term ) both Britain’s disastrous colonial administration ( see in particular Inventing Iraq: The Failure of Nation Building and a History Denied by Toby Dodge ( 2003, Colombia University Press ) ) and ( short term )the recent invasion ( see info everywhere ).
- Tamerlane
I missed this. What I’m saying is that the Baath regime and Saddam were not particularly inclined to religious persecutions except insofar as those persecutions were politically beneficial. For example, Saddam perpetrated pretty severe acts of violence against the Kurds, and the Kurds are largely Sunni. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ku/Kurds.html. Saddam perpetrated violence against people who were a threat to his rule, Sunni and Shiite alike.
Caius, thanks for the post.
For a Sunni tyrant like Saddam, persecuting Shiites (or attacking Iran) was an easy way to get bonus points from his followers. You are right that Saddam perpetrated violence against anyone he thought was a danger to his rule … but from his point of view, Shiites in general were a danger to his rule. He was right, of course, but it was because he repressed, killed, and controlled them …
The first part of the whole thing that seems looney to me is that so many Sunnis and Shiites, while not out murdering each other, say nothing about it. Yes, it’s only a minority doing the killing, but the majority seems to be sitting back and nodding its collective head that it’s OK.
The second weird part is how long the Sunni-Shiite fight has been going on over such an ancient, trivial point. Don’t those Islamic folks in the Middle East have any kind of statute of limitations on who won the election in 632?
Finally, I still don’t understand the US getting blamed for the bombing of the Golden Dome. To have some responsibility for a bad act, one must be capable of preventing it. Terrorist bombers have shown time and again that, especially if the target is not known in advance, no one can stop them.
So if you’re looking for the people responsible for the bombing of the Golden Dome … how 'bout the bombers?
w.
PS – The Koran, of course, justifies all of this killing, since each side sees the other as heretics who are making “mischief in the land” …
Charming folks … me, I consider people who cut off someone’s hand for theft and stone women (but not men) for adultery as ignorant savages, but your mileage may vary …
PPS – you say
So Britain, as a colonial power, is responsible for the instability in its former colonies … like the US, for example. Thus, clearly, the US murder rate “has some relation to” the disastrous British colonial administration.
At what point in history do you stop blaming the colonial administration? Is there no statute of limitations on that as well?