Why does Iraq want an Islamic State and what has that got to do with US presence?

[Tamerlane]

*Originally posted by Jojo *

But there is a part of me that cannot help but wonder whether we are being taken for fools when we in the west try to treat islam as “just another faith”. Islam is more than just a religion, it’s also a political ideology (all that bullshit about the muslim brotherhood) and it’s a legal system.

Eh, no. You’re making the same mistake you’ve made before on this topic - You’re assuming a monolithic attitude in Islam. Islam has both a political and a legalistic side, but it is not a singular ideology and its not the only religion with a legal code ( as witness the current tension in Israel between Orthodox and secular Jews ).

When Bangladesh and Pakistan went to war in 1971, Pakistan killed thousands of Bengalis and rape was common. Pakistan used napalm for God’s sake, fucking napalm on the poor defenceless Bengalis. And yet not one muslim country came out and condemned Pakistan.

The war only lasted 11 days and yet it was one of the most vicious wars of modern times. It only ended because India joined in and kicked the Pakistanis out. But muslims were so concerned with maintaining this stupid muslim brotherhood that they were willing to overlook any amount of Pakistani atrocities.

Well I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this example. First of all it was East Pakistan at the time, not Bangladesh and as such it was an internal struggle ( and one between two overwhelmingly Muslim regions ). Though both sides committed atrocities and massacres - the Bengali Mukti Bahini slaughtering pro-Pakistan Biharis, the West Pakistani regulars and allied irregulars ( Razakars ) slaughtering Bengalis, the organized slaughter by the West Pakistani’s was indeed by far the worst and qualifies as near-genocidal. The Lonely Planet Guide is a bit misleading though - the main fighting lasted more like nine months ( March - December, 1971 - the 11 days just covers the period from the Indian invasion, starting Dec. 4, 1971 ).

However, what does this have to do with anything and from what does your contention that Muslim states did not object come from? I mean, maybe they didn’t, but you seem fairly certain of this fact and I’m curious where you picked that up from. Certainly Pakistan went to considerable lengths to camouflage their campaigns, both by expelling foreign journalists and manipulating the West Pakistan press. But I do seem to recall reading that international condemnation was widespread ( at the very least in the aftermath ). A notable exception being the U.S. who quietly backed Pakistan:

*World opinion was horrified at the carnage. But from the Nixon administration, there was not a word of condemnation. Officers at the U.S. consulate in Dacca, East Pakistan, sent a cable to Washington dissenting from the official policy: “Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities…we have chosen not to intervene, even morally” - whereupon Nixon ordered the Consul-General transferred.

“The Indians put on their sanctimonious peace Gandhi-like, Christ-like attitude,” Nixon told George Bush Sr., then U.S. ambassador to the UN on December 8, 1971. “Aggression is wrong,” he lectured Bush. “Those god damn communist countries are engaged in it, but even if a democracy [such as India] engages in it, it’s wrong.”*

From here ( a peacenik group, but the facts seem straight enough ): http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/coat/our_magazine/links/issue47/articles/a07.htm

Contrast that with the US and the UK kicking Saddam out of power. All muslims were against it purely because it was a “Christian” coalition fighting a “muslim” leader.

An overly simplistic assessment, I’d say. You can still find Muslims that fully supported the U.S. action ( granted, a minority ) and of those that did not, they did not necessarily oppose the war because of some “Christian vs. Muslim” enmity.

• far as I am concerned, islam is just another belief system

long list of supposed negative traits snipped

Please note that this mini-rant isn’t directed at muslims (who are entrapped by the system) but at the edifice that is Islam.

Some of your points are valid, others less so - but I’m not going to sort through them point by point for the umpteenth time.

However I’ll reiterate that your tendency to view Islam as monolithic is in error - There is NO edifice of Islam. There is, instead, a multiplicity of Islams, not all of which are as repressive as you seem to believe ( none of them are to my taste, but each to their own ).

I don’t like any belief system that believes it is so correct that it should eliminate all other belief systems (or restrict other belief systems, as in the case of the Iranian parliament that only allocates 5 seats to non-muslim groups).

Ah, but “Islam” doesn’t necessarily advocate the elimination of all other beliefs - “there is no compulsion in religion”, remember? Some Muslims do, which is not at all the same thing at all.

I just worry that in our haste to be understanding and tolerant of other peoples beliefs, we are being taken for fools.

By whom? Can’t be by an edifice - inanimate concepts don’t act in anthropomorphic fashions ;).

• Tamerlane

[system]

[

*Originally posted by Jojo *
But there is a part of me that cannot help but wonder whether we are being taken for fools when we in the west try to treat islam as “just another faith”. Islam is more than just a religion, it’s also a political ideology (all that bullshit about the muslim brotherhood) and it’s a legal system.

Yes, and so has it been the case in the Christian West up to very recently, so what?

Islam can contain political ideologies, some of it does so explicitly, some does not, but is rather politically queitist.

It has a legal system attached to it, so have had the Xian Churches. Try getting married in a number of Xian Euro countries outside the Church until recently.

I really grow tired of these sort of hand waving half-informed generalizations.

When Bangladesh and Pakistan went to war in 1971, Pakistan killed thousands of Bengalis and rape was common. Pakistan used napalm for God’s sake, fucking napalm on the poor defenceless Bengalis. And yet not one muslim country came out and condemned Pakistan.

Well interesting factoid, I am not sure what it is supposed to say, but first is that in fact true?

I.e. from where do you derive this? I’d like substantiation given the low level of information I have seen to date.

I might add, if we look at what happened in Serbia, do we see the Orthodox Xians coming out to condemn Serb atrocities, do we see condemnations from Orthodox majority states? Etc.

It’s often easy to play these little games of selective memory and comparisions, it is rarely terribly enlightening.

This is the Lonely Planet guide to Bangladesh (history section) scroll down and read the fifth and sixth paragraphs.

Yes, it was brutal.

Contrast that with the US and the UK kicking Saddam out of power. All muslims were against it purely because it was a “Christian” coalition fighting a “muslim” leader.

This is just simply a fucking bullshit assertion.

Xian and Muslim Arabs were (and are) against the move, and hardly just because it was an Xian coalition. Your reading of this is so impoverished and simplistic as to make my head spin. I shan’t repeat my entire thread, but perhaps, if you can take a moment to step away from making hyper-reductinoist statements, you might read a bit and get some balance.

As I said above, you are right to say that I am being overly emotional in calling islam “fascistic” but let me explain where I am coming from:

• far as I am concerned, islam is just another belief system

It rather looks like one you fear and have a hard on for at the same time.

• it is a belief system that entails a total religious, political, social and legal framework

It can, yes it can. A fairly flexible one if one looks through history with an even handed view to the good and the bad.

• therefore it is all-pervasive and all-encompassing unlike all the other religions

Whatever, this is simplistic nonesense and fearful hand waving.

• once in, you are not allowed to leave the “islam belief system” under pain of ostracism or even death

Yes, and? Xianity was the same way for the longest time.

At present in the Arab states you find goodly numbers of urbanites who are essentially non-practicing, although that has declined under the social stresses and general decline of secularism in the past 30 years.

• those people who are part of the system (muslims) are not allowed to come into contact with ideas that challenge their belief system (since non-muslims are not allowed to proselytise in muslim countries). Therefore muslim children grow up believing totally in the “islam belief system” with no exposure to any other belief system.

This is simply an unbelievable foolish assertion that makes absolutley no sense to me. What the hell are you talking about? Where the hell do you derive this crap?

Primo: exposure to outside ideas.
(a) Satellite TV: Largely freely available, and the interested can even tune into Xian evangelical channels.
(b) Media: More to the point, in both print and broadcast media, people can read science texts, and a wide range of secular information sources.
© School: Here I do not know how to generalize given the plethora of different schooling systems. Certainly the government school systems leave much to be desired, across the region, for installing critical thought, and certainly they feature some level of inculcation. Since most Arab countries have secular to quasi secular governments, the systems generally are a queer mix of religion and secularism, something of a nod to both camps in society. That would cover a good percentage of society – although as far as I can tell from my first hand view of school children, the ‘lack of exposure’ to other belief systems is not structurally different than Western children’s, except in rather mixed areas, lack of exposure to other belief systems. Private school systems are another beast and run the whole gamut.

The problem of the school systems is simly that they are archaic and wrote focused systems that do little to install critical thinking, but this has little to do with religion or belief systems per se, and a lot to do with (a) backward teaching (b) state fears of the youth and critical thinking period, Xian or Muslim or whatever.

Exposure, for those who are interested is there. The bans on religious proselytization hardly strike me as in any way significant for the transfer of ideas to the Muslim Arab world, I find your characterization to be almost cartoonishly misinformed. You seem to have this bizarre vision that the entire Arab world is Saudi Arabia.

• islam is the only belief system that does not allow proselytising by other belief systems

Is it? From where do you get this?

• the “islam belief system” is total and uncompromising since it encompasses religion, politics, law and society. And allows for no other point of view (or where it does have to allow for other points of view, it does so reluctantly and in as limited a manner as possible).

You keep asserting total and uncompromising, yet as far as I can tell you have little to no knowledge of Islam, Islamic history nor first hand knowledge of, just to limit things, the Arab, Islamic world.

I frankly do not see much here but a lot of uninformed Islamophobic assertions. Insted of “worrying” you might trying informing yourself.

[Jojo]

Tamerlane

Yes orthodox jews also have a strict all-encompassing belief system but since there are so few of them in the world, they don’t really worry me overmuch (although I still don’t like it).

As regards my assertion that muslim countries didn’t speak out against the Pakistan-Bangladesh war, I’ve read this in quite a few places but I can’t find a cite for this at the moment so we’ll have to consider it unproved.

re Iraq:

You can still find Muslims that fully supported the U.S. action ( granted, a minority ) and of those that did not, they did not necessarily oppose the war because of some “Christian vs. Muslim” enmity.

They didn’t oppose the war because of enmity as such, they opposed the war because of the “muslim brotherhood” idea. I’m not really criticising the muslim brotherhood concept just that it gets taken too far IMO.

You agree, I take it, that such a “brotherhood” concept exists? For an example of it look at the Iranian constitution you posted earlier where it says:

Article 11 [Unity of Islam Principle]
In accordance with the sacred verse of the Koran “This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me” [21:92], all Muslims form a single nation, and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran have the duty of formulating its general policies with a view to cultivating the friendship and unity of all Muslim peoples, and it must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world.

Granted, this is just Iran but I think most muslims subscribe to the same general principle to some extent, do they not?

However I’ll reiterate that your tendency to view Islam as monolithic is in error - There is NO edifice of Islam. There is, instead, a multiplicity of Islams, not all of which are as repressive as you seem to believe ( none of them are to my taste, but each to their own ).

I know islam isn’t monolithic. You’ve explained this to me several times

But this multiplicity of islams - they aren’t completely different to each other are they? They all follow the same basic formula. I’m simply saying that an islamic state will have islam as the state religion. Having islam as the state religion means that islam informs the set up of the government, the legal system etc

This is different to having, say, Christianity as the state religion as in the UK. Christianity doesn’t have any bearing on the government or the legal system or the laws.

Do you even accept that there is a difference or am I just hallucinating the whole thing?

Collounsbury

The fact that Christianity has done much the same kind of stuff as islam means nothing really. I would condemn christianity for that too. The important point is that christianity doesn’t do it anymore and hasn’t for a very long time (to the extent that an islamic state would).

You think that my theory about the iraq war is bullshit? I agree that it is all far more complicated than I made it sound, I was being reductionist, true. However we get back to the “muslim brotherhood” concept.

Islam isn’t monolithic but I would contend that there does exist the idea in islam that an attack on one muslim country is an attack on all (kind of like NATO). Now, muslim countries won’t necessarily actually do anything about it but the idea is still there - do you agree with this?

I can assure you I neither fear nor have a hard on for islam or any religion. True, I don’t much like religions and tend to go on the offensive when talking about them. You say that in the arab states there are a goodly number of people who are essentially non-practicing, this is my experience of muslims too. I think this a good thing but I’m not really concerned with them, I’m more interested in what the religion itself says - what people would do if they were fully practicing, what happens when you get an islamic state.

re: exposure to other ideas. Again maybe I am hallucinating the whole thing. Is it not the case that proselitysation is banned in most arab/muslim countries and that it is difficult to build (for eg) new churches etc? And is it not the case that in the rest of the world (ie the non-muslim world) people can pretty much talk about whatever they want - apart from certain countries like China, North Korea etc.?

Therefore is it not the case that islamic society is less tolerant of other faiths than other societies? I know Saudi is exceptional and I know that other arab countries are more tolerant than Saudi, but even so.

I frankly do not see much here but a lot of uninformed Islamophobic assertions.

I’m not islamophobic. Criticising islam doesn’t necessarily make you islamophobic. I hate this trap that appears to have sprung up in polite society. If you criticise Judaism, you’re anti-semitic. If you criticise islam, you’re islamophobic.

This is a trap that appears to have been set up by and for fools. I am not afraid to talk about whatever I like, be it religion or anything else.

Well, I refuse to fall into your trap. I have criticisms of judaism, christianity and islam but I’m not anti-semitic, anti-christian or islamophobic.

so deal with it.

[system]

*Originally posted by Jojo *
As regards my assertion that muslim countries didn’t speak out against the Pakistan-Bangladesh war, I’ve read this in quite a few places but I can’t find a cite for this at the moment so we’ll have to consider it unproved.

In other words, a mere assertion.

Well, I refuse to fall into your trap. I have criticisms of judaism, christianity and islam but I’m not anti-semitic, anti-christian or islamophobic.

so deal with it.

Deal with it? My problem with your “criticisms” is they are grossly simplistic, ill-informed rambling that begin with assertions, are decorated with the occasional fact, and close with sweeping, poorly informed generalizations.

Well whatever, this is like bailing water with a collander.

[sailor]

RexDart dixit:
So people who don’t want to be one country should be forced to stay together? By whom, us? The UN? On what grounds do we have the right to decide the issue for them? If a part of Iraq wishes to be it’s own nation, what is our moral justification for stopping them? And what is our rational justification for involving ourselves in yet another bloody civil war? Haven’t we had enough of these yet? Korea? Vietnam? Yugoslavia? How many more?

Simply put, if northern Iraq would prefer to be part of Turkey, or become it’s own nation, on what grounds do we claim the authority to prevent them from doing so?

et

There are non-Kurd minorities on those lands, and I agree that self-determination has to have some limit in how small a region can self-determine. I suppose the limit is somewhere between the size of the nation of San Marino (for certainly we allow them their right to remain independant of and we’d object to their being conquered) and the size of a city block. But surely regions the size of those the Kurds inhabit should be given the freedom to form their own government, the freedom to shape their nation according to their interests. Are they to be forever condemned to the slavery of being a minority voting block in a huge nation, or do we allow them the right to govern themselves according to their own wishes?

I know it’s problematic, but I think people are being overly dismissive of the idea that some presently existing nation-states are illegitimate and artificial and ought to be split up. Some nations simply are not meant to be. Yugoslavia is one of those, and all the efforts to force them to stay together against their will have been bloody and disastrous. There is no historical unity within those boundaries, and that “nation” encompassess people who think of themselves as separate people along boundaries that do have traditional patterns. They have nothing to gain from staying together, except that the poor regions can continue to leech off of their wealthier neighbors under the auspices of a central government.

Yes, Kurdistan may require certain lands to secede from other nations, but if the people in those regions desire it, who are we to deny it? If Turkey, Iraq and Iran complain that they need those oil revenues to function, than that is clear evidence that the people of the Kurdish regions are being exploited. It would indicate that more wealth is being extracted from those areas, and stolen through taxation, then is being returned to them. Otherwise, the loss of that territory would be a break-even proposition, because the nations would no longer have to provide services there. So the Kurds are having their region exploited to support the rest of some artificially-drawn nation, and that’s supposed to justify their continued exploitation?

This might sound morally right but it is unworkable in practice and so, a non starter. Countries are allowed to peacefully part if there is no opposition like happened in Czechoslovakia or to peacefully unite. Nobody has any problem with that. But when there is some opposition the rule that existing situations not be changed by force seems like a realistic one to me. The situation in Yugoslavia was very much aggravated because Germany chose to recognise the split and then the USA had to come in and solve the mess created.

Would you say the Indian reservations have the right to secede from the USA and become independent nations? Would a number of counties with a majority black population have the right to secede? Or does the USA have the right to prevent that by force? The question was answered long ago. The USA has the right to prevent the breakup of the Union, even by force. The same right is recognised to other countries.

The fact is that breaking up Iraq would cause a bunch of regional wars which would cause more suffering than kepping things the way they are. The world is an imperfect place and you just have to choose the least bad.

[X_Slayer_ALE]

The facade of profundity by which Collounsbury wraps himself with shows a glaring pattern that would make great fodder for a dissertation on “spin control”, where it not a worthless effort to do so.

The subject of the OP is simple. Why does Iraq want an islamic state that precludes US presence? I also meant to imply why a hasty removal of US troops when clearly there are still many vultures and the spectre of the old regime clearly evident in Iraq. Why is an Islamic state so opposed to the US? These 2 seem to be always diametrically opposed yet there is no clear point of conflict other than historical fears of colonialism. Why cant there be a harmonious compromise, a mutual understanding of roles and capabilities that both help strengthen Iraq?

[RandySpears]

Why is an Islamic state so opposed to the US? These 2 seem to be always diametrically opposed yet there is no clear point of conflict other than historical fears of colonialism. Why cant there be a harmonious compromise, a mutual understanding of roles and capabilities that both help strengthen Iraq?

Doesn’t this resentment go both ways? The US didnt take to kindly the revolution that overthrew the Shah in Iran.

[X_Slayer_ALE]

Its not a resentment. I am all for Iraq for Iraqis. I am all for a totally independent Iraqi govt, enriched by their culture, aided by ther natural resources, governed by its people. I am all for having the US troops get out of Iraq. Just not now. Not even soon, only when it benefits the stable govt of Iraq.

The assumption that the US will occupy Iraq and form a puppet govt is just speculation and conjecture now. It is way too soon to tell. A power vacuum with Turkey, Iran, Syria at the doorstep with Russia, France and China waiting in the UN wings is not good for the Iraqi people either.

The pilgrimage to Karbala has been suppressed by the Ba’ath party for decades. It is only made possible now courtesy of the US. Why do they want the US to leave when their freedom is still so clearly tenuous?

[RandySpears]

Hm I’m sure that Col has mediated on that issue several times in his mammoth thread and this one?

[X_Slayer_ALE]

Perhaps if he was a little less condescending and pompous in his lecture and added a little less panache to his interpretations of present situations then his attempt at mediation would be more credible.

[RandySpears]

Hehe it should have read “meditated”.

Well regardless of his particular rethorical tricks i do believe he’s got some points there. He did for example predict the problems your OP is trying to adress.

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by sailor *
**
Would you say the Indian reservations have the right to secede from the USA and become independent nations?
**

Yes.

**
Would a number of counties with a majority black population have the right to secede?
**

Yes.

**
Or does the USA have the right to prevent that by force?
**

In my opinion, no. The government might act like it has that right, but it only has that right by exerting power in suppression of human liberties. It is an illegitimate use of coercive power, and therefore unethical. But then, all coercion is unethical.

**
The question was answered long ago. The USA has the right to prevent the breakup of the Union, even by force. The same right is recognised to other countries.
**

The question was answered wrongly. And even if you assign that right to each sovereign nation, that does NOT give other nations a “right” to intervene in those disputes. If a nation wants to prevent a secession by force, you are arguing that they have that right. But nothing about that right gives a right to any other nation to help them keep that country together, and certainly nothing gives us an obligation to do so. Besides, there’s no government in Iraq now, so if they decide to break up, there’s nobody even under your logic who has the authority to prevent it.

**
The fact is that breaking up Iraq would cause a bunch of regional wars which would cause more suffering than kepping things the way they are. The world is an imperfect place and you just have to choose the least bad. **

No…you don’t. You can choose the way that involves the least coercion (and preferably none whatsoever.) Breaking up Iraq would be wrong, but allowing it to break up of its own accord is non-coercive. There might be plenty of ways you can think of to lessen suffering around the world, but that doesn’t give you, or our government, or any government, the right and authority to force the people of any other nation to do what we think is “best for them.”

[X_Slayer_ALE]

Debatable that he did that but thats for another thread.

His spin is that nationalist pride is primary impetus for a call for the US to immediately leave (yeah that and a few Iranian agents). I would take issue with the “nationalist” term since technically speaking, Iraq as it is now is not a nation. There is no unified voice (other than to get out iraq) and no representation other than mobs protesting. You have 3 diverse cultures living in the same area, all wanting to be in power and all having their own backers. and none of them can withstand any force applied to them. The US coalition is their one viable source for security and stability and they dont want them there.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
**The pilgrimage to Karbala has been suppressed by the Ba’ath party for decades. It is only made possible now courtesy of the US. Why do they want the US to leave when their freedom is still so clearly tenuous? **

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that some of them are scared of us. I know I would be if I were Iraqi.

[X_Slayer_ALE]

Well I would be too if the most powerful nation invaded my country and keep telling us we only did it for our own good. I would remain distrustful and cautious but clearly a significant benefit was obtained and the regime they clearly dispised is not completely removed. The US didnt kill all the soldiers loyal to Saddam. They havent rounded up all that were cooperating and supporting the regime to the detriment of the common iraqi people. They cant handle any organized armed threats to their lives. At the very least keep them there until they can figure a way to keep civil order.

[RandySpears]

Slayer:

I’ll let Col speak for himself, i’m sure he does that better than me.

[X_Slayer_ALE]

argh i have problems with transitives… :smack:

“Well I would be too if the most powerful nation invaded my country and keep telling us THEY only did it for our own good…”

[X_Slayer_ALE]

*Originally posted by RandySpears *
**Slayer:

I’ll let Col speak for himself, i’m sure he does that better than me. **

be that as it may, i refuse to debate with him. I too will not suffer a fool nor will I toil to rid him of his self imposed condition.

[sailor]

RexDart, I see which way you lean but that is not the way the real world works at all. We could go into a discussion about this but I don’t want to hijack the thread. I remember a thread some months ago regarding whether Gibraltar had the absolute right to self determination and that was centered on this issue. As I say, your views not withstanding, that is not how the real world works. Or else i would have declared my apartment a sovereign and independent nation long time ago. and my first sovereign act would have been a declaration of war on my neighbors who cannot keep the volume down.

And to address those who just do not understand why the Iraqis are not ever so grateful to be occupied by the USA: Would you like your country to be occupied by China if that meant some things got better? Is that so difficult to understand?

[tomndebb]

The assumption that the US will occupy Iraq and form a puppet govt is just speculation and conjecture now.

Possibly. Of course, the fact that the U.S. has openly funded and suported the Iraqi National Congress for several years and that no one in the administration has publicly denied that the INC will be installed as the “transitional” government might lead one to believe that the assumption has a pretty strong basis in fact.

The INC was organized by Ahmed Chalabi, who left Iraq with his family in 1958, set up shop in Jordan, and was then convicted of fraud (after he had fled that country). He is widely regarded in the region as a thief, who is under a prison sentence in a neighboring country, and whose secular (in his case, almost unreligious) disposition is clearly at odds with the ethnic/religious group (Shi’ia) with which he is associated.

Chalabi has already entered Baghdad, lending weight to the speculation that he is the chosen puppet of the U.S. So, now, we giving the appearance of establishing a hated thief as the new puppet.

It is possible that the U.S. does not intend that course of action, but the administration has done nothing to indicate that it has rejected that plan.