From USA Today with thanks to Looney Tunes:
BEIRUT -- The sectarian violence in Iraq is feeding fears that tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims will worsen across the Middle East.The long-standing divisions between the two major Muslim sects were highlighted anew last week when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak questioned the loyalties of Shiites who live in Arab nations. "Most of the Shiites are loyal to Iran, and not the countries they are living in," Mubarak said. He also said Iraq was close to civil war.
Iran and Iraq both have Shiite majorities, though Iraq is an Arab nation and Iran is not.
To protest Mubarak's comments, the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government boycotted an Arab League meeting in Cairo that had been called for Wednesday to discuss the situation in Iraq.
Mubarak's words were "extremely dangerous and extremely irresponsible," said Karim Makdisi, an assistant professor of politics at the American University of Beirut. "I don't think there is a structural split between Sunnis and Shiites, but with statements like Mubarak's the perception becomes a reality -- and that's the danger."
Oh yes, calling a horse a horse, creates the horse every time. Forget 1350 years of history, it isn't a real rift; it's only a 'rift' that can be made real by naming it. And yet another professor fails Logic 101.
Hmmmmmmmm.......I actually don't think it's a bad idea that they are killing each other.
Less of them is a good thing for the entire planet.
"it isn't a real rift; it's only a 'rift' that can be made real by naming it."
Like some sort of islamo-quantum physics. A "virtual rift".
Oh yes, calling a horse a horse, creates the horse every time. Forget 1350 years of history, it isn't a real rift; it's only a 'rift' that can be made real by naming it. And yet another professor fails Logic 101.
A horse is a horse, of course, of course. Yet another professor also fails TV Land 101.
"Most of the Shiites are loyal to Iran, and not the countries they are living in"...
Could we also say "most of the Muslims are loyal to the Ummah, and not the countries they are living in"? I am consistently amazed at the degree of projection and self-incrimination that issues forth from the mouths of Muslim spokespeople.
A "worry" -- but not for Infidels. No more a "worry" for Infidels than was the Iran-Iraq War, or that war in the Yemen in the early 1960s between Nasser and the Al-Saud. And the Infidels need do nothing to encourage it. They need merely, in Iraq, get out of the way. But that can only happen if division and demoralization of the camp of Islam is recognized for the boon to Infidels it would be -- and apparently it is those obstinately wedded to their own original messianic project, that of "democracy" and "freedom" and a stable nation-state in Iraq, who are too inflexible, too embarrassed, and too timid (what? actually relish conflict between others because they are Muslims, instead of working for their harmonious co-existence? that wouldn't be right, that isn't what America is all about, that isn't what we should be doing. Nonsense).
Oh yes, calling a horse a horse, creates the horse every time.
Yeah, I'll buy that. But you gotta admit that calling a Moslem a moderate creates a Unicorn. Every time.
It's gotten so bad that they're herding up in Northern Virginia. Even a rumor that poor Daniel Pipes, a Harvard man, was caught out in front of one of the stampedes and has died.
The Shia-Sunni split has the potential of undermining an expansive Islam by turning it back on itself. This is why Russia's foreign policy has been pro-Iranian. Russia is fighting the world's most viscious and bloody terror war against Sunni Chechens funded by Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
By supporting a nuclear Iran they hope to counterbalance the Turks, Saudis and Pakistanis. Especially since these three Sunni terrorist nations have the full support of the United States.
I have said before that many Muslims want to create the chaotic situation that wil herald the coming of al-Mahdi. The hadiths talked about severe fighting between two groups of people (it didn't say who) before his coming.
And as such, this sectarian divide is one that many Muslims don't mind creating. And since al-Mahdi is supposed to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad, he will do just like what Muhammad did when he got to Medinah mediating between two opposing clans. Once the Shia-Sunni divide is bridged, their eyes will turn to jihad against all the rest of the world.
Oh BTW, the regions mentioned in Ezek 38 in the Bible gathering to fight Israel are the Islamic countries of today.
Quijybo
I was about to say just that, but you took the words right out of my fingers.
Sometimes I wish that if half the Muslim countries were Shiite and half Sunni, it would be a more even civil war, and we could all have a ringside view.
Yaqub,
You said:
I have said before that many Muslims want to create the chaotic situation that wil herald the coming of al-Mahdi. The hadiths talked about severe fighting between two groups of people (it didn't say who) before his coming.
And as such, this sectarian divide is one that many Muslims don't mind creating. And since al-Mahdi is supposed to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad, he will do just like what Muhammad did when he got to Medinah mediating between two opposing clans. Once the Shia-Sunni divide is bridged, their eyes will turn to jihad against all the rest of the world.
Oh BTW, the regions mentioned in Ezek 38 in the Bible gathering to fight Israel are the Islamic countries of today.
___
I think you are EXACTLY right. I think many in the muslim world see the need for a grand unification, and only a "new" Caliph can do this. Also, I see this as the most dangerous potential for the rest of the world, more than China, more than a reconsitution of the Soviet Union.
This could be the greatest development the world has seen since the birth of Muhammed!
With any luck at all, these two factions will annihilate each other off the face of the earth COMPLETELY!!!!
That would sure make most peoples' day everywhere!
Let the fighting commence! And let Uncle Sam get our troops the f&*% out of there! I can't wait.
Question: Didn't Mubarak assume "leadership" AFTER Sadat was assasinated by Islamic fanatics? Hmm. Just a question. The report comes from Deirut also. Hmm. 1980's ring any bells? Shiites not getting along with their "brothers" again? Hmm.
A fish was swimming in a river, when a Scorpion walked to the bank. The Scorpion yelled to the fish, "Hey, could you give me a ride across the river?"
The fish approached the Scorpion and said, "But you will sting me, and we will both die."
The Scorpion replied, "No I won't. I really need to cross, and I need your help."
"Promise?", the fish asked.
"Promise", said the Scorpion.
The Scorpion climbed upon the back of the fish, and the fish began to swim across the river.
When they were mid-stream, the Scorpion thrust his stinger into the fish. Just prior to dying, the fish asked in disbelief, "Why in the world did you do that? Surely we both will die now."
The Scorpion replied, "I am from the Middle East. What choice did I have?"
This is one of the most interesting things that I have heard from Mubarak. And yes a Shia- Sunni War would be strategicly very intersting for us. Very interesting what Provoslani has said about Russia.
But the US has been supporting the Shia in Iraq. How does that guarantee Moscow an insurance from the Sunnis?
"The sectarian violence in Iraq is feeding fears that tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims will worsen across the Middle East."
What's this "fear" crap? Am I worried about Shias and Sunnis killing one another, not at all, except for the occasional stray bullet or car bomb that harms an American soldier. During Prohibition, as long as bootleggers were killing other bootleggers, no one cared as long as no ordinary person got hurt and the booze kept flowing.
On the surface, sunnis fighting shia sounds like a good thing for America. Not because they will annihilate each other, but because they might forget about us. However, don't you think they will try to bring the US into the war or blame the US for various terrorist attacks. Might this unite them?
Playing both sides requires a smart diplomatic and military leader. Who will it be, Bush, Rumsfield? Reagan got caught for Iran contra, will they get caught as well. Plus, can you really trust our current government to act in our interests and not in their own business interests?
In regard to Russia, it is supporting Iran because Putin wants to show he is also a big boy and can play in the international sandbox. If anybody thinks that Putin has interest of Russia or Russians in his mind, they are totally wrong. That's you Provoslavni (which means Christian Orthodox). No sane country would want Iran to have a nuclear weapon for stragetic reasons. Why would Russia benefit from heaving another nuclear neighbor who can deliver the nuclear bomb to their territory? It is one thing to help them militarily, but why create somebody who can be a real threat to Russia when you have very little control of the internal politics of the country? Remember, Russia had good diplomatic relations with Iraq, not Iran.
Provoslavni, are you one of those "Russia for Russians" people who stab little girls to death and shot foreign students?
this is no surprise that muslilms are killing each other faster than the West could ever achieve.. this is the chilling effect caused by a death cult.
Even piranas aren't stupid enough to eat one another while attacking a hapless cow wading in the shallows of a tributary of the Amazon.
Ergo- Muslims are dumber than cannibal fish.
If only we could just teleport them all back to the 7th century where they belong.
And reurn to the real business of being human.
Scientific exploration from quark to quasar.
Artistic explication of the heart and psyche.
Instead, we have to waste time swatting humanoids going for our necks.
Infidel Pride,
The US supports the Shia in Iraq and the Kurds out of desperation. By deposing the secularist dictator Saddam Hussein, the US has eliminated the only force that was able to stand in the way of an total Islamic takeover whether Shia or Sunni.
mosmike,
I don't know what you're taking about with the stabbing little girls comment. I'm not Russian but I do have many Russian "connections" both Christian and Jewish. I'm not a big fan of Putin but next to Israel, Russia has suffered the greatest number of Islamic terror attacks and the attacks on Russia have been the most viscious of all.
These anti-Russian jihadists are financed by Saudis and Turks are mostly Sunnis of the Wahabhi variety. Thus Russia logically seeks to use the Shias of Iran to threaten the Saudis, Turks, ad Pakistanis. If they have to defend themselves against a nuclear Iran, they will have fewer resources to devote to the Chechens and their allies.
By the way, Orthodocx Christian would be best transliterated as Pravoslavni but since I'm Byzantine Catholic, completely Orthodox in theology, and actively working to end the Catholic-Orthodox schism, I could be considered a provisional Orthodox... thus the name Provoslavni.
Provoslavni
I disagree with that assessment. Not only did Saddam end hostilities with Iran, thereby making himself worthless to the US on that count, he also made "Allahu Akbar" part of the Iraqi flag in the aftermath of the Kuwait invasion, and had been Islamizing. The persecution of Christians was on during the latter part of his regime.
From your name, I presumed you are a Slav, and thereby Eastern Orthodox - I didn't know that was the same as Catholic. While I empathize with what Russia has had to go through, be it Chechnya, Beslan, Moskva, as well as having to watch Kosovo get wrested out of Serbia by pres BJ, it would have been one thing for them to be simply anti-US in retaliation, but supporting Israels enemies is beyond the pale.
On the Shia-Sunni front, some more good news from India, from that much maligned Gujarat, which is said to be so hostile to Muslims.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1490869.cms
Infidel Pride,
Please don't take me a supporting Saddam. It's just that he was a lesser evil than what is now emerging in Iraq. Can you even imagine an Assyrian Christian becoming prime minister or foriegn minister under the current regime, even a total dhimmi like Tarik Aziz? They won't even tolerate a Christian being a beauty queen!
My being so pro-Russian is partially based on my religion and my hopes that the Orthodox and Catholic worlds can again unite. This is essential to resist Islamic expansion. Unfortunately, 70 years of Soviet Communism hasn't left Russia with a great pool of leaders to choose from, especially since the tragic death of Aleksander Lebed.
On a personal note: Despite my Russian "connections" I'm not Slavic. My father was an American Indian and my mother is of Jewish and creole heritage. My wife is Asian and I attend a church that is overwhelmingly Palestinian. So I guess I'm the odd man out here... or maybe just odd.
The past week has been especially bloody as the death toll reached 250. All of them Shia. Some of these attacks have targeted the Shia while worshiping in their Mosques. Why is this? The head of al-Qaeda in Iraq is a Sunni. The derision between these groups is long lived and anything to disrupt the Coalition effort by the hated West is just icing on the cake. We shouldn’t be surprised to find out that Saddam is also a Sunni, but it’s important to note that al-Qaeda’s interest has more to do with establishing chaos in a divide and conquer strategy than sectarian interests. A free and open society is hostile to al-Qaeda’s interests of establishing an aggressive Taliban-like Iraq. So, in effect, Bush’s Iraq War has posed al-Qaeda against Iraqi Shia and Kurds. The later are all too willing to comply, seeking revenge on the Sunni minority that inhabited the Bathist regime
Iran, Syria and few other nations have supplied insurgents to support the Sunni’s either by clandestine government operations or at the behest of Mullahs. These Muhajideen are hoping to put an end to the process of healing that is attempting to take place in a Post-Saddam Iraq. But with the majority of Iraqi’s and the Coalition forces still in tact, elections and government formation has progressed. These forces from outside Iraq don’t care about the Iraqi citizenry, their goal is to remove infidels from region. The brutal Hussein regime would be preferable to any democracy in their eyes. The Shia majority can see through that plan. They have won the elections and will want to hold on to power, even if it means an alignment with the West. Once our troops have pulled out for good, leaving an ally in firm juxtaposition to Sunni Bathist’s, the US can rest assured that the Shia/Kurd majority will be resistant to any return to a Saddam-like government.
the American establishment has been pro Iranian for 26 years. The American people aren't, but every president has done things to help the Iranian regime. It may seem incredible, but please keep it in mind as you read about Iran (& Iraq etc.).